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
Supper—by 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 command—that 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.