The
Holy Supper
1]
Although, in the opinion of some, the exposition of this
article perhaps should not be inserted into this document,
in which we intend to explain the articles which have
been drawn into controversy among the theologians of the
Augsburg Confession (from which the Sacramentarians soon
in the beginning, when the Confession was first composed
and presented to the Emperor at Augsburg in 1530, entirely
withdrew and separated, and presented their own Confession),
still, since some theologians, and others who boast [their
adherence to] the Augsburg Confession, have, alas! during
the last years, given their assent in this article to
the Sacramentarians no longer secretly, but partly publicly
and against their own conscience have endeavored to wrest
forcibly and to pervert the Augsburg Confession as being
in this article in entire harmony with the doctrine of
the Sacramentarians, we neither can nor should omit our
testimony by our confession of the divine truth also in
this document, and must repeat the true sense and proper
understanding of the words of Christ and of the Augsburg
Confession with reference to this article, and [for we
recognize it to be our duty], so far as in us lies, by
God's help, preserve it [this pure doctrine] also for
posterity, and faithfully warn our hearers, together with
other godly Christians, against this pernicious error,
which is entirely contrary to the divine Word and the
Augsburg Confession, and has been frequently condemned.
STATUS
CONTROVERSIAE.
The Chief Controversy between Our Doctrine and that
of the Sacramentarians In This Article.
2]
Although some Sacramentarians strive to employ words that
come as close as possible to the Augsburg Confession and
the form and mode of speech in its [our] churches, and
confess that in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is
truly received by believers, still, when we insist that
they state their meaning properly, sincerely, and clearly,
they all declare themselves unanimously thus: that the
true essential body and blood of Christ is absent from
the consecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as far
as the highest heaven is from the earth. For thus their
own words run: Abesse Christi corpus et sanguinem a signis
tanto intervallo dicimus, quanto abest terra ab altissimis
coelis. That is: "We say that the body and blood of Christ
are as far from the signs as the earth is distant from
the highest heaven." 3] Therefore they understand
this presence of the body of Christ not as a presence
here upon earth, but only respectu fidei (with respect
to faith) [when they speak of the presence of the body
and blood of Christ in the Supper, they do not mean that
they are present upon earth, except with respect to faith],
that is, that our faith, reminded and excited by the visible
signs, just as by the Word preached, elevates itself and
ascends above all heavens, and receives and enjoys the
body of Christ, which is there in heaven present, yea,
Christ Himself, together with all His benefits, in a manner
true and essential, but nevertheless spiritual only. For
[they hold that] as the bread and wine are here upon earth
and not in heaven, so the body of Christ is now in heaven
and not upon earth, and consequently nothing else is received
by the mouth in the Holy Supper than bread and wine.
4]
Now, originally, they alleged that the Lord's Supper is
only an external sign, by which Christians are known,
and that nothing else is offered in it than mere bread
and wine (which are bare signs [symbols] of the absent
body of Christ). When this [figment] would not stand the
test, they confessed that the Lord Christ is truly present
in His Supper, namely per communicationem idiomatum (by
the communication of attributes), that is, according to
His divine nature alone, but not with His body and blood.
5]
Afterwards, when they were forced by Christ's words to
confess that the body of Christ is present in the Supper,
they still understood and declared it in no other way
than spiritually [only of a spiritual presence], that
is, of partaking through faith of His power, efficacy,
and benefits, because [they say] through the Spirit of
Christ, who is everywhere, our bodies, in which the Spirit
of Christ dwells here upon earth, are united with the
body of Christ, which is in heaven.
6]
The consequence was that many great men were deceived
by these fine, plausible words, when they alleged and
boasted that they were of no other opinion than that the
Lord Christ is present in His [Holy] Supper truly, essentially,
and as one alive; but they understand this according to
His divine nature alone, and not of His body and blood,
which, they say, are now in heaven, and nowhere else,
and that He gives us with the bread and wine His true
body and blood to eat, to partake of them spiritually
through faith, but not bodily with the mouth.
7]
For they understand the words of the Supper: Eat, this
is My body, not properly, as they read, according to the
letter, but figurate, as figurative expressions, so that
eating the body of Christ means nothing else than believing,
and body is equivalent to symbol, that is, a sign or figure
of the body of Christ, which is not in the Supper on earth,
but only in heaven. The word is they interpret sacramentaliter
seu modo significativo (sacramentally, or in a significative
manner), nequis rem cum signis ita putet copulari, ut
Christi quoque caro nunc in terris adsit modo quodam invisibili
et incomprehensibili (in order that no one may regard
the thing so joined with the signs that the flesh also
of Christ is now present on earth in an invisible and
incomprehensible manner); 8] that is, that the
body of Christ is united with the bread sacramentally,
or significatively, so that believing, godly Christians
as surely partake spiritually of the body of Christ, which
is above, in heaven, as they eat the bread with the mouth.
But that the body of Christ is present here upon earth
in the Supper essentially, although invisibly and incomprehensibly,
and is received orally, with the consecrated bread, even
by hypocrites or those who are Christians only in appearance
[by name] I this they are accustomed to execrate and condemn
as a horrible blasphemy.
9]
Over against this it is taught in the Augsburg Confession
from God's Word concerning the Lord's Supper: That the
true body and blood of Christ are truly present in the
Holy Supper under the form of bread and wine, and are
there dispensed and received; and the contrary doctrine
is rejected (namely, that of the Sacramentarians, who
presented their own Confession at the same time at Augsburg,
that the body of Christ, because He has ascended to heaven,
is not truly and essentially present here upon earth in
the Sacrament [which denied the true and substantial presence
of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the
Supper administered on earth, namely, for the reason that
Christ had ascended into heaven]); 10] even as
this opinion is clearly expressed in Luther's Small Catechism
in the following words: The Sacrament of the Attar is
the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under
the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink,
instituted by Christ Himself; 11] and in the Apology
this is not only explained still more clearly, but also
established by the passage from Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 16, and
by the testimony of Cyril, in the following words: The
Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that
in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are
truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered
with the visible elements, bread and wine, to those who
receive the Sacrament. For since Paul says: "The bread
which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,"
etc., it would follow, if the body of Christ were not,
but only the Holy Ghost were truly present, that the bread
is not a communion of the body, but of the Spirit of Christ.
