Solid Declaration, Article VII: Of the Lord’s Supper

p. 600 Although perhaps, according to the opinion of some, the exposition of this article should not be inserted into this document, wherein it has been our intention to explain the articles which have been drawn into controversy among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession (from which the Sacramentarians almost 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 Confession¹), yet, alas! as we have still some theologians and others who glory in the Augsburg Confession, who in the last few years no longer secretly, but partly publicly, have given their assent in this article to the Sacramentarians, and against their own conscience have wished violently to cite and pervert the Augsburg Confession as in entire harmony in this article with the doctrine of the Sacramentarians; we neither can nor should forbear in this document to give testimony in accordance with our confession of divine truth, and to repeat the true sense and proper understanding, with reference to this article, of the Word of Christ and of the Augsburg Confession, and [for we recognize it to be our duty] so far as in us lies, by God’s help, to preserve it [this pure doctrine] also to posterity, and to 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.

¹ See Epitome, vii.: 1.

p. 600 Statement of the Controversy

The Chief Conflict between our Doctrine and that of the Sacramentarians in this Article.

Although some Sacramentarians strive to speak and to employ words the very nearest the Augsburg Confession and the form and mode of these churches, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is truly received by believers,² yet if they be forced to declare their meaning properly, sincerely and clearly, they all unanimously explain themselves thus, viz. that the true essential body and blood of Christ is as far from p. 601 the consecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as the highest heaven is distant from the earth. For their own words run thus: Abesse Christi corpus et sanguinem a signis tanto intervallo dicimus, quanto abest terra ab altissimis cœlis. 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.” Therefore, they understand this presence of the body of Christ not as here upon earth, but only 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], i. e. that our faith, reminded and excited by the visible signs, as by the preached Word, elevates itself and rises up above all heavens, and there receives and enjoys the body of Christ, which is present there in heaven, yea, Christ himself, together with all his benefits, in a true and essential, but nevertheless only spiritual, manner. For [they think 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 on this account nothing else is received by the mouth in the Holy Supper but bread and wine.

² The words of Calvin and Beza.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, x.; Apology, x.; Smalcald Articles, Part III., Art. vi.; Small Catechism, Part V.; Large Catechism, Part V, 499; Epitome, vii.

In the first place, they¹ have alleged that the Lord’s Supper is only an external sign, whereby Christians may be known, and that therein nothing else is offered but mere bread and wine (which are bare signs [symbols] of the absent body of Christ). Since this would not stand the test, they have confessed that the Lord Christ is truly present in his Supper, namely by the communicatio idiomatum,² i. e. alone according to his divine nature, but not with his body and blood.

¹ Zwingli and his adherents.

² By which to the entire person that which belongs to one nature is ascribed. Cf. Sol. Dec., viii.: 36.

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, that is, through faith to partake of his power, efficacy and benefits [than that they believed the presence only spiritual, i. e. that Christ only makes us partakers 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.

Thus through these grand, plausible words many great men were deceived when they proclaimed 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 alone according to his divine nature, and p. 602 not of his body and blood, which are now in heaven, and nowhere else [for they think concerning these that they are only in heaven, etc.], and that he gives us with the bread and wine his true body and blood to eat, that we may partake of them spiritually through faith, but not bodily with the mouth.

For they understand the words of the Supper: “Eat, this is my body,” not properly, as they sound, according to the letter, but as figurative expressions; thus, that “eating” the body of Christ means nothing else than “believing,” and that “body” is equivalent to “symbol,” i. e. a sign or figure of the body of Christ, which is not in the Supper on earth, but alone in heaven. The word is they interpret sacramentally, or in a significative manner, 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. That is: “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 with the mouth they eat the bread.” 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], this they are accustomed to execrate and condemn as a horrible blasphemy.

