VII. The Holy Supper
[1] In the opinion of some people, the comments in this article should perhaps not be included in this document. We intend to explain the articles that have been drawn into controversy among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. (When the Confession was first written and presented to the Emperor at Augsburg in 1530, the Sacramentarians soon withdrew entirely and separated. They presented their own Confession.) Still, some theologians and others who boast about the Augsburg Confession have agreed in this article with the Sacramentarians during the last few years. They no longer speak secretly, but partly public. They have labored against their own conscience to force and to pervert the Augsburg Confession to make it entirely in harmony with the Sacramentarian teaching in this article. We neither can nor should leave out our testimony by our confession of the divine truth in this document. We must repeat the true sense and proper understanding of Christ’s words and of the Augsburg Confession on this article. ‹We recognize this to be our duty.› So far as we are able, by God’s help, we shall preserve ‹this pure doctrine› also for posterity. We will faithfully warn our hearers, together with other godly Christians, against this deadly error, which is entirely contrary to the divine Word and the Augsburg Confession, and has been frequently condemned.
Status of the Controversy
The Chief Controversy between Our Teaching and That
of the Sacramentarians in This Article
[2] Some Sacramentarians strive to use words that come as close as possible to the Augsburg Confession and the form and way of speech in ‹our› churches. They confess that in the Holy Supper Christ’s body is truly received by believers. Still, when we insist that they state their meaning precisely, sincerely, and clearly, they all say this in unison: Christ’s true essential body and blood is absent from the consecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as far as the highest heaven is from the earth. For their own words state this, “We say that Christ’s body and blood are as far from the signs as the earth is distant from the highest heaven.” [3] Therefore, they understand this presence of Christ’s body not as a presence here on earth, but only with respect to faith. In other words, our faith is reminded and excited by the visible signs, just as it is by the Word preached. It elevates itself and ascends above all heavens. It receives and enjoys Christ’s body, which is present there in heaven. Yes, they say they receive Christ Himself, together with all His benefits, in a true and essential way, but nevertheless only in a spiritual way. For they hold that as the bread and wine are here on earth and not in heaven, so Christ’s body is now in heaven and not on earth. So nothing else is received by the mouth in the Holy Supper than bread and wine.
[4] Originally, they asserted that the Lord’s Supper is only an outward sign, by which Christians are known. They held that nothing else is offered in the Supper than mere bread and wine (which are bare signs ‹symbols› of Christ’s absent body). When this fiction would not stand the test, they confessed that the Lord Christ is truly present in His Supper. They said He is present by the communication of attributes, that is, according to His divine nature alone, but not with His body and blood.
[5] Afterward, when they were forced by Christ’s words to confess that Christ’s body is present in the Supper, they still understood and declared only a spiritual presence. They declared it was a partaking through faith of His power through faith, efficacy, and benefits. For they say Christ’s Spirit is everywhere and dwells here on earth. Therefore, through the Spirit our bodies are united with Christ’s body, which is in heaven.
[6] The result was that many noble people were deceived by these fine, praise-worthy words when they asserted and boasted that they were of no other opinion than that the Lord Christ is present in His Supper truly, essentially, and as a living person. They understand this according to His divine nature alone, and not of His body and blood. They say His body and blood are now in heaven, and nowhere else. He gives us His true body and blood with the bread and wine to eat, to partake of them spiritually through faith, but not bodily with the mouth.
[7] They understand the words of the Supper, “Eat; this is My body,” not properly, as they read, according to the letter, but as figurative expressions. So eating Christ’s body means nothing other than believing. Body means a symbol, that is, a sign or figure of Christ’s body. The body is not in the Supper on earth, but only in heaven. The word is they interpret sacramentally, or in a symbolic way. They do this so that no one may think that Christ’s flesh is joined with the signs and is now present on earth in an invisible way, beyond our understanding. [8] In other words, Christ’s body is united with the bread sacramentally, or symbolically. So believing, godly Christians do partake spiritually of Christ’s body (which is above, in heaven) just as they eat the bread with the mouth. But they are used to cursing and condemning the following as a horrible blasphemy: Christ’s body is essentially present here on earth in the Supper, although invisibly and in a way beyond understanding. It is received orally, with the consecrated bread, even by hypocrites or those who only appear to be Christians.
[What the Augsburg Confession Means]
[9] Against the Sacramentarians’ opinion, this is what is taught in the Augsburg Confession from God’s Word about the Lord’s Supper: “That the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Lord’s Supper” [AC X 1]. The contrary doctrine is rejected (namely, that of the Sacramentarians, who presented their own confession at the same time at Augsburg. They said that the body of Christ, because He has ascended to heaven, is not truly and essentially present here on earth in the Sacrament).
[10] This opinion is clearly expressed in Luther’s Small Catechism in the following words:
What is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It 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. [SC VI 1–2]
[11] In the Apology this is not only explained still more clearly, but is also established by the passage from Paul (1 Corinthians 10:16) and by the testimony of Cyril, in the following words:
Article X has been approved, in which we confess the following: We believe that in the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present and are truly administered with those things that are seen (bread and wine) to those who receive the Sacrament. … Since Paul says, “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16), it would follow, that if the Lord’s body were not truly present, the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of Christ’s spirit. We have determined that not only the Roman Church affirms Christ’s bodily presence. The Greek Church also now believes, and formerly believed, the same. [Ap X 54–55; Quarto]
Testimony is produced from Cyril that Christ dwells also bodily in us in the Holy Supper by the communication of His flesh.