Besides, we know that not only the Romish, but also the
Greek Church has taught the bodily presence of Christ
in the Holy Supper. And testimony is produced from Cyril
that Christ dwells also bodily in us in the Holy Supper
by the communication of His flesh.
12]
Afterwards, when those who at Augsburg delivered their
own Confession concerning this article had allied themselves
with the Confession of our churches [seemed to be willing
to approve the Confession of our churches], the following
Formula Concordiae, that is, articles of Christian agreement,
between the Saxon theologians and those of Upper Germany
was composed and signed at Wittenberg, in the year 1536,
by Dr. Martin Luther and other theologians on both sides:
13]
We have heard how Mr. Martin Bucer explained his own opinion,
and that of the other preachers who came with him from
the cities, concerning the holy Sacrament of the body
and blood of Christ, namely, as follows:
14]
They confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that
in this Sacrament there are two things, a heavenly and
an earthly. Accordingly, they hold and teach that with
the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly
and essentially present, offered, and received. And although
they believe in no transubstantiation, that is, an essential
transformation of the bread and wine into the body and
blood of Christ, nor hold that the body and blood of Christ
are included in the bread localiter, that is, locally,
or are otherwise permanently united therewith apart from
the use of the Sacrament, yet they concede that through
the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ,
etc. [that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ
is at the same time present, and is truly tendered]. 15]For
apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved
in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about
in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery,
they do not hold that the body of Christ is present.
16]
Secondly, they hold that the institution of this Sacrament
made by Christ is efficacious in Christendom [the Church],
and that it does not depend upon the worthiness or unworthiness
of the minister who offers the Sacrament, or of the one
who receives it. Therefore, as St. Paul says, that even
the unworthy partake of the Sacrament, they hold that
also to the unworthy the body and blood of Christ are
truly offered, and the unworthy truly receive them, if
[where] the institution and command of the Lord Christ
are observed. But such persons receive them to condemnation,
as St. Paul says; for they misuse the holy Sacrament,
because they receive it without true repentance and without
faith. For it was instituted for this purpose, that it
might testify that to those who truly repent and comfort
themselves by faith in Christ the grace and benefits of
Christ are here applied, and that they are incorporated
into Christ and are washed by His blood.
17]
In the following year, when the chief theologians of the
Augsburg Confession assembled from all Germany at Smalcald,
and deliberated as to what to present in the Council concerning
this doctrine of the Church, by common consent the Smalcald
Articles were composed by Dr. Luther and signed by all
the theologians, jointly and severally, in which the proper
and true meaning is clearly expressed in short, plain
words, which agree most accurately with the words of Christ,
and every subterfuge and loophole is barred to 18]
the Sacramentarians (who had interpreted [perverted] the
Formula of Concord, that is, the above-mentioned articles
of union, framed the preceding year, to their advantage,
as saying that the body of Christ is offered with the
bread in no other way than as it is offered, together
with all His benefits, by the Word of the Gospel, and
that by the sacramental union nothing else than the spiritual
presence of the Lord Christ by faith is meant); 19]
for they [the Smalcald Articles] declare: The bread and
wine in the Holy Supper are the true body and blood of
Jesus Christ, which are offered and received, not only
by the godly, but also by godless Christians [those who
have nothing Christian except the name].
20]
Dr. Luther has also more amply expounded and confirmed
this opinion from God's Word in the Large Catechism, where
it is written: What, then, is the Sacrament of the Altar?
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians
are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink.
21] And shortly after: It is the 'Word,' I say,
which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that
it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called.
the body and blood of Christ. 22] Again: With this
Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a
hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should
rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body
and blood of Christ? I know that all spirits and scholars
together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His
little finger. Now, here stands the Word of Christ: "Take,
eat; this is My body. Drink ye all of this; this is the
new testament in My blood," etc. Here we abide, and would
like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters,
and make it different from what He has spoken. 23]
It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word, or
regard it without the Word, you have nothing but mere
bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as
they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is
truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of
Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or
deceive.
24]
Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about
which at the present time men are disturbed, as, for instance,
whether a wicked priest can administer and distribute
the Sacrament, and such like other points. For here conclude
and reply: Even though a knave take or distribute the
Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the
true body and blood of Christ, just as truly as he who
receives or administers it in the most worthy manner.
For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon
the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel
in heaven, can change bread and wine into the body and
blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it,
even though it be abused.
25]
For the Word, by which it became a sacrament and was instituted,
does not become false because of the person or his unbelief.
For He does not say: If you believe or are worthy, you
will receive My body and blood, but: "Take, eat and drink;
this is My body and blood"; 26] likewise: "Do this"
(namely, what I now do, institute, give, and bid you take).
That is as much as to say, No matter whether you be worthy
or unworthy, you have here His body and blood, by virtue
of these words which are added to the bread and wine.
This mark and observe well; for upon these words rest
all our foundation, protection, and defense against all
error and temptation that have ever come or may yet come.
27]
Thus far the Large Catechism, in which the true presence
of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper is
established from God's Word; and this [presence] is understood
not only of the believing and worthy, but also of the
unbelieving and unworthy.
28]
But inasmuch as this highly illumined man [Dr. Luther,
the hero illumined with unparalleled and most excellent
gifts of the Holy Ghost] foresaw in the Spirit that after
his death some would endeavor to make him suspected of
having receded from the above-mentioned doctrine and other
Christian articles, he has appended the following protestation
to his large Confession:
29]
Since I see that as time wears on, sects and errors increase,
and that there is no end to the rage and fury of Satan,
in order that henceforth during my life or after my death
some of them may not, in future, support themselves by
me, and falsely quote my writings to strengthen their
error as the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists begin to
do, I mean by this writing to confess my faith, point
by point [concerning all the articles of our religion],
before God and all the world, in which I intend to abide
until my death, and therein (so help me God!) to depart
from this world and to appear before the judgment-seat
of Jesus Christ. 30] And if after my death any
one should say: If Dr. Luther were living now, he would
teach and hold this or that article differently, for he
did not sufficiently consider it, against this I say now
as then, and then as now, that, by God's grace, I have
most diligently, compared all these articles with the
Scriptures time and again [have examined them, not once,
but very often, according to the standard of Holy Scripture],
and often have gone over them, and would defend them as
confidently as I have now defended the Sacrament of the
Altar. 31] I am not drunk nor thoughtless; I know
what I say; I also am sensible of what it means for me
at the coming of the Lord Christ at the final judgment.
