6. The material of the Lord's Supper.
Because, on the basis of Scripture, the presence of the bread is to be held against the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, and the presence of the body of Christ against the Reformed doctrine of symbolization, there is in the Lord's Supper instituted by Christ a twofold material, which the Lutheran Church, following the terminology of Irenaeus, calls the earthly (terrena) and the heavenly (coelestis) material. Thus, the Formula of Concord states, "They confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that in this sacrament there are two
the relation of εκχυνόμενον to ποτήριον, although he considers the relation from εv τφ αΐματι possible. Luther deals at length with the question here involved, St. L. XX, 1060 ff, though he declares it unessential in relation to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. — With Luther it is also to be noted that the "in my blood" belongs to the whole statement: "This cup is the New Testament". It gives the reason why the cup is the New Testament. It cannot be merely bound with "this cup" because it is separated from it by the words: "is the New Testament". Luther: "These words, Luke 22:20: 'This is the cup, the New Testament in my blood', are not to be understood in such a way that this word 'in my blood' should belong to the word 'this is the cup', as this spirit pretends." (XX, 278.) "In my blood" also cannot be merely bound with ή καινή διαϑήκη, because it is separated from it in Paul by εστίν. Should it be grammatically bound with ή καινή διαϑήκη, then after εστίν the article had to be repeated and the text read thus: τοντο τό ποτήριον ή καινή διαϑήκη εστίν ή εν τφ εμφ αΐματι. Thus Luther, XX, 1059. That Luther was justified in asserting the missing article against Oecolampadius is acknowledged by Meyer. Meyer states: "ΪΕοτίν decides against the binding of εν τφ εμφ αΐματι with ή καινή διαϑήκη, followed by most (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, etc.), but rightly rejected by Luther (in the Great Confession). Christ says that the cup is the New Covenant by virtue of his blood, which is namely in the cup." On this occasion Philippi V, 449 gives Meyer a well-deserved rebuke. Philippi remarks: "But how great is the power of dogmatic prejudice is shown by the fact that Meyer, in spite of this correct grammatical interpretation, nevertheless immediately continues: 'For nothing but his blood, which was about to be shed, does the Lord see in the wine of the cup, before which vividly concrete but symbolic vision of the solemn moment the quarrel of the churches is the most cutting contrast.' Meyer thus decrees ex scrinio pectoris sui that a symbolic action is present, as if that were quite indisputable, and then in turn states the subject trope." Meyer makes use of the petitio principii, which is so familiar to the Reformed procedure of proof, as we encountered in the fact that on the part of the Reformed, images, parables and allegories are generally used to combat the Real Presence, whereby it is presupposed as already proven that the words of the Lord's Supper are to be grasped figuratively.
413 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 353-354]
things, one heavenly and one earthly." (Confitentur iuxta verba Irenaei eucharistiam constare duabus rebus, terrena et coelesti.)1323) The earthly materials are bread and wine, not indeed in themselves, but because the Lord's Supper is an act (actio) insofar as they are distributed and received. The heavenly material is the body and blood of Christ, which, when the Lord's Supper is celebrated after institution, are supernaturally but essentially or substantially bound with the bread and wine and are received. All substitutes for the twofold materials are to be rejected.
The earthly material of the Lord's Supper. As water and the application of water belong to baptism, so bread and wine and the act of eating and drinking belong to the Lord's Supper as earthly materials. As in baptism we dare not substitute another liquid for water, so in the Lord's Supper other elements cannot be substituted for bread and wine.1324) If this happens, doubts must necessarily
1323) M. 649, 14. [Trigl. 977, Sol. Decl., VII, 14 🔗] Baier III, 497: Materia sacrae coenae duplex est, terrena et coelestis. Ita nostrates communiter, praeeunte Irenaeo, qui lib. IV Adv. Haeres, c. 34 scribit: Qui est a terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et coelesti. [Google] The Greek words read, IV, 18 (Bened.): Άπό γης άρτος προσλαμβανόμενος την εκκλησιν τον ϑεον ουκέτι κοινός άρτος έστίν, άλλ'' ευχαριστία, εκ δΰο πραγμάτων σννεστηκνια, επιγείου τε και ουρανίου. on these words of Irenaus: Loofs, RE. 3 I. 47 ff; Kahnis, Dogmatik 2 II, 361 ff; Chemnitz, Fundamenta, c. X; Gerhard, L. de s. coena, § 103; Baier, Comp. theol. historicae, Loc. XVIII.