[12] Afterward, the people at Augsburg who delivered their own Confession about this article seemed to be willing to approve the Confession of our churches. Then the following Formula Concordiae (i.e., articles of Christian agreement) between the Saxon theologians and those of Upper Germany was composed and signed at Wittenberg in 1536 by Dr. Martin Luther and other theologians on both sides:
[13] We have heard how Mr. Martin Bucer explained his own opinion and the opinion of the other preachers who came with him from the cities. About the Holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, they taught the following:
[14] They confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that in this Sacrament there are two things, a heavenly and an earthly. So they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered, and received. They do not believe in transubstantiation (i.e., an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ). Nor do they hold that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread locally [localiter] (i.e., otherwise permanently united with the bread and wine even after the use of the Sacrament). Yet they concede that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, and such. [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] Second, they hold that the institution of this Sacrament made by Christ is effective in Christendom, and that it does not depend on the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister who offers the Sacrament, or of the one who receives it. Since St. Paul says even the unworthy partake of the Sacrament, they hold that the body and blood of Christ are also truly offered to the unworthy, and the unworthy truly receive them. This happens if 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 the grace and benefits of Christ are here applied to those who truly repent and comfort themselves by faith in Christ. They are incorporated into Christ and are washed by His blood.
[17] In the following year, the chief theologians of the Augsburg Confession assembled from all Germany at Smalcald and deliberated about what to present in the Council about 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 these articles the proper and true meaning is clearly expressed in short, plain words. They agree most accurately with Christ’s words. Every device and loophole is barred to the Sacramentarians. [18] (They had interpreted the Formula Concordiae—the above-mentioned articles of union, framed the preceding year—to their advantage. They perverted them to say that Christ’s body 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 by the “sacramental union” only the spiritual presence of the Lord Christ by faith is meant). [19] Here is what [the Smalcald Articles III VI 1] declare:
The bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood. These are given and received not only by the godly but also by wicked Christians. [1 Corinthians 11:29–30]
[20] Dr. Luther has also more fully expounded and confirmed this opinion from God’s Word in the Large Catechism [V 8], where it is written:
“Now, what 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 Christ’s Word to eat and to drink.”
[21] And shortly after [LC V 10]:
It is the Word, I say, that makes and sets this Sacrament apart. So it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, Christ’s body and blood (1 Corinthians 11:23–27).
[22] Again [V 12–19]:
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 Christ’s body and blood?’ and such, I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger” [see 1 Corinthians 1:25]. Now here stands Christ’s Word, “Take, eat; this is My body. … Drink of it, all of you; this is My blood of the new testament,” and so on. Here we stop to watch those who will call themselves His masters and make the matter different from what He has spoken. [23] It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard the Sacrament without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, by virtue of the words, it is truly Christ’s body and blood. What Christ’s lips say and speak, so it is. He can never lie or deceive [Titus 1:2].
[24] It is easy to reply to all kinds of questions about which people are troubled at the present time, such as this one: “Can even a wicked priest serve at and administer the Sacrament?” And whatever other questions like this there may be. For here we conclude and say, “Even though an imposter takes or distributes the Sacrament, a person still receives the true Sacrament, that is, Christ’s true body and blood, just as truly as a person who receives or administers it in the most worthy way.” For the Sacrament is not founded upon people’s holiness, but upon God’s Word. Just as no saint on earth, indeed, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine be Christ’s body and blood, so also no one can change or alter it, even though it is misused. [25] The Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief. For Christ does not say, “If you believe or are worthy, you receive My body and blood.” No, He says, “Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood.” [26] Likewise, He says, “Do this” (i.e., what I now do, institute, give, and ask you, take). That is like saying, “No matter whether you are worthy or unworthy, you have here His body and blood by virtue of these words that are added to the bread and wine.” Note and remember this well. For upon these words rest all our foundation, protection, and defense against all errors and deception that have ever come or may yet come.
[27] This is what the Large Catechism says, in which the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Holy Supper is established from God’s Word. This ‹presence› is understood to be received not only by the believing and worthy, but also by the unbelieving and unworthy.