Therefore I want no one to regard this as a jest or mere
idle talk; it is a serious matter to me; for by God's
grace I know Satan a good deal; if he can pervert or confuse
God's Word, what will he not do with my words or those
of another? Tom. 2, Wittenb., German, fol. 243.
32]
After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory,
presents, among other articles, this also: In the same
manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the
Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood
of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread
and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer
it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should
not believe or otherwise misuse it. For it does not depend
upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word
and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and
ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of
the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have
nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have
the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted
and changed them according to their own [false] notion.
Fol. 245.
33]
Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood the
true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and
who constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end,
and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his
faith concerning this article with great zeal in his last
Confession, where he writes thus: I rate as one concoction,
namely, as Sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also
are, all who will not believe that the Lord's bread in
the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless
or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter
and all [other] saints; he who will not believe this (I
say) should let me alone, and hope for no fellowship with
me; this is not going to be altered [thus my opinion stands,
which I am not going to change]. Tom. 2, Wittenb., German,
fol. 252.
34]
From these explanations, and especially from that of Dr.
Luther as the leading teacher of the Augsburg Confession,
every intelligent man who loves truth and peace, can undoubtedly
perceive what has always been the proper meaning and understanding
of the Augsburg Confession in regard to this article.
35]
For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of
Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body
of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also
the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread
[the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed,
is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation
may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged
essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated;
36] just as the expression, Verbum caro factum
est, The Word was made flesh [John 1, 14], is repeated
and explained by the equivalent expressions: The Word
dwelt among us; likewise [Col. 2, 9]: In Him dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; likewise [Acts
10, 38]: God was with Him; likewise [2 Cor. 5, 19]: God
was in Christ, and the like; namely, that the divine essence
is not changed into the human nature, but the two natures,
unchanged, are personally united. [These phrases repeat
and declare the expression of John, above mentioned, namely,
that by the incarnation the divine essence is not changed
into the human nature, but that the two natures without
confusion are personally united.] 37] Even as many
eminent ancient teachers, Justin, Cyprian, Augustine,
Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others, use this simile
concerning the words of Christ's testament: This is My
body, that just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures
are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two
substances, the natural bread and the true natural body
of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the
appointed administration of the Sacrament. 38]
Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with
the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of
the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians,
in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula
of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call
it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union,
by which they wish to indicate that, although they also
employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is,
these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under
the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the
words of Christ properly and as they read, and have understood
the proposition, that is, the words of Christ's testament:
Hoc est corpus meum, This is My body, not as a figuratam
propositionem, but inusitatam (that is, not as a figurative,
allegorical expression or comment, but as an unusual expression).
39] For thus Justin says: This we receive not as
common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ, our
Savior, through the Word of God became flesh, and on account
of our salvation also had flesh and blood, so we believe
that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer
is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 40]
Likewise Dr. Luther also in his Large and especially in
his last Confession concerning the Lord's Supper with
great earnestness and zeal defends the very form of expression
which Christ used at the first Supper.
41]
Now, since Dr. Luther is to be regarded as the most distinguished
teacher of the churches which confess the Augsburg Confession,
whose entire doctrine as to sum and substance is comprised
in the articles of the frequently mentioned Augsburg Confession,
and was presented to the Emperor Charles V, the proper
meaning and sense of the oft-mentioned Augsburg Confession
can and should be derived from no other source more properly
and correctly than from the doctrinal and polemical writings
of Dr. Luther.
42]
And, indeed, this very opinion, just cited, is founded
upon the only firm, immovable, and indubitable rock of
truth, from the words of institution, in the holy, divine
Word, and was thus understood, taught, and propagated
by the holy evangelists and apostles, and their disciples
and hearers.
43]
For since our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, concerning
whom, as our only Teacher, this solemn command has been
given from heaven to all men: Hunc audite, Hear ye Him,
who is not a mere man or angel, neither true, wise, and
mighty only, but the eternal Truth and Wisdom itself and
Almighty God, who knows very well what and how He is to
speak, and who also can powerfully effect and execute
everything that He speaks and promises, as He says Luke
21, 33: Heaven and earth shalt pass away, but My words
shall not pass away; also Matt. 28, 18: All power is given
unto Me in heaven and in earth,
44]
Since, now, this true, almighty Lord, our Creator and
Redeemer, Jesus Christ, after the Last Supper, when He
is just beginning His bitter suffering and death for our
sins, in those sad last moments, with great consideration
and solemnity, in the institution of this most venerable
Sacrament, which was to be used until the end of the world
with great reverence and obedience [and humility], and
was to be an abiding memorial of His bitter suffering
and death and all His benefits, a sealing [and confirmation]
of the New Testament, a consolation of all distressed
hearts, and a firm bond of union of Christians with Christ,
their Head, and with one another, in the ordaining and
institution of the Holy Supper spake these words concerning
the bread which He blessed and gave [to His disciples]:
Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you, and
concerning the cup, or wine: This is My blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins;
45]
[Now, since this is so,] We are certainly in duty bound
not to interpret and explain these words of the eternal,
true, and almighty Son of God, our Lord, Creator, and
Redeemer, Jesus Christ, differently, as allegorical, figurative,
tropical expressions, according as it seems agreeable
to our reason, but with simple faith and due obedience
to receive the words as they read, in their proper and
plain sense, and allow ourselves to be diverted therefrom
[from this express testament of Christ] by no objections
or human contradictions spun from human reason, however
charming they may appear to reason.
46]
Even as Abraham, when he hears God's Word concerning offering
his son, although, indeed, he had cause enough for disputing
as to whether the words should be understood according
to the letter or with a tolerable or mild interpretation,
since they conflicted openly not only with all reason
and with the divine and natural law, but also with the
chief article of faith concerning the promised Seed, Christ,
who was to be born of Isaac, nevertheless, just as previously,
when the promise of the blessed Seed from Isaac was given
him, he gave God the honor of truth, and most confidently
concluded and believed that what God promised He could
also do, although it appeared impossible to his reason;
so also here he understands and believes God's Word and
command plainly and simply, as they read according to
the letter, and commits the matter to God's omnipotence
and wisdom, which, he knows, has many more modes and ways
to fulfil the promise of the Seed from Isaac than he can
comprehend with his blind reason;
47]
Thus we, too, are simply to believe with all humility
and obedience the plain, firm, clear, and solemn words
and command of our Creator and Redeemer, without any doubt
and disputation as to how it agrees with our reason or
is possible. For these words were spoken by that Lord
who is infinite Wisdom and Truth itself, and also can
execute and accomplish everything which He promises.