On the other hand, it is taught in the Augsburg Confession from God’s Word concerning the Lord’s Supper, thus: “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 communicated and received, and the contrary doctrine is rejected” (namely, that of the Sacramentarians, who at the same time at Augsburg presented their own Confession,¹ 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, on this account, viz. because Christ had ascended into heaven]. For this opinion is clearly expressed in Luther’s Small Catechism in the following words: “The sacrament of the altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat and to drink, as it was instituted by Christ himself.” Still more clearly in the Apology is this not only declared, 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 p. 603 received [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 offered 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. Thus we know that not only the Romish, but also the Greek Church, has taught the bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Supper.”¹ And testimony is also produced from Cyril that Christ also dwells bodily in us in the Holy Supper by the communication of his flesh.²

¹ The Tetrapolitan.

¹ Apology, x.: 54 sq.

² Ibid., x.: 55,

Afterwards, when those who at Augsburg delivered their Confession concerning this article seemed to be willing to approve the Confession of our churches, the following Formula Concordiæ,³ i. e. 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:

³ The Wittenberg Concordia, written by Melanchthon,

“We have heard how Mr. Martin Bucer explained his own opinion, and that of other preachers who came with him from the cities, concerning the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, viz. as follows:⁴

⁴ See Corpus Reformatorum, iii.: 75.

“They confess, according to the words of Irenæus, that in this sacrament there are two things, a heavenly and an earthly. Therefore 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 trans-substantiation, i. e. an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and also do not hold that the body and blood of Christ are included locally, i. e. with respect to space, in the bread, 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]. For apart from use, if the bread be laid by and preserved in a pyx, or be carried about and exhibited in processions, as occurs in the Papacy, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present.

“Secondly, they hold that the institution of this sacrament made by Christ is efficacious in Christendom [the Church], and p. 604 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,¹ they hold that also to the unworthy the body and blood of Christ are truly offered, and the unworthy truly receive them, where the institution and command of the Lord Christ are observed. But such persons receive them to condemnation,² as St. Paul says; for they abuse the oly sacrament, because they receive it without true repentance and without faith. For it was instituted for this purpose, viz. that it might testify that to them the grace and benefits of Christ are there applied, and that they are incorporated into Christ and are washed by his blood, who there truly repent and comfort themselves by faith in Christ.”

¹ 1 Cor. 11:27.

² Ibid., 11:29.

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 were signed by all the theologians, collectively and individually, in which the true and proper opinion is clearly expressed in short, plain words, which agree most accurately with the words of Christ, and every door and mode of escape for the Sacramentarians was closed. For they had interpreted to their advantage [perverted] the Formula of Concord, i. e. the above-mentioned articles of union, framed the preceding year, so that it should be understood 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. These articles, therefore, declare: “The bread and wine in the Holy Supper are the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, which are tendered and received, not only by the godly, but also by godless Christians”³ [those who have nothing Christian except the name].

³ Smalcald Articles, Part III., Art. vi

Dr. Luther has also more amply expounded and confirmed this opinion from God’s Word in the Large Catechism,⁴ where it is written:

⁴ Part V., 6. 8 10-14; 499 sqq.

“What is therefore 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.” 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 p. 605 is properly called the body and blood of Christ.’ Again: “With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, raise the objection, 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. For 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. 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 Word be added thereto, as it must be, then in virtue of the same it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ have spoken, so it is, as he can never lie or deceive.

“Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about which at the present time men are anxious, 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, i. e. 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.

“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.’ Likewise: ‘ Do this’ (viz. 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 defence against all error and temptation that have ever come or may yet come.”

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 the same is understood not only of the believing and worthy, but also of the unbelieving and unworthy.

But inasmuch as this highly-illumined man [Dr. Luther, the hero illuminated with unparalleled and most excellent gifts of p. 606 the Holy Ghost] foresaw that after his death some would suspect that he had receded from the above-mentioned doctrine and other Christian articles, he has appended the following protest to his Large Confession:

“Because I see the longer the time the greater the number of sects and errors, and that there is no end to the rage and fury of Satan, in order that henceforth during my life, and after my death, some of them may not, in future, support themselves by me, and in order to strengthen their error falsely quote my writings, as the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists begin to do; I will in this writing, before God and all the world, confess my faith, point by point [concerning all the articles of our religion]. In this I intend to abide until my death, and therein (and may God help me as to this!) to depart from this world and to appear before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ; and if after my death any one will say: If Dr. Luther were now living 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 considered all these articles by means of the Scriptures [have examined them, not once, but very often, according to the standard of Holy Scripture], and often have gone over them, and will contend as confidently for them as I am now contending for the Sacrament of the Altar. I am not drunk or inconsiderate; I know what I say; I also am sensible of the account which I will render at the coming of the Lord Christ at the final judgment. Therefore no one should interpret this as jest or mere idle talk; to me it is serious; for by God’s grace I know Satan in great part; if he can pervert or confuse God’s Word, what will he not do with my words or those of another?”