[28] This highly enlightened man ‹Dr. Luther› foresaw in the Spirit that after his death some would try to make it seem that he had backed away from the above-mentioned doctrine and other Christian articles. Therefore, he has added the following protest to his Confession concerning Christ’s Supper:
[29] I see that schisms and errors are increasing proportionately with the passage of time, and that there is no end to the rage and fury of Satan. Hence lest any persons during my lifetime or after my death appeal to me or misuse my writings to confirm their error, as the sacramentarian and baptist fanatics are already beginning to do, I desire with this treatise to confess my faith before God and all the world, point by point. I am determined to abide by it until my death and (so help me God!) in this faith to depart from this world and to appear before the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ. [30] Hence if any one shall say after my death, “If Luther were living now, he would teach and hold this or that article differently, for he did not consider it sufficiently,” etc., let me say once and for all that by the grace of God I have most diligently traced all these articles through the Scriptures, have examined them again and again in the light thereof, and have wanted to defend all of them as certainly as I have now defended the sacrament of the altar. [31] I am not drunk or irresponsible. I know what I am saying, and I well realize what this will mean for me before the Last Judgment at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let no one make this out to be a joke or idle talk; I am in dead earnest, since by the grace of God I have learned to know a great deal about Satan. If he can twist and pervert the Word of God and the Scriptures, what will he not be able to do with my or someone else’s words? [LW 37:360–61]
[32] After this protest, Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this as well:
In the same way I also say and confess that in the sacrament of the altar the true body and blood of Christ are orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even if the priests who distribute them or those who receive them do not believe or otherwise misuse the sacrament. It does not rest on man’s belief or unbelief but on the Word and ordinance of God—unless they first change God’s Word and ordinance and misinterpret them, as the enemies of the sacrament do at the present time. They, indeed, have only bread and wine, for they do not also have the words and instituted ordinance of God but have perverted and changed it according to their own imagination. [LW 37:367]
[33] Dr. Luther, above others, certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession. He constantly remained steadfast in that Confession till the end of his life, and he defended it shortly before his death. He repeated his faith about this article with great zeal in his last Confession, where he writes:
I regard them all as being cut from the same piece of cloth, as indeed they are. For they do not want to believe that the Lord’s bread in the Supper is His true, natural body which the godless person or Judas receives orally just as well as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever (I say) does not want to believe that, let him not trouble me with letters, writings, or words and let him not expect to have fellowship with me. This is final. (Brief Confession concerning the Holy Sacrament [1544; LW 38:304])
[34] From these explanations, and especially from that of Dr. Luther as the leading teacher of the Augsburg Confession, any intelligent person who loves truth and peace can undoubtedly see what has always been the proper meaning and understanding of the Augsburg Confession on this article.
[35] In addition to Christ’s and St. Paul’s expressions (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), the following forms are also used: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread. With these words the papistic transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the bread’s unchanged essence and Christ’s body may be shown. [36] In the same way, the expression “the Word became flesh” [John 1:14] is repeated and explained by the equivalent expressions “the Word … dwelt among us” [John 1:14]; likewise, “in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” [Colossians 2:9]; likewise, “God was with Him” [Acts 10:38]; likewise, “in Christ God was” [2 Corinthians 5:19], and the like. These show that the divine essence is not changed into the human nature. But the two natures, unchanged, are personally united. [37] Many eminent ancient teachers, such as Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom, and others, use this comparison about the words of Christ’s testament, “This is My body.” Just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two substances—the natural bread and Christ’s true natural body—are present together here on earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament. [38] This union of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine is not a personal union (as that of the two natures in Christ). But Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement ‹Formula Concordiae› in the year 1536 and in other places, call it a sacramental union. By this they wish to show that, although they use these distinct modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received Christ’s words properly. They read, and have understood the proposition that the words of Christ’s testament (“This is My body”) are not a figurative, allegorical expression or comment, but are a unique expression. [39] Justin says:
This we receive not as common bread and common drink. We receive them as Jesus Christ, our Savior, who through the Word of God became flesh. For the sake of our salvation He 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 Catechism, especially in his last Confession, about the Lord’s Supper, with great seriousness and zeal defends the very form of expression that Christ used at the first Supper [LW 37:161–372; LW 38:287–319].
[41] Dr. Luther is to be regarded as the chief teacher of the churches that confess the Augsburg Confession. His entire doctrine in sum and substance is embraced in the articles of the frequently mentioned Augsburg Confession, which was presented to Emperor Charles V. Therefore, 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.
[The Words of Institution]
[42] This very opinion, just stated, is founded on the only firm, immovable, and undoubtable rock of truth. It comes from the words of institution, in the holy, divine Word. This was how it was understood, taught, and spread by the holy evangelists and apostles and their disciples and hearers.
[43] Concerning our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as our only Teacher, this solemn command has been given from heaven to all people, “listen to Him” [Matthew 17:5]. He is not a mere man or angel, neither is He just true, wise, and mighty, but He is the eternal Truth and Wisdom itself and Almighty God. He knows very well what and how He is to speak. He can also powerfully effect and do everything that He says and promises. He says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Luke 21:33); “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matthew 28:18).
[44] Consider this true, almighty Lord, our Creator and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, after the Last Supper. He is just beginning His bitter suffering and death for our sins. In those sad last moments, with great consideration and solemnity, He institutes this most venerable Sacrament. It was to be used until the end of the world with great reverence and obedience ‹humility›. It was to be an abiding memorial of His bitter suffering and death and all His benefits. It was a sealing ‹and confirmation› of the New Testament, a consolation of all distressed hearts, and a firm bond of unity for Christians with Christ, their Head, and with one another. In ordaining and instituting the Holy Supper He spoke these words about the bread, which He blessed and gave: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you,” and about the cup, or wine: “This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.”
[45] We are certainly duty-bound not to interpret and explain these words in a different way. For these are the words of the eternal, true, and almighty Son of God, our Lord, Creator, and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. We cannot interpret them as allegorical, figurative, turns of phrases, in a way that seems agreeable to our reason. With simple faith and due obedience we receive the words as they read, in their proper and plain sense. We do not allow ourselves to be diverted ‹from Christ’s express words› by any objections or human contradictions spun from human reason, however appealing they may appear to reason.