48]
Now, all the circumstances of the institution of the Holy
Supper testify that these words of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ, which in themselves are simple, plain, clear,
firm, and indubitable, cannot and must not be understood
otherwise than in their usual, proper, and common signification.
For since Christ gives this command [concerning eating
His body, etc.] at the table and at supper, there is indeed
no doubt that He speaks of real, natural bread and of
natural wine, also of oral eating and drinking, so that
there can be no metaphor, that is, a change of meaning,
in the word bread, as though the body of Christ were a
spiritual bread or a spiritual food of souls. 49]
Likewise, also Christ Himself takes care that there be
no metonymy either, that is, that in the same manner there
be no change of meaning in the word body, and that He
does not speak concerning a sign of His body, or concerning
an emblem [a symbol] or figurative body, or concerning
the virtue of His body and the benefits which He has earned
by the sacrifice of His body [for us], but of His true,
essential body, which He delivered into death for us,
and of His true, essential blood, which He shed for us
on the tree [altar] of the cross for the remission of
sins.
50]
Now, surely there is no interpreter of the words of Jesus
Christ as faithful and sure as the Lord Christ Himself,
who understands best His words and His heart and opinion,
and who is the wisest and most knowing for expounding
them; and here, as in the making of His last will and
testament and of His everabiding covenant and union, as
elsewhere in [presenting and confirming) all articles
of faith, and in the institution of all other signs of
the covenant and of grace or sacraments, as [for example]
circumcision, the various offerings in the Old Testament
and Holy Baptism, He uses not allegorical, but entirely
proper, simple, indubitable, and clear words; and in order
that no misunderstanding can occur, He explains them more
clearly with the words: Given for you, shed for you. 51]
He also allows His disciples to rest in the simple, proper
sense, and commands them that they should thus teach all
nations to observe what He had commanded them, the apostles.
52]
For this reason, too, all three evangelists, Matt. 26,
26; Mark 14, 22; Luke 22, 19, and St. Paul, who received
the same [the institution of the Lord's Supper] after
the ascension of Christ [from Christ Himself], 1 Cor.
11, 24, unanimously and with the same words and syllables
repeat concerning the consecrated and distributed bread
these distinct, clear, firm, and true words of Christ:
This is My body, altogether in one way, without any interpretation
[trope, figure] and change. Therefore there is no doubt
that also concerning 53] the other part of the
Sacrament these words of Luke and Paul: This cup is the
new testament in My blood, can have no other meaning than
that which St. Matthew and St. Mark give: This (namely,
that which you orally drink out of the cup) is My blood
of the new testament, whereby I establish, seal, and confirm
with you men this My testament and new covenant, namely,
the forgiveness of sins.
54]
So also that repetition, confirmation, and explanation
of the words of Christ which St. Paul makes 1 Cor. 10,
16, where he writes as follows: The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ? is to be considered with all diligence
and seriousness [accurately], as an especially clear testimony
of the true, essential presence and distribution of the
body and blood of Christ in the Supper. From this we clearly
learn that not only the cup which Christ blessed at the
first Supper, and not only the bread which Christ broke
and distributed, but also that which we break and bless,
is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, so that
all who eat this bread and drink of this cup truly receive,
and are partakers of, the true body and blood of Christ.
55] For if the body of Christ were present and
partaken of, not truly and essentially, but only according
to its power and efficacy, the bread would have to be
called, not a communion of the body, but of the Spirit,
power, and benefits of Christ, as the Apology argues and
concludes. 56] And if Paul were speaking only of
the spiritual communion of the body of Christ through
faith, as the Sacramentarians pervert this passage, he
would not say that the bread, but that the spirit or faith,
was the communion of the body of Christ. But as he says
that the bread is the communion of the body of Christ,
that all who partake of the consecrated bread also become
partakers of the body of Christ, he must indeed be speaking,
not of a spiritual, but of a sacramental or oral participation
of the body of Christ, which is common to godly and godless
Christians [Christians only in name].
57]
This is shown also by the causes and circumstances of
this entire exposition of St. Paul, in which he deters
and warns those who ate of offerings to idols and had
fellowship with heathen devil-worship, and nevertheless
went also to the table of the Lord and became partakers
of the body and blood of Christ, lest they receive the
body and blood of Christ for judgment and condemnation
to themselves. For since all those who become partakers
of the consecrated and broken bread in the Supper have
communion also with the body of Christ, St. Paul indeed
cannot be speaking of spiritual communion with Christ,
which no man can abuse, and against which also no one
is to be warned.
58]
Therefore also our dear fathers and predecessors, as Luther
and other pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession, explain
this statement of Paul with such words that it accords
most fully with the words of Christ when they write thus:
The bread which we break is the distributed body of Christ,
or the common [communicated] body of Christ, distributed
to those who receive the broken bread.
59]
By this simple, well-founded exposition of this glorious
testimony, 1 Cor. 10, we unanimously abide, and we are
justly astonished that some are so bold as to venture
now to cite this passage, which they themselves previously
opposed to the Sacramentarians, as a foundation for their
error, that in the Supper the body of Christ is partaken
of spiritually only. [For thus they speak]: Panis est
communicatio corporis Christi, hoc est, id, quo fit societas
cum corpore Christi (quod est ecclesia), seu est medium,
per quod fideles unimur Christo, sicut verbum evangelii
fide apprehensum est medium, per quod Christo spiritualiter
unimur et corpori Christi, quod est ecclesia, inserimur.
Translated, this reads as follows: "The bread is the communion
of the body of Christ, that is, it is that by which we
have fellowship with the body of Christ, which is the
Church, or it is the means by which we believers are united
with Christ, just as the Word of the Gospel, apprehended
by faith, is a means through which we are spiritually
united to Christ and incorporated into the body of Christ,
which is the Church."
60]
For that not only the godly, pious, and believing Christians,
but also unworthy, godless hypocrites, as Judas and his
ilk, who have no spiritual communion with Christ, and
go to the Table of the Lord without true repentance and
conversion to God, also receive orally in the Sacrament
the true body and [true] blood of Christ, and by their
unworthy eating and drinking grievously sin against the
body and blood of Christ, St. Paul teaches expressly.