1324) Christ used bread (άρτος) at the institution of the Lord's Supper, Matt. 26:26, etc. That there was wine in the communion cup we see from the τό γέννημα τής αμπέλου, Matt. 26:29, etc. The proximate nature of bread and wine is not certain, thus adiaphoron. Walther writes (Pastorale, p. 168 f.) according to the procedures of the old Lutheran theologians: "An adiaphoron is whether the bread is leavened or unleavened, whether it is rye bread, wheat bread, grain bread, barley bread, or oat bread, and whether it has this or that shape, if it is only a pastry of grain flour and water. It is also an indifferent thing whether the wine is red or white, completely pure (merum) or mixed with water (which the Lord probably used according to the custom of the country), if it is only drink from the vine (γέννημα τής αμπέλου) according to Matt. 26:29. The pastor is to exercise the greatest caution lest something be used at Holy Communion which is sold as wine without being so. He is not to burden the church worker or any other person with it, but to consider that he himself is responsible above all for the use of true wine. It is a mistake, if the Greek and Roman church alone with the krama (οίνος ϋδατι κεκραμμένος == wine mixed with water), or if the Reformed
414 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 354-355]
arise as to whether we celebrate the Lord's Supper instituted by Christ. And as the application of water belongs to baptism, so also to the Lord's Supper that bread and wine are distributed and received. Where, as in the papist sacrifice of the Mass and in the feast of Corpus Christi, the elements are not distributed and received, there is no Lord's Supper and no Body of Christ, but only mischief and deception. It is a perfectly correct axiom: "Nothing has the nature of a sacrament outside the use ordered by Christ", Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra risum a Christo institutum.1325) Taking with the mouth or with the hand is an adiaphoron.1326) Lutherans also consider the breaking of bread during the celebration of the Lord's Supper to be an adiaphoron,
Beza, according to Calvin, wants to celebrate Holy Communion with some similar element substituted for bread and wine, or if the Gnostic Encratites in the second to the fourth century even forbade wine and used only water in its place even at Holy Communion, in which they have also been followed in more recent times by certain abstinence enthusiasts in America." In order not to carry a moment of uncertainty into the sacrament, one should also abstain from the use of the so-called grape juice, since there are doubts as to whether the said liquid is still τό γέννημα της άμπελον after the process of sterilization. RE.2 I, 53: "Surrogates for wine occur variously among the heretical sects: .... among the Encratites water, among others milk, honey, unfermented grape juice. … But the Church did not refrain from declaring all this unlawful and insisting on the use of actual wine." Since there is no doubt about the use of fermented grape juice, it is appropriate to the dignity of the sacrament to abstain from experimenting with all liquids of which it is not precisely known whether they are — resp. whether they are still — γέννημα τής αμπέλου. According to the latest legislation in the United States Congress, the use of fermented grape juice "for sacramental purposes" is not affected by the prohibition legislation. Thus, there is no reason to experiment with grape juice in this regard either.
1325) F. C. 649,15 [Trigl. 977, Sol. Decl., VII, 15 🔗]: "Except for the taking (extra usum), when one takes the bread aside and keeps it in the sacrament vessel (in pixide) or carries it around in the procession and shows it, as is done in the papacy, they do not hold that Christ's body is present." Even if bread falls to the ground or wine is spilled during the celebration of Holy Communion, the Body of Christ does not fall to the ground and the Blood of Christ is not spilled, because extra usum a Christo institutum his unio sacramentalis takes place.
1326) Some Reformed think that taking with the hand is essential. Chamier at Quenstedt II, 1242. That also the taking with the mouth is a right taking is also evident from Joh. 19:30. About the necessary caution in the distribution of the cup, so that the drinking really takes place, see Walther, Pastorale, p. 186.
415 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 355-356.]
in which some Reformed agree with them.1327)
The heavenly material of the Lord's Supper. ^ With regard to the materia coelestis it is also necessary to remain with the words of the Lord's Supper and to reject all humanly devised substitutes. Unfortunately, this subject must be treated at length. The following substitutes have been mainly proposed:
1. "The whole Christ," "Christ's person," "Christ's personality," etc. The Reformed theologians assure us that they let Christ's true body and Christ's true blood be in the Lord's Supper, only both stand synecdochically for the whole Christ, for the whole humanity and the whole Godhead, for the whole person, etc.1328) The Romans also want the "whole Christ"
1327) Most Reformed hold that the breaking of bread is essential, some, like Beza and Zanchi, declare it to be incidental (adiunctum accidentale) with Luther and the Lutherans, like other incidental circumstances reported of the institution of the Lord's Supper (night time, Upper Room, etc.). Most of the Reformed declare the breaking of bread during the communion to be essential, because through it the manner of Christ's death must be symbolically represented, and therefore without the breaking of bread the symbolic character of the Lord's Supper would not be fully represented. It has been rightly objected that what is supposed to be represented did not take place at all, because the Scriptures expressly reject the breaking of the body of Christ in the proper sense, Jn 19:36. The Lutherans very correctly say that Christ broke the bread in order to be able to divide and distribute it. They point to the constant use of language in Scripture for this. As it is said in the words of the Lord's Supper, "He took bread, gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples," so it is said Matt. 14:19 of the feeding of the five thousand: "He commanded the people to lie down, and took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looked up to heaven, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples"; Mark 8:6: "He took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples"; v. 19: "When I had broken five loaves among the five thousand"; v. 20: "When I had broken the seven among the four thousand"; Matt. 15:36: "He took the seven loaves and the fish, gave thanks, broke them and gave them to His disciples"; Luke 24:30: "It happened while He was sitting at the table with them, He took the bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them"; Is. 59:7: "Break bread for the hungry" : Lam. 4:4: "The young children ask for bread, and there is no one to break it for them." Therefore Luther says: "We must not interpret 'break' nor need it according to our conceit, but according to the scriptural custom. Now 'to break' in Scripture, especially where it is said of bread or eating, means as much as to break or to distribute." (St. L. XX, 1066.) Cf. Chemnitz, Fundamenta s. coenae, c. 8; p. m. 44 sq.; Philippi V, 426 ff; Walther, Past. [Pastorale] ., p. 169 f.