[46] When Abraham heard God’s Word about offering his son [Genesis 22], he had reason enough to debate whether the words should be understood literally or with a tolerable or mild interpretation. They conflicted openly not only with all reason and with the divine and natural law, but also with the chief article of faith about the promised Seed, Christ, who was to be born of Isaac. Nevertheless, when the promise of the blessed Seed from Isaac was given to him, Abraham honored God’s truthfulness. He confidently concluded and believed that what God promised He could also do, although it appeared impossible to his reason [Hebrews 11:17–19]. So also about Isaac’s sacrifice he understood and believed God’s Word and command plainly and simply, as they read according to the letter. He committed the matter to God’s almighty power and wisdom, which, he knew, has many more modes and ways to fulfill the promise of the Seed from Isaac than he could comprehend with his blind reason.
[47] We, too, are simply to believe with all humility and obedience our Creator and Redeemer’s plain, firm, clear, solemn words and command, without any doubt and dispute about how it agrees with our reason or is possible. For these words were spoken by that Lord who is infinite Wisdom and Truth itself. He can do and accomplish everything He promises.
[48] All the circumstances of the Holy Supper’s institution testify that these words of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (which in themselves are simple, plain, clear, firm, and beyond doubt), cannot and must not be understood other than in their usual, proper, and common meaning. For Christ gives this command at the table and at supper. There is certainly no doubt that He speaks of real, natural bread and of natural wine. Also, He speaks of oral eating and drinking, so there can be no metaphor (i.e., a change of meaning) in the word bread, as though Christ’s body were a spiritual bread or a spiritual food of souls. [49] Christ is careful not to use metonymy either. In other words, there is no change of meaning in the word body. He does not speak about a sign for His body, or about ‹a symbol› or figurative body, or about the power of His body and the benefits that He has earned by the sacrifice of His body ‹for us›. Instead, He speaks about His true, essential body (which He delivered into death for us) and about His true, essential blood (which He shed for us on the tree of the cross for the forgiveness of sins).
[50] Surely there is no interpreter of Jesus Christ’s words as faithful and sure as the Lord Christ Himself. He understands best His words and His heart and opinion. He is the wisest and most knowledgeable for explaining them. He does not use allegory to make His last will and testament and His ever-abiding covenant and union. He does not use allegory 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 (e.g., circumcision, the various offerings in the Old Testament, and Holy Baptism). He does not use allegorical words, but entirely proper, simple, believable, and clear words. In order that no misunderstanding can take place, He explains them more clearly with the words “Given for you,” “shed for you.” [51] He also lets His disciples rest in the simple, proper sense, and commands them that they should teach all nations to keep what He had commanded them, the apostles.
[52] All three evangelists (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20) and St. Paul, after Christ’s ascension, received the same ‹institution of the Lord’s Supper› (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Unanimously and with the same words and syllables they repeat these distinct, clear, firm, and true words of Christ about the consecrated and distributed bread, “This is My body.” They all repeat these words in one way, without any interpretation, turn of phrase, ‹figure,› and change. [53] Therefore, there is no doubt about the other part of the Sacrament. The words of Luke and Paul, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood,” can have no other meaning than what St. Matthew and St. Mark give: “This [namely, what you orally drink out of the cup] is My blood of the covenant,” whereby I establish, seal, and confirm with you men this: My testament and new covenant (i.e., the forgiveness of sins).
[54] St. Paul repeats, confirms, and explains Christ’s words where he writes as follows, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16). This is to be considered with all diligence and seriousness. It is 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 that Christ blessed at the first Supper, and not only the bread that Christ broke and distributed, but also the bread we break and the cup we bless, is the communion of Christ’s body and blood. So all who eat this bread and drink of this cup truly receive, and are partakers of, Christ’s true body and blood. [55] Imagine that Christ’s body was present and partaken of—not truly and essentially—but only according to its power and efficacy. Then 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 [Ap X 54 Quarto]. [56] Now imagine that Paul were speaking only of the spiritual communion of Christ’s body through faith (as the Sacramentarians pervert this passage). Then Paul would not say that the bread, but that the spirit or faith, was the communion of Christ’s body. But he says that the bread is the communion of Christ’s body and that all who partake of the consecrated bread also become partakers of Christ’s body. Therefore, he must indeed be speaking not of a spiritual but of a sacramental or oral participation of Christ’s body, which is common to godly Christians and godless Christians ‹those who are Christians only in name›.
[57] This is shown also by the causes and circumstances of this entire exposition of St. Paul. For he frightens and warns those who ate of offerings to idols and had fellowship with heathen devil-worship, and nevertheless went also to the Lord’s table and became partakers of Christ’s body and blood. He warns them so that they do not receive Christ’s body and blood for judgment and condemnation to themselves. For all those who become partakers of the consecrated and broken bread in the Supper have communion also with Christ’s body. Therefore, St. Paul cannot be speaking of spiritual communion with Christ, which no person can abuse, and against which also no one is to be warned.
[58] Our dear fathers and predecessors, like Luther and other pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession, explain this statement of Paul in such a way that it agrees completely with Christ’s words. They write that the bread we break is the distributed body of Christ, or the common ‹communicated› body of Christ, distributed to those who receive the broken bread.
[Two Types of Eating]
[59] We unanimously abide by this simple, well-founded explanation of this glorious testimony (1 Corinthians 10). We are truly shocked that some are now so bold that they venture to quote the passage below. Previously, even they attributed this to the Sacramentarians, as a foundation for their error. Now they say that in the Supper Christ’s body is only partaken of spiritually.