After this protest, Dr. Luther, of holy 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 drunken in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord’s Supper], or those who receive it, do not believe or otherwise abuse 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 Word and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed it according to their own caprice.”

Dr. Luther (who certainly, above others, understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and who constantly, p. 607 even to his end, remained steadfast thereto, and defended it) shortly before his death, with great zeal, repeated in his last Confession his faith concerning this article, where he writes thus: “I reckon all in one mass as Sacramentarians and fanatics, as they also are who will not believe that the bread in the Lord’s Supper is his true natural body, which the godless as Judas himself 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 not hope for any fellowship with me; there is no alternative [thus my opinion stands, which I am not going to change].”

From these explanations, and especially from that of Dr. Luther as the chief teacher of the Augsburg Confession, every intelligent man, if he be desirous of the truth and of peace, can undoubtedly perceive what has always been the proper sense and understanding of the Augsburg Confession in regard to this article.

For the reason that in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (viz. that 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 hereby the Papistical transubstantiation may be rejected, and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ may be indicated; just as the expression, “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14), is repeated and explained by the equivalent expressions: “The Word dwelt among us;” (Col. 2:9): “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;” also (Acts 10:38): “God was with him;” also (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 the expression of John above-mentioned, and declare that, by the incarnation, the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but that the two natures without confusion are personally united.]

And indeed 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,” viz. 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 here together upon earth in the appointed administration of the sacrament. 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 a sacramental p. 608 union, 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; in order to declare that although they also employ the forms, “in the bread,” “under the bread,” “with the bread,” yet the words of Christ they receive properly and as they sound, and understand the proposition, i. e. the words of Christ’s testament: “This is my body,” not as a figurative, but as an unusual expression. For Justin says: “This we receive not as common bread and common drink, but as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, through the Word of God became flesh, and on account of our salvation also had flesh and blood, so we believe that, by the Word and prayer, the food blessed by him is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 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.

For since Dr. Luther is to be regarded the most distinguished teacher of the churches which confess the Augsburg Confession, whose entire doctrine as to sum and substance was comprised in the articles of the frequently-mentioned Augsburg Confession, and was presented to the Emperor Charles V.; the proper understanding and sense of the said 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.

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.

For since our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, concerning whom, as our only Teacher, this solemn command: “Hear ye him,” has been given from heaven to all men, who is not a mere man or angel, and also not only true, wise and mighty, but the eternal truth and wisdom itself and Almighty God, who knows very well what and how he should speak, and who also can powerfully effect and execute everything that he speaks and promises, as he says (Luke 21:33): “Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away;” also (Matt. 28:18): “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,”—

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, on that last sad time, with great consideration and solemnity, in the institution p. 609 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 and means of union of Christians with Christ their head and with one another), in the founding 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;”—

We are 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, as allegorical, metaphorical, tropical expressions, as may appear to be in conformity with our reason, but with simple faith and due obedience to receive the words as they sound,¹ 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 the reason.

¹ Cf. Epitome, vii.: 7.

As when Abraham heard 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 moderate or mild interpretation, since they conflicted not only with all reason and with divine and natural law, but also with the chief article of faith concerning the promised Seed, Christ, who was to be born of Isaac; and yet, as before, when the promise of the blessed Seed from Isaac was given him (although it appeared to his reason impossible), he gave God the honor of truth, and most confidently concluded and believed that God could do what he promised; so also here faith understands and believes God’s Word and command plainly and simply, as they sound, according to the letter, and resigns the entire matter to the divine omnipotence and wisdom, which it knows has many more modes and ways to fulfil the promise of the Seed from Isaac than man with his blind reason can comprehend.