For he says, 1 Cor. 11, 27: Whosoever shall eat this bread,
and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, sins not merely
against the bread and wine, not merely against the signs
or symbols and emblems of the body and blood, but shall
be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ,
which, as there [in the Holy Supper] present, he dishonors,
abuses, and disgraces, as the Jews, who in very deed violated
the body of Christ and killed Him; just as the ancient
Christian Fathers and church-teachers unanimously have
understood and explained this passage.
61]
There is, therefore, a two-fold eating of the flesh of
Christ, one spiritual, of which Christ treats especially
John 6, 54, which occurs in no other way than with the
Spirit and faith, in the preaching and meditation of the
Gospel, as well as in the Lord's Supper, and by itself
is useful and salutary, and necessary at all times for
salvation to all Christians; without which spiritual participation
also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not
only not salutary, but even injurious and damning [a cause
of condemnation].
62]
But this spiritual eating is nothing else than faith,
namely, to hear God's Word (wherein Christ, true God and
man, is presented to us, together with all benefits which
He has purchased for us by His flesh given into death
for us, and by His blood shed for us, namely, God's grace,
the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life),
to receive it with faith and appropriate it to ourselves,
and in all troubles and temptations firmly to rely, with
sure confidence and trust, and to abide in the consolation
that we have a gracious God, and eternal salvation on
account of the Lord Jesus Christ. [He who hears these
things related from the Word of God, and in faith receives
and applies; them to himself, and relies entirely upon
this consolation (that we have God reconciled and life
eternal on account of the Mediator, Jesus Christ),he,
I say, who with true confidence rests in the Word of the
Gospel in all troubles and temptations, spiritually eats
the body of Christ and drinks His blood.]
63]
The other eating of the body of Christ is oral or sacramental,
when the true, essential body and blood of Christ are
also orally received and partaken of in the Holy Supper,
by all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine
in the Supperby the believing as a certain pledge
and assurance that their sins are surely forgiven them,
and Christ dwells and is efficacious in them, but by the
unbelieving for their judgment and condemnation, 64]
as the words of the institution by Christ expressly declare,
when at the table and during the Supper He offers His
disciples natural bread and natural wine, which He calls
His true body and true blood, at the same time saying:
Eat and drink. For in view of the circumstances this command
evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral
eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal,
Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way;
65] to which afterwards the other command adds
still another and spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ
says further: This do in remembrance of Me, where He requires
faith [which is the spiritual partaking of Christ's body).
66]
Therefore all the ancient Christian teachers expressly,
and in full accord with the entire holy Christian Church,
teach, according to these words of the institution of
Christ and the explanation of St. Paul, that the body
of Christ is not only received spiritually by faith, which
occurs also outside of [the use of] the Sacrament, but
also orally, not only by believing and godly, but also
by unworthy, unbelieving, false, and wicked Christians.
As this is too long to be narrated here, we would, for
the sake of brevity, have the Christian reader referred
to the exhaustive writings of our theologians.
67]
Hence it is manifest how unjustly and maliciously the
Sacramentarian fanatics (Theodore Beza) deride the Lord
Christ, St. Paul, and the entire Church in calling this
oral partaking, and that of the unworthy, duos pilos caudae
equinae et commentum, cuius vel ipsum Satanam pudeat,
as also the doctrine concerning the majesty of Christ,
excrementum Satanae, quo diabolus sibi ipsi et hominibus
illudat, that is, they speak so horribly of it that a
godly Christian man should be ashamed to translate it.
68]
But it must [also] be carefully explained who are the
unworthy guests of this Supper, namely, those who go to
this Sacrament without true repentance and sorrow for
their sins, and without true faith and the good intention
of amending their lives, and by their unworthy oral eating
of the body of Christ load themselves with damnation,
that is, with temporal and eternal punishments, and become
guilty of the body and blood of Christ.
69]
For Christians who are of weak faith, diffident, troubled,
and heartily terrified because of the greatness and number
of their sins, and think that in this their great impurity
they are not worthy of this precious treasure and the
benefits of Christ, and who feel and lament their weakness
of faith, and from their hearts desire that they may serve
God with stronger, more joyful faith and pure obedience,
they are the truly worthy guests for whom this highly
venerable Sacrament [and sacred feast] has been especially
instituted and appointed; 70] as Christ says, Matt.
11, 28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest. Also Matt. 9, 12: They
that be whole need not a physician, but they that be sick.
Also [2 Cor. 12, 9]: God's strength is made perfect in
weakness. Also [Rom. 14, 1]: Him that is weak in the faith
receive ye [14, 3], for God hath received him. For whosoever
believeth in the Son of God, be it with a strong or with
a weak faith, has eternal life [John 3, 15f. ].
71]
And worthiness does not depend upon great or small weakness
or strength of faith, but upon the merit of Christ, which
the distressed father of little faith [Mark 9, 24] enjoyed
as well as Abraham, Paul, and others who have a joyful
and strong faith.
72]
Let the foregoing be said of the true presence and two-fold
participation of the body and blood of Christ, which occurs
either by faith, spiritually, or also orally, both by
worthy and unworthy [which latter is common to worthy
and unworthy].
73]
Since a misunderstanding and dissension among some teachers
of the Augsburg Confession also has occurred concerning
consecration and the common rule, that nothing is a sacrament
without the appointed use [or divinely instituted act],
we have made a fraternal and unanimous declaration to
one another also concerning this matter to the following
purport, 74] namely, that not the word or work
of any man produces the true presence of the body and
blood of Christ in the Supper, whether it be the merit
or recitation of the minister, or the eating and drinking
or faith of the communicants; but all this should be ascribed
alone to the power of Almighty God and the word, institution,
and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ.