The bread is the communion of Christ’s body. In other words, it is that by which we have fellowship with Christ’s body, which is the Church. Or it is the means by which we believers are united with Christ, just as the Word of the Gospel, received by faith, is a means through which we are spiritually united to Christ and built into Christ’s body, which is the Church.
[60] It is not only godly, pious, and believing Christians who orally receive Christ’s ‹true› body and blood in the Sacrament. So do unworthy, godless hypocrites, like Judas and his ilk, who have no spiritual communion with Christ, and who go to the Lord’s Table without true repentance and conversion to God. St. Paul teaches clearly that by their unworthy eating and drinking they grievously sin against Christ’s body and blood. For he says:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner [sins not merely against the bread and wine, not merely against the signs or symbols and emblems of the body and blood, but] will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27)
Such a person dishonors, abuses, and disgraces the body and blood, like the Jewish people, who by their actions violated Christ’s body and killed Him. The Ancient Christian Fathers and Church teachers have unanimously understood and explained this passage in this way.
[61] There is a twofold eating of Christ’s flesh. One is spiritual, which Christ describes especially in John 6:54. This “eating” happens in no other way than with the Spirit and faith, in preaching and meditation on the Gospel, as well as in the Lord’s Supper. By itself this is useful and helpful, and necessary for all Christians, at all times, for salvation. Without this spiritual participation the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not helpful, but is even harmful and damning.
[62] This spiritual eating is nothing other than faith. It means to hear God’s Word (in which Christ, true God and man, is presented to us, together with all benefits that 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). It means to receive it with faith and keep it for ourselves. It means that in all troubles and temptations we firmly rely—with sure confidence and trust—and abide in this consolation: we have a gracious God and eternal salvation because of the Lord Jesus Christ.
[63] The other eating of Christ’s body is oral or sacramental, when Christ’s true, essential body and blood are orally received and partaken of in the Holy Supper by all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine in the Supper. This is done by the believing as a certain pledge and assurance that their sins are surely forgiven them and that Christ dwells in them and is at work in them. This supper is received by the unbelieving for their judgment and condemnation. [64] The words of the institution by Christ clearly declare this. 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 He says, “Eat” and “drink.” In view of the circumstances, this command clearly cannot be understood as anything other than oral eating and drinking. However, this is not in a crude, carnal, Capernaitic way, but in a supernatural way, beyond understanding. [65] Afterward, the other command adds still another spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ says further, “This do in remembrance of Me.” He requires faith.
[66] All the ancient Christian teachers teach clearly and in full agreement with the entire holy Christian Church. According to these words of Christ’s institution and the explanation of St. Paul, Christ’s body is not only received spiritually through faith (which occurs also outside of the Sacrament) but also orally (not only by believing and godly people, but also by unworthy, unbelieving, false, and wicked Christians). Since it is too long to be listed here, we would, for the sake of brevity, have the Christian reader referred to the exhaustive writings of our theologians.
[67] It is clear how unjustly and wickedly the Sacramentarian fanatics (Theodore Beza) ridicule the Lord Christ, St. Paul, and the entire Church. For they call this oral partaking, and that of the unworthy, “two horses’ hairs and a device of which the devil is ashamed.” They also call the doctrine about Christ’s majesty “Satan’s excrement, by which the devil deceives and tricks other people.” In other words, they speak so horribly of it that a godly Christian person should be ashamed to translate it [quotes originally in Latin].
[68] It must also be carefully explained who the unworthy guests of this Supper are. They are those who go to this Sacrament without true repentance and sorrow for their sins, without true faith and the good intention of amending their lives. By their unworthy oral eating of Christ’s body, they load themselves with damnation (i.e., with temporal and eternal punishments) and become guilty of profaning Christ’s body and blood.
[69] Some Christians have a weak faith and are shy, troubled, and heartily terrified because of the great number of their sins. They think that in their great impurity they are not worthy of this precious treasure and Christ’s benefits. They feel their weakness of faith and lament it, and from their hearts desire that they may serve God with stronger, more joyful faith and pure obedience. These are the truly worthy guests for whom this highly venerable Sacrament has been especially instituted and appointed. [70] For Christ says:
Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28)
Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. (Matthew 9:12)
[God’s] power is made mighty in the weak. [2 Co-rinthians 12:9 Luther]
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him; … for God has welcomed him. [Romans 14:1–3]
Whoever believes in [the Son of God, be it with a strong or with a weak faith,] may have eternal life. [John 3:15]
[71] Worthiness does not depend on the greatness or smallness, the weakness or strength of faith. Instead, it depends on Christ’s merit, 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 twofold partaking of Christ’s body and blood. These happen either through faith, spiritually, or also orally, both by the worthy and the unworthy.
[Consecration and Administration]
[73] A misunderstanding and disagreement among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession has also happened about consecration and the common rule. Some say that “nothing is a sacrament without the appointed use ‹or divinely instituted act›.” [74] We have reached a brotherly and unanimous agreement with one another about this matter, declaring it in the following way. The word or work of any man does not produce the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper. This is true whether we consider the merit or recitation of the minister or the eating, drinking, or faith of the communicants. Christ’s presence should be credited only to Almighty God’s power and our Lord Jesus Christ’s word, institution, and ordination.