Thus, with all humility and obedience we too should simply believe the plain, firm, clear and solemn word and command of our Creator and Redeemer, without any doubt and disputation as to how it may agree with our reason or be possible. For these words THE LORD, who is infinite wisdom p. 610 and truth itself, has spoken, and everything which he promises he also can execute and accomplish.

Now, all the circumstances of the institution of the Holy Supper testify that these words of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, which in themselves are simple, plain, clear, firm and indubitable, cannot and should not be understood otherwise than in their usual, proper and common signification. For since Christ gave this command [concerning eating his body, etc.] at his table and at the 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, i. e. an alteration of meaning, in the word “bread,” as though the body of Christ were a spiritual bread or a spiritual food of souls. So also Christ himself carefully shows that there is no metonymy, i. e. that there is no alteration of meaning in the same way, in the word “body,” and that he does not speak concerning a sign of his body, or concerning 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 for us to death, and of his true, essential blood, which he shed for us on the tree [altar] of the cross, for the remission of sins.

Now, indeed, there is no interpreter of the Word of Jesus Christ so 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 in expounding them; who here, as in the making of his last will and testament and of his ever-abiding 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, has employed not allegorical, but entirely proper, simple, indubitable and clear words; and in order that no misunderstanding could occur with the words:

given for you,” “shed for you,” he has made a clear explanation. He also allowed his disciples to rest in the simple, proper sense, and commanded them that they should teach all nations to observe what he had commanded them, the apostles.

Therefore, also, all three evangelists (Matt. 26:; Mark 14:; Luke 22:19) and St. Paul, who received it [the institution of the Lord’s Supper] after the ascension of Christ [from Christ himself], (1 Cor. 11:24), unanimously and with one and the same words and syllables, concerning the consecrated and distributed bread repeat these distinct, clear, firm and true words of Christ: “This is my body,” altogether in one way, without any explanation [trope, figure] and variation.

p. 611 Therefore there is no doubt that also concerning 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 my testament and the new covenant, viz. the forgiveness of sins.

So also that repetition, confirmation and explanation of the Word of Christ which St. Paul makes (1 Cor. 10:16), as an especially clear testimony of the true, essential presence and distribution of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, is to be considered with all diligence and solemnity [accurately], 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?” From this we clearly learn that not only the cup which Christ consecrated 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. 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 not be a communion of the body, but must be called a communion of the Spirit, power and benefits of Christ, as the Apology argues and concludes.¹ And if Paul speaks 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, viz. that all who partake of the consecrated bread also become participants of the body of Christ, he must speak indeed 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].

¹ Art. x.: 54.

As also the causes and circumstances of this entire declaration of St. Paul show that he deters and warns those who ate of offerings to idols and had fellowship with heathen demonolatry, and nevertheless went also to the table of the Lord and became partakers of the body and blood of Christ, that they should not receive the body and blood of Christ for judgment and condemnation to themselves. For since all those who were partakers of the consecrated and broken bread in p. 612 the Supper have communion also with the body of Christ, St. Paul cannot speak indeed of spiritual communion with Christ, which no man can abuse, and from which also no one should be warned.

Therefore, also, our dear fathers and predecessors, as Luther and other pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession, explain this expression 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.

By this simple, well-founded exposition of this glorious testimony (1 Cor. 10) we unanimously abide, and we justly are astonished that some are so bold as to venture to cite this passage, which they themselves had previously opposed to the Sacramentarians, as now a foundation for their error, that in the Supper the body of Christ is only spiritually partaken of. [For thus they speak]: “The bread is the communion of the body of Christ, i. e. that by which there is fellowship with the body of Christ (which is the Church), or is the means by which we believers are united with Christ, just as the Word of the Gospel is the means, apprehended by faith, through which we are spiritually united to Christ and inserted into the body of Christ, which is the Church.”

For that not only the godly, pious and believing Christians, 6c but also unworthy, godless hypocrites, as Judas and his companions, 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 representation of the body and blood, but “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” which, present there [in the Holy Supper], 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.