75]
For the true and almighty words of Jesus Christ which
He spake at the first institution were efficacious not
only at the first Supper, but they endure, are valid,
operate, and are still efficacious [their force, power,
and efficacy endure and avail even to the present], so
that in all places where the Supper is celebrated according
to the institution of Christ, and His words are used,
the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed,
and received, because of the power and efficacy of the
words which Christ spake at the first Supper. For where
His institution is observed and His words are spoken over
the bread and cup [wine], and the consecrated bread and
cup [wine] are distributed, Christ Himself, through the
spoken words, is still efficacious by virtue of the first
institution, through His word, which He wishes to be there
repeated. 76] As Chrysostom says (in Serm. de Pass.)
in his Sermon concerning the Passion: Christ Himself prepared
this table and blesses it; for no man makes the bread
and wine set before us the body and blood of Christ, but
Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The words are
spoken by the mouth of the priest, but by God's power
and grace, by the word, where He speaks: "This is My body,"
the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper.
And just as the declaration, Gen. 1, 28: "Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth," was spoken only
once, but is ever efficacious in nature, so that it is
fruitful and multiplies, so also this declaration ["This
is My body; this is My blood"] was spoken once, but even
to this day and to His advent it is efficacious, and works
so that in the Supper of the Church His true body and
blood are present.
77]
Luther also [writes concerning this very subject in the
same manner], Tom. VI, Jena, Fol. 99: This His command
and institution have this power and effect that we administer
and receive not mere bread and wine, but His body and
blood, as His words declare: "This is My body," etc.;
"This is My blood," etc., so that it is not our work or
speaking, but the command and ordination of Christ that
makes the bread the body, and the wine the blood, from
the beginning of the first Supper even to the end of the
world, and that through our service and office they are
daily distributed.
78]
Also, Tom. III, Jena, Fol. 446: Thus here also, even though
I should pronounce over all bread the words: This is Christ's
body, nothing, of course, would result therefrom; but
when in the Supper we say, according to His institution
and command: "This is My body," it is His body, not on
account of our speaking or word uttered [because these
words, when uttered, have this efficacy], but because
of His commandthat He has commanded us thus to speak
and to do, and has united His command and act with our
speaking.
79]
Now, in the administration of the Holy Supper the words
of institution are to be publicly spoken or sung before
the congregation distinctly and clearly, and should in
no way be omitted [and this for very many and the most
important reasons. 80] First,] in order that obedience
may be rendered to the command of Christ: This do [that
therefore should not be omitted which Christ Himself did
in the Holy Supper], 81] and [secondly] that the
faith of the hearers concerning the nature and fruit of
this Sacrament (concerning the presence of the body and
blood of Christ, concerning the forgiveness of sins, and
all benefits which have been purchased by the death and
shedding of the blood of Christ, and are bestowed upon
us in Christ's testament) may be excited, strengthened,
and confirmed by Christ's Word, 82] and [besides]
that the elements of bread and wine may be consecrated
or blessed for this holy use, in order that the body and
blood of Christ may therewith be administered to us to
be eaten and to be drunk, as Paul declares [1 Cor. 10,
16]: The cup of blessing which we bless, which indeed
occurs in no other way than through the repetition and
recitation of the words of institution.
83]
However, this blessing, or the recitation of the words
of institution of Christ alone does not make a sacrament
if the entire action of the Supper, as it was instituted
by Christ, is not observed (as when the consecrated bread
is not distributed, received, and partaken of, but is
enclosed, sacrificed, or carried about), but the command
of Christ, This do (which embraces the entire action or
administration in this Sacrament, 84] that in an
assembly of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated,
distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord's death
is shown forth at the same time) must be observed unseparated
and inviolate, as also St. Paul places before our eyes
the entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution
and reception, 1 Cor. 10, 16.
85]
[Let us now come also to the second point, of which mention
was made a little before.] To preserve this true Christian
doctrine concerning the Holy Supper, and to avoid and
abolish manifold idolatrous abuses and perversions of
this testament, the following useful rule and standard
has been derived from the words of institution: Nihil
habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum
("Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the
use instituted by Christ") or extra actionem divinitus
institutam ("apart from the action divinely instituted").
That is: If the institution of Christ be not observed
as He appointed it, there is no sacrament. This is by
no means to be rejected, but can and should be urged and
maintained with profit in the Church of God. 86]
And the use or action here does not mean chiefly faith,
neither the oral participation only, but the entire external,
visible action of the Lord's Supper instituted by Christ,
[to this indeed is required] the consecration, or words
of institution, the distribution and reception, or oral
partaking [manducation] of the consecrated bread and wine,
[likewise the partaking] of the body and blood of Christ.
87] And apart from this use, when in the papistic
mass the bread is not distributed, but offered up or enclosed,
borne about, and exhibited for adoration, it is to be
regarded as no sacrament; just as the water of baptism,
when used to consecrate bells or to cure leprosy, or otherwise
exhibited for worship, is no sacrament or baptism. For
against such papistic abuses this rule has been set up
at the beginning [of the reviving Gospel], and has been
explained by Dr. Luther himself, Tom. IV, Jena.
88]
Meanwhile, however, we must call attention also to this,
that the Sacramentarians artfully and wickedly pervert
this useful and necessary rule, in order to deny the true,
essential presence and oral partaking of the body of Christ,
which occurs here upon earth alike by the worthy and the
unworthy, and interpret it as referring to the usus fidei,
that is, to the spiritual and inner use of faith, as though
it were no sacrament to the unworthy, and the partaking
of the body occurred only spiritually, through faith,
or as though faith made the body of Christ present in
the Holy Supper, and therefore unworthy, unbelieving hypocrites
did not receive the body of Christ as being present.
89]
Now, it is not our faith that makes the sacrament, but
only the true word and institution of our almighty God
and Savior Jesus Christ, which always is and remains efficacious
in the Christian Church, and is not invalidated or rendered
inefficacious by the worthiness or unworthiness of the
minister, nor by the unbelief of the one who receives
it. Just as the Gospel, even though godless hearers do
not believe it, yet is and remains none the less the true
Gospel, only it does not work for salvation in the unbelieving;
so, whether those who receive the Sacrament believe or
do not believe, Christ remains none the less true in His
words when He says: Take, eat: this is My body, and effects
this [His presence] not by our faith, but by His omnipotence.