[75] Jesus Christ’s true and almighty words, which He spoke at the first institution, were effective not only at the first Supper. They endure, are valid, operate, and are still effective. So in all places where the Supper is celebrated according to Christ’s institution and His words are used, Christ’s body and blood are truly present, distributed, and received, because of the power and effectiveness of the words that Christ spoke at the first Supper. 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 effective by virtue of the first institution, which He wants to be repeated there through His word. [76] As Chrysostom says in his Sermon about the Passion:
Christ Himself prepared this table and blesses it. For no man makes the bread and wine set before us into Christ’s body and blood, only 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 Christ says: “This is My body,” the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper. The declaration “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” [Genesis 1:28] was spoken only once. But it is ever effective 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 up to His second coming it is effective 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›:
This command and institution of His have the power to accomplish this, that we do not present and receive not simply bread and wine but His body and blood, as His words indicate: “This is My body, this is My blood.” So it is not our work or speaking but the command and ordinance of Christ which make the bread the body and the wine the blood, beginning with the first Lord’s Supper and continuing to the end of the world, and it is administered daily through our ministry or office. [LW 38:199]
[78] Also:
Here, too, if I were to say over all the bread there is, “This is the body of Christ,” nothing would happen, but when we follow His institution and command in the Supper and say, “This is My body,” then it is His body, not because of our speaking or our declarative word, but because of His command in which He has told us so to speak and to do and has attached His own command and deed to our speaking. [LW 37:184]
[79] In the administration of the Holy Supper the words of institution are to be publicly spoken or sung before the congregation distinctly and clearly. They should in no way be left out. [80] Obedience should be rendered to Christ’s command, “This do.” [81] The hearers’ faith about the nature and fruit of this Sacrament should be aroused, strengthened, and confirmed by Christ’s Word (about the presence of Christ’s body and blood, about the forgiveness of sins, and about all the benefits that have been purchased by the death and shedding of Christ’s blood that are bestowed on us in Christ’s testament). [82] And ‹third›, the elements of bread and wine should be consecrated or blessed for this holy use, so that Christ’s body and blood may be administered to us to be eaten and to be drunk, as Paul declares, “the cup of blessing that we bless” [1 Corinthians 10:16]. This indeed happens 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 Christ’s institution alone, does not make a Sacrament if the entire action of the Supper, as it was instituted by Christ, is not kept. (For example, it is not kept when the consecrated bread is not distributed, received, and partaken of, but is enclosed, sacrificed, or carried about.) Christ’s command “This do” must be observed unseparated and inviolate. [84] (This embraces the entire action or administration in this Sacrament. 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.) St. Paul also places before our eyes this entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution and reception (1 Corinthians 10:16).
[85] To preserve this true Christian doctrine about the Holy Supper, and to avoid and abolish many 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. This means, if Christ’s institution is not kept as He appointed it, then there is no Sacrament. This is by no means to be rejected, but can and should be encouraged and maintained with benefit in God’s Church. [86] The use or action here does not mean chiefly faith. Nor does it mean the oral participation alone. It means the entire external, visible action of the Lord’s Supper instituted by Christ: the consecration, or words of institution, the distribution and reception, or oral partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, of Christ’s body and blood. [87] Apart from this use, it is to be regarded as no Sacrament, like when the bread is not distributed in the papistic Mass but is offered up as a sacrifice or enclosed, carried around, and exhibited for adoration. Likewise, the water of Baptism, when used to consecrate bells or to cure leprosy, or otherwise exhibited for worship, is no Sacrament or Baptism. This rule has been established at the beginning against these papistic abuses and has been explained by Dr. Luther himself [see Martin Luther’s Second Letter to Simon Wolferinus (July 20, 1543), Luther’s Works, Latin, Jena Edition 4:585; also in WA Br. 10:348–49].
[88] Meanwhile, we must call attention to the fact that the Sacramentarians artfully and wickedly pervert this useful and necessary rule. They do this to deny the true, essential presence and oral partaking of Christ’s body, which happens here on earth by both the worthy and the unworthy. They interpret this rule as referring to the spiritual and inner use of faith. They speak as though it were no Sacrament to the unworthy, and the partaking of the body happened only spiritually, through faith. Or they speak as though faith made Christ’s body present in the Holy Supper, and therefore unworthy, unbelieving hypocrites do not receive Christ’s body as being present.
[89] It is not our faith that makes the Sacrament, but only the true Word and institution of our almighty God and Savior, Jesus Christ. His Word always is and remains effective in the Christian Church. It is not invalidated or rendered ineffective by the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister, nor by the unbelief of the one who receives it. This is just like the Gospel. Even though godless hearers do not believe it, the Gospel is and remains nonetheless 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 nonetheless true in His words when He says, “Take, eat; this is My body.” He makes Himself present not by our faith, but by His almighty power.
[90] It is a deadly, shameless error that some people cunningly pervert this familiar rule to say that faith makes Christ’s body present and partakes of it, rather than the almighty power of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
[Christ's Body
and the Sacrament]
[91] Let us consider the Sacramentarians’ various imaginary reasons and futile counter-arguments about the human body’s essential and natural attributes, about Christ’s ascension, about His departure from this world, and the like. These have one and all been refuted thoroughly and in detail, from God’s Word, by Dr. Luther in his polemical writings: Against the Heavenly Prophets, That These Words, “This Is My Body,” Still Stand Firm. Likewise, he refutes them in his Large and Brief Confession concerning the Holy Supper and in his other writings. Since his death, nothing new has been advanced by the factious spirits. Therefore, for the sake of brevity we would direct the Christian reader to these writings and refer to them.
