Epitome, Article VII: Of the Lord’s Supper

p. 510 Although the Zwinglian teachers are not to be reckoned among the theologians who acknowledge and profess the Augsburg Confession, as they separated from them when this Confession was presented,¹ nevertheless since they are intruding themselves [with their assembly], and are attempting, under the name of this Christian Confession, to introduce their error,² we have wished also to make such a report as is needful [we have judged that the Church of Christ should be instructed also] concerning this controversy.

¹ For they offered the “Tetrapolitan Confession,” and Zwingli his own “Fidei Rationis.”

² Preface to Book of Concord, p. 12, 15.

p. 510 Statement of the Controversy

Chief Controversy between our Doctrine and that of the Sacramentarians upon this article

Whether in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of p. 511 our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed with the bread and wine, and received with the mouth by all those who use this sacrament, whether they be worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving; by the believing, for consolation and life; by the unbelieving, for judgment [so that the believing receive from the Lord’s Supper consolation and life, but the unbelieving take it for their judgment]? The Sacramentarians say, No; we say, Yea.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, x.; Apology, x.; Smalcald Articles, Part III., Art. vi.; Small Catechism, 365; Large Catechism, 499; Formula of Concord, Sol. Dec., vii.

For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in clear [deutschen] words what they believe in their hearts, viz. that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth.¹ Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and assert that they also believe in a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, yet that this occurs spiritually through faith.² Nevertheless beneath these specious words, precisely the former gross opinion is contained, viz. that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ, or the power of the absent body of Christ, and his merit, which are present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which in heaven we should elevate ourselves by the thoughts of our faith, and there, and not at all in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].

¹ Carlstadt, Zwingli, Ecolampadius.

² Bucer, Peter Martyr, Calvin and the Crypto-Calvinistic theologians of Leipsic and Wittenberg.

p. 511 Affirmative

Confession of the Pure Doctrine concerning the Holy Supper against the Sacramentarians

1. We believe, teach and confess that, in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.

2. We believe, teach and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they sound, according to the letters; so that the bread does not signify the absent body, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ.³

³ Smalcald Articles, Part III., Art. vi; Large Catechism, 501:14. The

p. 512 3. As to the consecration, we believe, teach and confess that no work of man or declaration of the minister [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this should be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ.

4. But at the same time we also unanimously believe, teach and confess that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written (1 Cor. 10:16): “The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” etc. This blessing occurs through the recitation of the Word of Christ.

5. Moreover the foundations upon which we stand against the Sacramentarians in this matter are those which Dr. Luther has laid down in his Large Confession concerning the Lord’s Supper.¹

¹ Wittenberg, 1528, Erlangen Ed., 30:151.

The first is this article of our Christian faith: Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable.

The second: That God’s right hand is everywhere; at which Christ is in deed and in truth placed according to his human nature, [and therefore] being present rules, and has in his hands and beneath his feet everything that is in heaven and on earth [as Scripture says (Eph. 1:22)]: There [at this right hand of God] no man else, or angel, but only the Son of Mary, is placed; whence he can effect this [those things which we have said].

The third: That God’s Word is not false, and does not deceive.

The fourth: That God has and knows of many modes of being in a place, and not only the one [is not bound to the one] which philosophers call local [or circumscribed].²

² Cf. Sol. Dec., vii.: 98 sqq.

6. We believe, teach and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic,³ but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, where Christ directs to take, eat and drink, as was then done by the apostles, for it is written (Mark 14:23): “And they all drank of it.”

³ The word is derived from John 6:26, 52: “As though his flesh were rent with the teeth and digested like other food,” § 42.

meaning of this expression is explained by Sol. Dec., vii.: 14: “With the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered and received.”

p. 513 St. Paul likewise says (1 Cor. 10:16): “The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” i. e. he who eats this bread, eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I., Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

7. We believe, teach and confess that not only the truly believing [in Christ] and worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelieving, receive the true body and blood of Christ; yet not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

For although they repel Christ from themselves as a Sa-17 viour, yet they must admit him even against their will as a strict Judge, who is present also to exercise and render judgment upon impenitent guests, as well as to work life and consolation in the hearts of the truly believing and worthy.

8. We believe, teach and confess also that there is only one kind of unworthy guests, viz. those who do not believe; concerning whom it is written (John 3:18): “He that believeth not is condemned already.” By the unworthy use of the Holy Supper this judgment is augmented, increased, and aggravated (1 Cor. 11:29).

9. We believe, teach and confess that no true believer, as long as he retain living faith, however weak he may be, receives the Holy Supper to his judgment, which was instituted especially for Christians weak in faith, and yet penitent, for the consolation and strengthening of their weak faith (Matt. 9:12; 11:5, 28).