90]
Accordingly, it is a pernicious, shameless error that
some from a cunning perversion of this familiar rule ascribe
more to our faith, which [in their opinion] alone renders
present and partakes of the body of Christ, than to the
omnipotence of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
91]
Now, as regards the various imaginary reasons and futile
counter-arguments of the Sacramentarians concerning the
essential and natural attributes of a human body, concerning
the ascension of Christ, concerning His departure from
this world, and such like, inasmuch as these have one
and all been refuted thoroughly and in detail, from God's
Word, by Dr. Luther in his controversial writings: Against
the Heavenly Prophets, That These Words, "This Is My Body,"
Still Stand Firm; likewise in his Large and his Small
Confession concerning the Holy Supper [published some
years afterwards], and in other of his writings, and inasmuch
as since his death nothing new has been advanced by the
factious spirits, we would for the sake of brevity have
the Christian reader directed to them and have referred
to them.
92]
For that we neither will, nor can, nor should allow ourselves
to be led away by thoughts of human wisdom, whatever outward
appearance or authority they may have, from the simple,
distinct, and clear sense of the Word and testament of
Christ to a strange opinion, other than the words read,
but that, in accordance with what is above stated, we
understand and believe them simply, our reasons upon which
we have rested in this matter ever since the controversy
concerning 93] this article arose, are those which
Dr. Luther himself, in the very beginning, presented against
the Sacramentarians in the following words (Dr. Luther
in his Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper): My
reasons upon which I rest in this matter are the following:
94]
1. The first is this article of our faith: Jesus Christ
is essential, natural, true, perfect God and man in one
person, inseparable and undivided.
95]
2. The second, that God's right hand is everywhere.
96]
3. The third, that God's Word is not false, nor does it
lie.
97]
4. The fourth, that God has and knows of many modes of
being in any place, and not only the single one concerning
which the fanatics talk flippantly, and which philosophers
call localem, or local.
98]
Also: The one body of Christ [says Luther] has a threefold
mode or all three modes of being anywhere.
99]
First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as He went about
bodily upon earth, when, according to His size, He vacated
and occupied space [was circumscribed by a fixed place].
This mode He can still use whenever He will, as He did
after the resurrection, and will use at the last day,
as Paul says, 1 Tim. 6, 15: "Which in His times He shall
show, who is the blessed God [and only Potentate, the
King of kings and Lord of lords]." And to the Colossians,
3, 4: "When Christ, who is our Life, shall appear." In
this manner He is not in God or with the Father, neither
in heaven, as the mad spirits dream; for God is not a
bodily space or place. And this is what the passages how
Christ leaves the world and goes to the Father refer to
which the false spirits cite.
100]
Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according
to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates
all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most
free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight
penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not
occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates
and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does
not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat
penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the
like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much
more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could
be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed
[and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed
door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in
the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born
of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].
101]
Thirdly, the divine, heavenly mode, since He is one person
with God, according to which, of course, all creatures
must be far more penetrable and present to Him than they
are according to the second mode. For if, according to
that second mode, He can be in and with creatures in such
a manner that they do not feel, touch, circumscribe, or
comprehend Him, how much more wonderfully will He be in
all creatures according to this sublime third mode, so
that they do not circumscribe nor comprehend Him, but
rather that He has them present before Himself, circumscribes
and comprehends them! For you must place this being of
Christ, who is one person with God [for you must place
this mode of presence of Christ which He has by His personal
union with God], very far, far outside of the creatures,
as far as God is outside of them; and again as deep and
near within all creatures as God is within them. For He
is one inseparable person with God; where God is, there
must He also be, 102] or our faith is false. But
who will say or think how this occurs? We know indeed
that it is so, that He is in God outside of all creatures,
and one person with God, but how it occurs we do not know;
it [this mystery] is above nature and reason, even above
the reason of all the angels in heaven; it is understood
and known only by God. Now, since it is unknown to us,
and yet true, we should not deny His words before we know
how to prove to a certainty that the body of Christ can
by no means be where God is, and that this mode of being
[presence] is false. This the fanatics must prove; but
they will forego it.
103]
Now, whether God has and knows still more modes in which
Christ's body is anywhere, I did not intend to deny herewith,
but to indicate what awkward dolts our fanatics are, that
they concede to the body of Christ no more than the first,
comprehensible mode; although they cannot even prove that
to be conflicting with our meaning. For in no way will
I deny that the power of God may accomplish this much
that a body might be in many places at the same time,
even in a bodily, comprehensible way. For who will prove
that this is impossible with God? Who has seen an end
to His power? The fanatics indeed think thus: God cannot
do it. But who will believe their thinking? With what
do they make such thinking sure? Thus far Luther.
104]
From these words of Dr. Luther this, too, is clear in
what sense the word spiritual is employed in our churches
with reference to this matter. For to the Sacramentarians
this word spiritual means nothing else than the spiritual
communion, when through faith true believers are in the
Spirit incorporated into Christ, the Lord, and become
true spiritual members of His body.
105]
But when Dr. Luther or we employ this word spiritual in
regard to this matter, we understand by it the spiritual,
supernatural, heavenly mode, according to which Christ
is present in the Holy Supper, working not only consolation
and life in the believing, but also condemnation in the
unbelieving; whereby we reject the Capernaitic thoughts
of the gross [and] carnal presence which is ascribed to
and forced upon our churches by the Sacramentarians against
our manifold public protestations. In this sense we also
say [wish the word spiritually to be understood when we
say] that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ
are spiritually received, eaten, and drunk, although this
participation occurs with the mouth, while the mode is
spiritual.
106]
Thus our faith in this article concerning the true presence
of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper is
based upon the truth and omnipotence of the true, almighty
God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. These foundations
are strong and firm enough to strengthen and establish
our faith in all temptations concerning this article,
and, on the contrary, to overthrow and refute all the
counter-arguments and objections of the Sacramentarians,
however agreeable and plausible they may be to our reason;
and upon them a Christian heart also can securely and
firmly rest and rely.
107]
Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn
as false, erroneous, and misleading all errors which are
not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed to, the
doctrine above mentioned and founded upon God's Word,
such as,
108]
1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught
that the consecrated or blessed bread and wine in the
Holy Supper lose entirely their substance and essence,
and are changed into the substance of the body and blood
of Christ in such a way that only the mere form of bread
and wine is left, or accidentia sine subiecto (the accidents
without the object); under which form of the bread, which
nevertheless is bread no longer, but according to their
assertion has lost its natural essence, the body of Christ
is present even apart from the administration of the Holy
Supper, when the bread is enclosed in the pyx or is carried
about for display and adoration. For nothing can be a
sacrament without God's command and the appointed use
for which it is instituted in God's Word, as was shown
above.