There is, therefore, a twofold eating of the flesh of Christ, one “spiritual,” of which Christ especially treats (John 6:54), which occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith, in the preaching and consideration 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 p. 613 which spiritual participation also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary, but even injurious and a cause of condemnation.

But this spiritual eating is nothing else than faith, namely, to hearken to God’s Word (wherein Christ, true God and man, is presented, together with all his benefits which he has purchased for us by his flesh given for us to death, 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 the consolation that we have a gracious God, and eternal salvation on account of the Lord Jesus Christ, with sure confidence and trust, to firmly rely and abide in all troubles and temptations. [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.]

The other eating of the body of Christ is oral or sacramental, where, in the Holy Supper, the true, essential body and blood of Christ are received and partaken of by all who eat and drink in the Supper the consecrated bread and wine—by the believing as an infallible 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. This the words of the institution by Christ expressly teach, 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, and in addition says: “Eat and drink.” Such a command, in view of the circumstances, cannot indeed be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, yet in a super-natural, incomprehensible way; to which 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).

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 without 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 will p. 614 have to refer the Christian reader, for the sake of brevity, to the more ample writings of our theologians.

Hence it is manifest how unjustly and maliciously the Sacramentarian fanatics¹ deride the Lord Christ, St. Paul and the entire Church in calling this oral partaking, and that of the unworthy, duos pilos caudæ equinæ et commentum, cujus vel ipsum Satanam pudeat, as also the doctrine concerning the majesty of Christ, excrementum Satanæ, quo diabolus sibi ipsi et hominibus illudat, i. e. they speak so dreadfully thereof that a godly Christian man should be ashamed to translate it.

¹ Theodore Beza and others.

But it must also be carefully stated 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 to improve their lives, and by their unworthy eating of the body of Christ incur temporal and eternal punishments and are guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

For Christians of weak faith, diffident and troubled, who, because of the greatness and number of their sins, are terrified, 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, are the truly worthy guests for whom this highly venerable sacrament [and sacred feast] has been especially instituted and appointed; 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” (v. 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: sq.).

And the 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 had a joyful and strong faith.

Thus far we have spoken of the true presence and twofold 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].

Since also concerning the consecration and the common rule, p. 615 that “nothing is a sacrament without the appointed use” [or divinely-instituted act], a misunderstanding and dissension has occurred between some teachers of the Augsburg Confession, we have also, concerning this matter, made a fraternal and unanimous declaration to one another to the following purport, viz. 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 declaration 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 institution and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ. [But all that which we have present in the Supper of Christ is to be ascribed absolutely and altogether to the power and Word of Almighty God and the institution, etc.]

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, have authority, 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, from the power and efficacy of the words which Christ spake at the first Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed and received. For where his institution is observed and his words concerning the bread and cup [wine] are spoken, 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. As Chrysostom says in his sermon concerning the passion: “Christ himself prepares 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, the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper by the Word, where he speaks: ‘This is my body.’ 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 once spoken, but even to this day and to his advent it is efficacious, and works so that in the Supper of the churches his true body and blood are present.”

Luther also [writes concerning this very subject in the same manner], (vol. vi., Jena Ed., p. 99): “This his command and institution are able and effect it that we administer and receive not mere bread and wine, but his body and blood, as his words run: ‘This is my body,’ etc.; ‘This is my blood,’ etc. It is not our work or declaration, but the command and ordination p. 616 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.”

Als: (vol. iii., Jena, p. 446): “Thus here also, even though I should pronounce over all bread the words: ‘This is Christ’s body,’ it would of course not follow thence, but if we say, according to his institution and command, in the administration of the Holy Supper: ‘This is my body,’ it is his body, not on account of our declaration or demonstration [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 declaration.”

And indeed, in the administration of the Holy Supper the words of institution should be publicly [before the church] spoken or sung, distinctly and clearly, and should in no way be omitted [and this for very many and the most important reasons. 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], 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 blood of Christ, and are bestowed upon us in Christ’s testament) may be excited, strengthened and confirmed by Christ’s Word, 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 be eaten and to be drunk [that with them the body of Christ may be offered us to be eaten and his blood 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.