[92] We neither will, nor can, nor should allow ourselves to be led away by thoughts of human wisdom. No matter what outward appearance or authority they may have, they cannot lead us away from the simple, distinct, and clear sense of Christ’s Word and testament to a strange opinion, other than what the words read. According to what is stated above, we understand and believe the words simply. Our reasons are those that Dr. Luther himself presented. Upon them we have rested in this matter ever since the controversy about this article arose. [93] In the very beginning, these reasons were presented against the Sacramentarians in the following words (Dr. Luther in his Confession concerning Christ’s Supper):
My grounds, on which I rest in this matter, are as follows:
[94] The first is this article of our faith, that Jesus Christ is essential, natural, true, complete God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable.
[95] The second, that the right hand of God is everywhere.
[96] The third, that the Word of God is not false or deceitful.
[97] The fourth, that God has and knows various ways to be present at a certain place, not only the single one of which the fanatics prattle, which the philosophers call “local.” [LW 37:214]
[98] ‹Luther also says:›
Thus the one body of Christ has a threefold existence, or all three modes of being at a given place. [99] First, the circumscribed corporeal mode of presence, as when He walked bodily on earth, when He occupied and yielded space according to His size. He can still employ this mode of presence when He wills to do so, as He did after His resurrection and as He will do on the Last Day, as Paul says in 1 Timothy [6:15], “Whom the blessed God will reveal,” and Colossians 3[:4], “When Christ your life reveals Himself.” He is not in God or with the Father or in heaven according to this mode, as this mad spirit dreams, for God is not a corporeal space or place. The passages which the spiritualists adduce concerning Christ’s leaving the world and going to the Father speak of this mode of presence.
[100] Secondly, the uncircumscribed, spiritual mode of presence according to which He neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as He wills. To use some crude illustrations, my vision passes through and exists in air, light, or water and does not occupy or yield any space; a sound or tone passes through and exists in air or water or a board and a wall and neither occupies nor yields space; likewise light and heat go through and exist in air, water, glass, or crystals and the like, but without occupying or yielding space, and many more like these. He employed this mode of presence when He left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper, and, as people believe, when He was born in His mother.
[101] Thirdly, since He is one person with God, the divine, heavenly mode, according to which all created things are indeed much more permeable and present to Him than they are according to the second mode. For if according to the second mode He can be present in and with created things in such a way that they do not feel, touch, measure, or circumscribe him, how much more marvelously will He be present in all created things according to this exalted third mode, where they cannot measure or circumscribe Him but where they are present to Him so that He measures and circumscribes them. You must place this existence of Christ, which constitutes Him one person with God, far, far beyond things created, as far as God transcends them; and on the other hand, place it as deep in and as near to all created things as God is in them. For He is one indivisible person with God, and wherever God is, He must be also, otherwise our faith is false.
[102] But who can explain or even conceive how this occurs? We know indeed that it is so, that He is in God beyond all created things, and is one person with God. But how this happens, we do not know; it transcends nature and reason, even the comprehension of all the angels in heaven, and is known only to God. Since this is true, even though unknown to us, we should not give the lie to His words until we know how to prove certainly that the body of Christ cannot in any circumstances be where God is and that this mode of being is a fiction. Let the fanatics prove it! They will give it up.
[103] I do not wish to have denied by the foregoing that God may have and know still other modes whereby Christ’s body can be in a given place. My only purpose was to show what crass fools our fanatics are when they concede only the first, circumscribed mode of presence to the body of Christ although they are unable to prove that even this mode is contrary to our view. For I do not want to deny in any way that God’s power is able to make a body be simultaneously in many places, even in a corporeal and circumscribed manner. For who wants to try to prove that God is unable to do that? Who has seen the limits of His power? The fanatics may indeed think that God is unable to do it, but who will believe their speculations? How will they establish the truth of that kind of speculation? [LW 37:222–24]
Thus far Luther.
[104] From these words of Dr. Luther, it is clear in what sense the word spiritual is used in our churches in this matter. For the Sacramentarians think this word spiritual means nothing other than the spiritual communion, when true believers are incorporated into Christ the Lord in the Spirit and become true spiritual members of His body.
[105] When Dr. Luther or we use the word spiritual in this matter, we understand this: the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly way that Christ is present in the Holy Supper. He works not only consolation and life in the believing, but also condemnation in the unbelieving. By this use, we reject the Capernaitic thoughts of the crude and fleshly presence that is attributed to and forced on our churches by the Sacramentarians against our many public protests. This is also how we ‹want the word spiritually to be understood when we› say that in the Holy Supper Christ’s body and blood are spiritually received, eaten, and drunk. Even though this participation happens with the mouth, the way it happens is spiritual.
[106] Our faith in this article about the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Holy Supper is based on the truth and omnipotence of the true, almighty God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This foundation is strong and firm enough to strengthen and establish our faith in all temptations about this article. They overthrow and refute all the Sacramentarians’ counterarguments and objections, however agreeable and plausible they may be to our reason. A Christian heart can rest securely and rely firmly on these truths.