109]
2. We likewise reject and condemn all other papistic abuses
of this Sacrament, as the abomination of the sacrifice
of the mass for the living and dead.
110]
3. Also, that contrary to the public command and institution
of Christ only one form of the Sacrament is administered
to the laity; as these papistic abuses have been thoroughly
refuted by means of God's Word and the testimonies of
the ancient Church, in the common Confession and the Apology
of our churches, the Smalcald Articles, and other writings
of our theologians.
111]
However, since we have undertaken in this document to
present especially only our confession and explanation
concerning the true presence of the body and blood of
Christ against the Sacramentarians, some of whom shamelessly
insinuate themselves into our churches under the name
of the Augsburg Confession, we will also state and enumerate
here especially the errors of the Sacramentarians, in
order to warn our hearers to guard against and look out
for them.
112]
Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn
as false, erroneous, and misleading all Sacramentarian
opiniones (opinions) and doctrines which are not in accordance
with, but contrary and opposed to, the doctrine above
presented and founded upon God's Word:
113]
1. As when they assert that the words of institution are
not to be understood simply in their proper signification,
as they read, of the true, essential presence of the body
and blood of Christ in the Supper, but are to be wrested,
by means of tropi (tropes) or figurative interpretations,
to another new, strange sense. We hereby reject all such
Sacramentarian opiniones (opinions) and self-contradictory
notions [of which some even conflict with each other],
however manifold and various they may be.
114]
2. Also, that the oral participation of the body and blood
of Christ in the Supper is denied [by the Sacramentarians],
and it is taught, on the contrary, that the body of Christ
in the Supper is partaken of only spiritually by faith,
so that in the Supper our mouth receives only bread and
wine.
115]
3. Likewise, also, when it is taught that bread and wine
in the Supper should be regarded as nothing more than
tokens by which Christians are to recognize one another;
or,
4.
That they are only figures, similitudes, and representations
(symbols, types] of the far-absent body of Christ, in
such a manner that just as bread and wine are the outward
food of our body, so also the absent body of Christ, with
His merit, is the spiritual food of our souls.
116]
5. Or that they are no more than tokens or memorials of
the absent body of Christ, by which signs, as an external
pledge, we should be assured that the faith which turns
from the Supper and ascends beyond all heavens and there
above becomes as truly participant of the body and blood
of Christ as we truly receive with the mouth the external
signs in the Supper; and that thus the assurance and confirmation
of our faith occur in the Supper only through the external
signs, and not through the true, present body and blood
of Christ offered to us.
117]
6. Or that in the Supper the power, efficacy, and merit
of the far-absent body of Christ are distributed only
to faith, and we thus become partakers of His absent body;
and that, in this way just mentioned, unio sacramentalis,
that is, the sacramental union, is to be understood de
analogia signi et signati (with respect to the analogy
of the sign and that which is signified), that is, as
[far as] the bread and wine have a resemblance to the
body and blood of Christ.
118]
7. Or that the body and blood of Christ cannot be received
and partaken of otherwise than only spiritually, by faith.
119]
8. Likewise, when it is taught that because of His ascension
into heaven Christ is so enclosed and circumscribed with
His body in a definite place in heaven that with the same
[His body] He cannot or will not be truly present with
us in the Supper, which is celebrated according to the
institution of Christ upon earth, but that He is as far
and remote from it as heaven and earth are from one another,
as some Sacramentarians have wilfully and wickedly falsified
the text, Acts 3, 21; oportet Christum coelum accipere,
that is, Christ must occupy heaven, for the confirmation
of their error, and instead thereof have rendered it:
oportet Christum coelo capi, that is, Christ must be received
or be circumscribed and enclosed by heaven or in heaven,
in such a manner that in His human nature He can or will
in no way be with us upon earth.
120]
9. Likewise, that Christ has not promised the true, essential
presence of His body and blood in His Supper, and that
He neither can nor will afford it, because the nature
and property of His assumed human nature could not suffer
or admit of it.
121]
10. Likewise, when it is taught that not only the Word
and omnipotence of Christ, but faith, renders the body
of Christ present in the Supper; on this account the words
of institution in the administration of the Supper are
omitted by some. For although the papistic consecration
is justly rebuked and rejected, in which the power to
produce a sacrament is ascribed to the speaking as the
work of the priest, yet the words of institution can or
should in no way be omitted in the administration of the
Supper, as is shown in the preceding declaration.
122]
11. Likewise, that believers are not to seek, by reason
of the words of Christ's institution, the body of Christ
with the bread and wine of the Supper, but are directed
with their faith away from the bread of the Supper to
heaven, to the place where the Lord Christ is with His
body, that they should become partakers of it there.
123]
12. We reject also the teaching that unbelieving and impenitent,
wicked Christians, who only bear the name of Christ, but
do not have the right, true, living, and saving faith,
receive in the Supper not the body and blood of Christ,
but only bread and wine. And since there are only two
kinds of guests found at this heavenly meal, the worthy
and the unworthy, we reject also the distinction made
among the unworthy [made by some who assert] that the
godless Epicureans and scoffers at God's Word, who are
in the external fellowship of the Church, when using the
Holy Supper, do not receive the body and blood of Christ
for condemnation, but only bread and wine.
124]
13. So, too, the teaching that worthiness consists not
only in true faith, but in man's own preparation.
125]
14. Likewise, the teaching that even true believers, who
have and keep a right, true, living faith, and yet lack
the said sufficient preparation of their own, could, just
as the unworthy guests, receive this Sacrament to condemnation.
126]
15. Likewise, when it is taught that the elements or the
visible species or forms of the consecrated bread and
wine must be adored. However, no one, unless he be an
Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ Himself,
true God and man, who is truly and essentially present
in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth
in the true use of the same, as also in all other places,
especially where His congregation is assembled.
127]
16. We reject and condemn also all presumptuous, frivolous
[sarcastically colored], blasphemous questions and expressions
which are presented in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic way
regarding the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this
Supper.
128]
Other and additional antitheses, or rejected contrary
doctrines, have been reproved and rejected in the preceding
explanation, which, for the sake of brevity, we will not
repeat here, and whatever other condemnable opiniones
or erroneous opinions there may be still, over and above
the foregoing, can be easily gathered and named from the
preceding explanation; for we reject and condemn everything
that is not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed
to, the doctrine recorded above and thoroughly grounded
in God's Word.