Nevertheless, this blessing, or the narration of the words of institution of Christ, does not alone make a sacrament if the entire action of the Supper, as it was instituted by Christ, be not observed, as [for example] 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 transaction in this sacrament, viz. that in an assembly of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, i. e. eaten and drunk, and the Lord’s death is thereby shown forth, should be observed unseparated and inviolate, as also St. Paul presents before our eyes the entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution and reception (1 Cor. 10:16).

p. 617 [Let us now come also to the second point, of which mention was made a little before.] To preserve the true Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Supper, and to avoid and obliterate various idolatrous abuses and perversions of this testament, the following useful rule and standard has been derived from the words of institution: “Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ,” or “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 with profit can and should be urged and maintained in the churches of God. And the use or action here is not chiefly the faith, also not only the oral participation, 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, and the distribution and reception, or oral partaking [manducation] of the consecrated bread and wine, likewise the partaking of the body and blood of Christ. And apart from this use, when, in the Papistic mass, the bread is not distributed, but offered up or enclosed and borne about, and presented for adoration, it is to be regarded as no sacrament; just as the water of baptism, if used to consecrate bells or to cure leprosy, or otherwise presented for worship, would be no sacrament or baptism. For from the beginning [of the reviving Gospel] this rule has been opposed to these Papistic abuses, and is explained by Dr. Luther himself (vol. iv., Jena Edition).

But we must besides observe also this, viz. 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 who interpret it as referring to the use by faith, i. e. the spiritual and inner use of faith, as though with the unworthy there were no sacrament, 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 do not actually receive the body of Christ.¹

¹ Cf. Epitome, vii.: 35, 37.

Now, it is not our faith that makes the sacrament, but only the true word and institution of our Almighty God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, which always is and remains efficacious in the Christian Church, and neither by the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister nor the unbelief of the one who receives it is as anything invalidated or rendered inefficacious. Just as the Gospel, even though godless hearers do not believe it, yet p. 618 is and remains none the less the true Gospel, but does not work in the unbelieving to salvation; 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.

But it is a pernicious, shameless error that some from 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 Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Concerning what pertains to the various imaginary reasons and and futile counter-arguments of the Sacramentarians with respect to the essential and natural attributes of a human body, the ascension of Christ, his departure from this world, etc., inasmuch as these have one and all been considered thoroughly and in detail, from God’s Word, by Dr. Luther in his controversial writings: “Against the Heavenly Prophets,”¹ “That these words, ‘This is my body,’ still stand firm,”² likewise in his “Large”³ and his “Small Confession concerning the Holy Supper,”⁴ [published some years afterwards], and other of his writings, and inasmuch as since his death nothing new has been advanced by the factious spirits, for the sake of brevity we will refer and appeal thereto.

¹ A. D. 1525.

² 1527.

³ 1528.

⁴ 1544.

For that we neither will, nor can, nor should allow ourselves to be led away by thoughts of human wisdom, whatever authority or outward appearance 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 sound, but that, in accordance with what is above stated, we understand and believe them simply; our reasons upon which we rest in this matter, ever since the controversy concerning this article arose, are those which Dr. Luther himself,⁵ in the very beginning, presented against the Sacramentarians in the following words: “The reasons upon which I rest in this matter are the following:

⁵ In his Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper.

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

“2. The second, that God’s right hand is everywhere.

“3. The third, that God’s Word is not false and does not deceive.

“4. The fourth, that God has and knows of many modes of being in any place, and not only the single one concerning p. 619 which fanatics talk flippantly and which philosophers call local.”

Also: “The one body of Christ [says Luther] has a t iree-fold mode or three modes of being anywhere.

“First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as he went about in the body upon earth, when, according to his size, he made and occupied room [was circumscribed by fixed places]. 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 and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords.” And to the Colossians (3:4) he says: “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 wild spirits dream; for God is not a bodily space or place. And to this effect are the passages of Scripture which the fanatical spirits cite, how Christ left the world and went to the Father.

“Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which he neither occupies nor makes room, but penetrates all creatures according to his [most free] will, as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates air, light or water, and does not occupy or make room; as a sound or tone penetrates air or water or board and wall, and is in them, and also does not occupy or make room; likewise, as light and heat penetrate air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and is in them, and also does not make or occupy room; 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] sepulchre, 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].

“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 so in and with creatures that they do not feel, touch, circumscribe or comprehend him, how much more wonderfully is he in all creatures according to this sublime third mode, so that they neither circumscribe nor comprehend him, but rather that he has them present before himself, and circumscribes and comprehends them! For you must place this mode of the presence of Christ, as he is one person with God, as far beyond creatures as God is beyond them; and again as deep and near to all creatures as God is in, and near them. For he is one inseparable person with God; where God is there must he also be, or our faith is false. But who will say p. 620 or think how this occurs? We know indeed that it is so, that he is in God beyond all creatures, and is one person with God, but how it occurs we do not know; this [mystery] is above nature and reason, even above the reason of all the angels in heaven; it is understood only by God. Because, therefore, it is unknown to us, and yet is 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 ought to prove; but we challenge them to do so.

“That God indeed has and knows still more modes in which Christ’s body is anywhere, I will not herewith deny; but I would indicate what awkward and stupid men our fanatics are, that they concede to the body of Christ no more than the first, comprehensible way; although they cannot even prove the same, that it conflicts with our meaning. For I in no way will deny that the power of God is able to effect so much as that a body should at the same time be in a number of places, 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 think indeed that God cannot effect it,¹ but who will believe their thoughts? Whereby will they confirm such thoughts?”

¹ Cf. Epitome, vii.: 32, 34.

From these words of Dr. Luther it is also 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 those truly believing are in the spirit incorporated into Christ, the Lord, and become true spiritual members of his body.

But when this word spiritual is employed in regard to this matter by Dr. Luther or us, we understand thereby the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly mode, according to which Christ is present in the Holy Supper, and not only works trust 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, against our manifold public testimonies, by the Sacramentarians.² 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 drunken; although this participation occurs with the mouth, yet the mode is spiritual.

² Ibid., vii.: 42

Therefore our faith in this article, concerning the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, is p. 621 based upon the truth and omnipotence of the true, almighty God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. These foundations are sufficiently strong and firm to strengthen and establish our faith in all temptations concerning this article, and to subvert and refute all the counter-arguments and objections of the Sacramentarians, however agreeable and plausible they may always be to the reason; and upon them a Christian heart also can firmly and securely rest and rely.

Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous and misleading, all errors which are discordant, contrary and opposed to the doctrines above mentioned and founded upon God’s Word, as,

1. The Papistic transubstantiation, where 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 the accidents without the object; under which form of the bread, which is no more bread, 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 presented for display and adoration.¹ For nothing can be a sacrament without God’s command and the appointed use for which it is instituted in God’s Word, as is shown above.²

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, sess. xiii., caps. 4-6, Cans. 2, 4, 6, 7.

² § 35.

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.

3. Also, that contrary to the public command and institution of Christ, to the laity only one form of the sacrament is administered; as the same Papistic abuses are thoroughly refuted by means of God’s Word and the testimonies of the ancient churches, in the common confession of our churches, and the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and other writings of our theologians.

But because in this document we have undertaken especially to present our Confession and explanation only concerning the true presence of the body and blood of Christ against the Sacramentarians, some of whom, under the name of the Augsburg Confession, have shamelessly insinuated themselves into our churches;³ we will also present and enumerate especially here the errors of the Sacramentarians, in order to warn our hearers to [detect and] be on their guard against them.

³ Cf. Epitome, vii.: 1.

Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn p. 622 as false, erroneous and misleading all Sacramentarian opinions and doctrines which are discordant, contrary and opposed to the doctrines above presented and founded upon God’s Word:

1. As when they assert that the words of institution are not to be understood simply in their proper signification, as they sound, of the true, essential presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but should be wrested, by means of tropes or figurative interpretations, to another new, strange sense. We hereby reject all such Sacramentarian opinions and self-contradictory notions [of which some even conflict with each other], however various and manifold they may be.