[Negative Statements]
[107] With heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all errors that do not agree with but contradict and oppose the doctrine mentioned above and founded on God’s Word, such as these:
[108] 1. The papistic transubstantiation. It is taught that the consecrated or blessed bread and wine in the Holy Supper entirely lose their substance and essence. They are changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood in such a way that only the mere form of bread and wine is left, or the accidents without the object. The bread is no longer bread. According to their assertion it has lost its natural essence. Christ’s body is present under the form of the bread even apart from the administration of the Holy Supper [e.g., 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, like the abomination of the sacrifice of the Mass for the living and dead.
[110] 3. Also, contrary to Christ’s public command and institution only one form of the Sacrament is administered to the laity. 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 our theologians’ other writings.
[111] However, in this document we have tried to present only our confession and explanation about the true presence of Christ’s body and blood especially against the Sacramentarians. Some of them shamelessly sneak into our churches under the name of the Augsburg Confession. Therefore, we will also state and list here especially the Sacramentarians’ errors, in order to warn our hearers to guard against and look out for them.
[112] With heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all Sacramentarian opinions and teachings. These do not agree with, but contradict and oppose, the doctrine presented above, founded on God’s Word:
[113] 1. They assert that the words of institution are not to be understood simply in their proper meaning, as they read, about the true, essential presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper. Instead, they are to be twisted, by turns of phrases or figurative interpretations, to a new, strange sense. We reject all such Sacramentarian opinions and self-contradictory notions ‹some of which even conflict with one another!›, however many and various they may be.
[114] 2. The oral partaking of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper is denied ‹by the Sacramentarians›. On the contrary, it is taught that Christ’s body in the Supper is partaken of only spiritually through faith. So in the Supper our mouth receives only bread and wine.
[115] 3. 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.
4. Or, they are only figures, comparisons, and representations of Christ’s far-absent body. Just as bread and wine are the outward food of our body, so also Christ’s absent body, with His merit, is our souls’ spiritual food.
[116] 5. Or, they are no more than tokens or memorials of Christ’s absent body. By these signs, as an external pledge, we should be assured that faith turns from the Supper and ascends beyond all heavens. There above a person truly partakes of Christ’s body and blood as he truly receives the outward signs with the mouth in the Supper. So the assurance and confirmation of our faith happen in the Supper only through the outward signs and not through Christ’s true, present body and blood offered to us.
[117] 6. Or, in the Supper the power, effectiveness, and merit of Christ’s far-absent body are distributed only to those who have faith. We become partakers of His absent body. In this way just mentioned, the sacramental union is to be understood with respect to the analogy of the sign and what is signified. This means the bread and wine have a resemblance to Christ’s body and blood.
[118] 7. Or, Christ’s body and blood can only be received and partaken of spiritually, through faith.
[119] 8. It is taught that because of His ascension into heaven, Christ is enclosed and restricted by His body in a definite place in heaven. He cannot or will not be truly present with us in the Supper, which is celebrated according to Christ’s institution on earth. But He is as far and remote from it as heaven and earth are from each other. Some Sacramentarians have willfully and wickedly falsified the text “Christ must occupy heaven” (see Acts 3:21) for the confirmation of their error. Instead of this translation they have rendered it “Christ must be received or be restricted and enclosed by heaven or in heaven,” so that in His human nature He can or will in no way be with us on earth.
[120] 9. Christ has not promised the true, essential presence of His body and blood in His Supper. He cannot and will not give it, because the nature and property of His received human nature could not allow or permit it.
[121] 10. It is taught that not only Christ’s Word and omnipotence, but also faith makes Christ’s body present in the Supper. For this reason the words of institution in the administration of the Supper are omitted by some. The papistic consecration is rightly rebuked and rejected, in which the power to produce a Sacrament is credited to the speaking as the priest’s work. Yet the words of institution can or should in no way be left out of the administration of the Supper, as is shown in the preceding declaration.
[122] 11. Believers are not to seek, by reason of the words of Christ’s institution, Christ’s body with the bread and wine of the Supper. Instead, they 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 the teaching about unbelieving and impenitent, wicked Christians who bear Christ in name only, but do not have the right, true, living, and saving faith. Some teach that they do not receive Christ’s body and blood in the Supper, 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 the distinction made among the unworthy. Some assert that when using the Holy Supper the godless Epicureans and scoffers at God’s Word (who are in the Church’s outward fellowship) do not receive Christ’s body and blood for condemnation, but they only receive bread and wine.
[124] 13. We reject the teaching that worthiness comes not only from true faith, but also from a person’s own preparation.
[125] 14. We reject this teaching: even true believers, who have and keep a right, true, living faith, and yet lack the so-called sufficient preparation of their own, could receive this Sacrament to condemnation, just like the unworthy guests.
[126] 15. 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 is an Arian heretic—can and will deny that Christ Himself, true God and man, is truly and essentially present in the Supper. Christ should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the Sacrament, as He is in all other places, especially where His congregation is assembled.
[127] 16. We reject and condemn also all daring, frivolous, blasphemous questions and expressions that are presented in a crude, fleshly, Capernaitic way about the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this Supper.
[128] Other additional antitheses, or rejected contrary doctrines, have been rebuked and rejected in the preceding explanation. For the sake of brevity, we will not repeat them here. Whatever other condemnable or erroneous opinions there may still be, over and above those just stated, can be easily gathered and named from the preceding explanation. We reject and condemn everything that is not in agreement with, but contrary and opposed to, the teaching recorded above and thoroughly grounded in God’s Word.