10. We believe, teach and confess that all the worthiness of the guests of this heavenly feast is and consists alone in the most holy obedience and absolute merit of Christ, which we appropriate to ourselves by true faith, and of it [this merit] we are assured by the sacrament. This worthiness does not at all depend upon our virtues or inner and outward preparations.¹

¹ Cf. § 38.

p. 513 Negative

Contrary condemned Doctrines of the Sacramentarians

On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the above-presented doctrine, simple [simplicity of] faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord’s Supper:

1. The Papistic transubstantiation, where it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated;

p. 514 that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains.

2. The Papistic sacrifice of the mass for the sins of the living and the dead.

3. That [the sacrilege whereby] to laymen only one form of the sacrament is given, and the cup is withheld from them, against the plain words of the testament of Christ, and they are [thus] deprived of his blood.

4. When it is taught that the words of the testament of Christ should not be understood or believed simply as they sound, but that they are obscure expressions, whose meaning must be sought first in other passages of Scripture.¹

¹ Zwingli, Ecolampadius, Calvin. John vi. especially was appealed to.

5. That in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is not received orally with the bread; but that with the mouth only bread and wine are received, and the body of Christ only spiritually by faith.²

² See Consensus Tigurinus, Art. ix.

6. That the bread and wine in the Holy Supper are nothing more than [symbols or] tokens, whereby Christians recognize one another.³

³ Zwingli, De vera et falsa religione (Opp. iii., p. 145 sq.).

7. That the bread and wine are only figures, similitudes and representations of the far, absent body of Christ.⁴

⁴ Opinion of Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger. See Planck, iv.: 21, 63.

8. That the bread and wine are no more than a memorial,⁵ seal and pledge, through which we are assured, when faith elevates itself to heaven, that it there becomes participant of the body and blood of Christ as truly as, in the Supper, we eat bread and drink wine.⁶

⁵ Cf. Sol. Dec., vii.: 115 sqq.

⁶ Calvin, e. g. Comment on 1 Cor. 11:23.

9. That the assurance and confirmation of our faith [concerning salvation] occur in the Holy Supper alone through the external signs of bread and wine, and not through the truly present true body and blood of Christ.

10. That in the Holy Supper only the power, efficacy and merit of the far absent body and blood of Christ are distributed.⁷

⁷ See Calvin’s Institutes, iv., chap. xxii., § 18.

11. That the body of Christ is so enclosed in heaven that it can in no way be at one and the same time in many or all places upon earth where his Holy Supper is celebrated.⁸

⁸ See Consensus Tigurinus, xxi.; Niemyer, xxiv., p. 196. Cf. Sol. Dec. vii: 119.

12. That Christ has not promised, neither can afford, the essential presence of his body and blood in the Holy Supper, p. 515 because the nature and property of his assumed human nature cannot suffer or permit it.

13. That God, according to [even by] his omnipotence (which is dreadful to hear), is not able to render his body essentially present in more than one place at one time.¹

¹ All the Sacramentarians.

14. That not the omnipotent Word of Christ’s testament, but faith, produces and makes [is the cause of] the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper.

15. That believers should not seek the body [and blood] of Christ in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, but from the bread should raise their eyes to heaven, and there seek the body of Christ.²

² Consensus Tigurinus, xxi.

16. That unbelieving, impenitent Christians in the Holy Supper do not receive the true body and blood of Christ, but only bread and wine.

17. That the worthiness of the guests in this heavenly meal consists not alone in true faith in Christ, but also in the external preparation of men.⁴

⁴ Doctrine of the papists; Council of Trent, Sess. xiii., chaps. 7 and 11.

18. That even the truly believing, who have and retain a true, living, pure faith in Christ, can receive this sacrament to their judgment, because they are still imperfect in their outward life.⁵

⁵ Id.

19. That the external visible elements in the Holy Sacrament should be adored.⁶

⁶ With worship, latria; see Council of Trent, Sess. xiii., chaps. 5 and 6

20. Likewise, we consign also to the just judgment of God all presumptuous, ironical, blasphemous questions (which out of regard to decency are not to be mentioned), and other expressions, which very blasphemously and with great offence [to the Church] are proposed by the Sacramentarians in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic way concerning the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this sacrament.

21. As, then, we hereby utterly [reject and] condemn the Capernaitic eating [manducation] of the body of Christ, which the Sacramentarians, against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests, wilfully force upon us, and in this way make our doctrine odious to their hearers, as though [we taught that] his flesh were rent with the teeth, and digested as other food; on the contrary, we maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, in the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also in the drinking of his blood, a doctrine which man’s sense and

• Beza used almost these words: Creophagia, p. 152 sq.

p. 516 reason does not comprehend, but, as in all other articles of faith, our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and this mystery is not embraced otherwise than by faith alone, and is not revealed elsewhere than in the Word alone.