2. Also, that the oral participation of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper is denied [by the Sacramentarians], and it is taught, on the contrary, that the body of Christ in the Holy Supper is partaken of only spiritually by faith, so that in the Holy Supper our mouth receives only bread and wine.

3. Likewise, also, when it is taught that bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper should be regarded as nothing more than tokens, whereby 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 its merit, is the spiritual food of our souls.

5. Or that they are no more than tokens and 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 Holy Supper and ascends above all heavens becomes there as truly participant of the body and blood of Christ as in the Supper we truly receive with the mouth the external signs; and that thus the assurance and confirmation of our faith occur in the Holy Supper only through the external signs, and not through the true, present body and blood of Christ offered to us.¹

¹ Cf. Epitome, vii.: 30.

6. Or that in the Lord’s 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 just-mentioned way, the sacramental union is to be understood, viz. with respect to the analogy of the sign and that which is signified, i. e. as the bread and wine have a resemblance to the body and blood of Christ.

7. Or that the body and blood of Christ cannot be received and partaken otherwise than only spiritually by faith.

p. 623 .

8. Likewise, when it is taught that, because of his ascension into heaven with his body, Christ is so enclosed and circumscribed in a definite place in heaven that with the same [his body] he cannot or will not be truly present with us in the Holy Supper, which is celebrated according to the institution of Christ upon earth, but that he is as remote therefrom as heaven and earth are from one another,¹ as some Sacramentarians have wilfully and wickedly falsified the text (Acts 3:21): “Who must occupy heaven,” for the confirmation of their error, and instead thereof have rendered it: “Who must be received by heaven” or “in heaven,” or be circumscribed and contained, so that in his human nature he could or would be in no way with us upon earth.²

¹ Calvin and Beza.

² Calvin and the Wittenberg Crypto-Calvinists.

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 cannot suffer or permit it.

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 Holy Supper; on this account the words of institution in the administration of the Holy Supper are omitted by some. For although the Papistic consecration, in which efficacy is ascribed to the speaking as the work of the priest, as though it constitutes a sacrament, is justly rebuked and rejected, yet the words of institution can or should in no way be omitted, as is shown in the preceding declaration.³

³ Above, § 79 sq.

11. Likewise, that believers do not seek the body of Christ, according to the words of Christ’s institution, with the bread and wine of the Supper, but are sent with their faith from the bread of the Holy Supper to heaven, the place where the Lord Christ is with his body, that they should become partakers of it there.

12. We reject also the doctrine that unbelieving and impenitent, godless Christians, who only bear the name of Christ, but do not have right, true, living and saving faith, receive in the Lord’s 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 [by some] among the unworthy, viz. that the godless Epicureans and deriders of God’s Word, who are in the external fellowship of the Church in the use of the Holy Supper, do not receive the body and blood of Christ for condemnation, but only bread and wine.

p. 624 13. So too the doctrine that worthiness consists not only in true faith, but in man’s own preparation.¹

¹ Beza. See Mentzer’s Exegesis, Aug. Conf., p. 488. See also Epitome vii.: 38.

14. Likewise, the doctrine that even the truly believing, who have and retain a right, true, living faith, and yet are without the above-mentioned sufficient preparation of their own, can, just as the unworthy guests, receive this sacrament to condemnation.

15. Likewise, when it is taught that the elements or the visible form of the consecrated bread and wine ought to be adored. But no one unless he be an Arian heretic can deny that Christ himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper in the true use of the same, should be adored in spirit and in truth, as also in all other places, especially where his congregation is assembled.

16. We reject and condemn also all presumptuous, derisive, blasphemous questions and expressions which are presented with respect to the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this Supper in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic way.

Other and additional antitheses, or rejected contrary doctrines, are reproved and rejected in the preceding declaration, which, for the sake of brevity, we will not repeat here. The condemnable or erroneous opinions that still remain, can be easily understood and named from the preceding declaration; for we reject and condemn everything that is discordant, contrary and opposed to the doctrine which is above mentioned and is thoroughly grounded in God’s Word.