1328) The quotations in Heppe, Dogm. d. ref. K., p. 466 ff. Trelcatius, Scholast. et metliodica 11. com. s. theol. institutio, Hannover 1610, p. 240:
416 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 356]
to be the materia coelestis, in order to be able to prove that at the Roman Lord's Supper, despite the removal of the cup, the laity the laity do not miss out. 1329) Even newer theologians, including those who call themselves Lutheran, are in the habit of substituting the "whole Christ" for the body and blood of Christ, partly in the opinion that Christ's Supper is enriched in this way.1330) ¶ Against this it is to be noted: Of course, there is no question that the whole Christ is present, as in the universe, so also in particular in the church and in all church acts — thus also in the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper, however, Christ gives something that is the object of eating and drinking with the mouth, and this is not the whole Christ, but Christ's body and blood, as the words of the Lord's Supper read: "Take, eat, this is my body," etc. So in the Lord's Supper we receive with the mouth no more and no less than Christ's body and blood, the body with the bread and the blood with the wine. Therefore, the "concomitance", by which Rome wants to instruct the world that with the body of Christ also the blood of Christ is received, because the body is not without blood, is to be described as a pure invention. With right the characterization: Luther rightly characterizes concomitance as a nonsensical inference in the familiar coarse words.1331) By the way, it is not meant seriously at all when
"We do not exclude the whole Christ (Christ ipsum totum) from the Lord's Supper, since by the names 'body' and 'blood' synecdochically the whole humanity, indeed, his whole person, is understood." Calvin also uses "Christ's body" and "Christ" promiscuously, e.g., Inst. IV, 17, 30. Philippi rightly points out V, 295 the "arbitrary identification of Christ's body and the whole Christ" recurring in Calvin.
1329) Trid., sess.. 13, 6. 3: Totus et integer Christus sub panis specie et sub quavis ipsius speciei parte existit. [Google] Likewise can. 1. 3.
1330) Nitzsch-Stephan, Dogmatik, p. 667, says of the newer theologians: "The version of the materia coelestis is completely changed. For instead of the substances, namely, the body and blood of Christ, the living personality of Christ himself and his action have come to the fore; but a unio sacramentalis between it and the earthly elements is impossible in the old sense." Frank points out (III, 22 ff. 104 ff.) that even the later Melanchthon, in the times of his vacillation, used the expressions "body of Christ" and "Christ," or person of Christ, promiscuously. He wants to be content with it, Christ vere adesse et efficacem esse. [Corp. Ref. III, 514.
1331) Luther (XIX, 1686 f.): "The very finest thing in the bishop's note is that the parish priests should teach the people how under the one form the whole Jesus Christ, Son of God, God and man, in addition to being his body and blood, is eaten and drunk by the laity. … To this now establishes the concomitant, that is, the consequence. Because Christ's body is not without blood, so
417 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 356-357]
the Reformed teachers speak of the presence of the "whole Christ" in the Lord's Supper. They do not allow the "whole Christ" to be in the Lord's Supper any more than Christ's body and blood. Calvin not only denies that Christ's promise, "I am with you," is to be drawn from Christ even after His humanity, but also declares the Lutheran doctrine which professes this to be more intolerable and indecent than the Roman transubstantiation.1332) It is merely playing with words when Reformed theologians, in order to make their doctrine of the Lord's Supper appear quite rich and full, claim that they substitute the "whole Christ" and his "whole humanity" for the "body" and "blood" of Christ.
2. The benefits (beneficia) of Christ, the power (virtus) of the body and blood of Christ, Christ's merit, the forgiveness of sins, etc. Thus Reformed and more recent theologians.1333) Against this
it follows that his blood is not without the soul; it follows that his soul is not without the Godhead; it follows that his Godhead is not without the Father and the Holy Spirit; it follows that in the sacrament, even under one form, the soul of Christ, the Holy Trinity, is eaten and drunk, together with his body and blood; it follows that in any mass a sacrificer offers and sells the Holy Trinity; It follows that because the Godhead is not without the creature, heaven and earth must also be in the sacrament; it follows that the devils and hell are also in the sacrament; it follows that whoever eats the sacrament, even in one form or another, eats the bishop of Meissen, with his mandate and his note; from this it follows that a priest of Meissen eats and drinks his bishop twice in every mass; from this it follows that the bishop of Meissen must have a greater body than heaven and earth; and who wants to tell all the consequences more and more? But finally it also follows that all such followers are asses, fools, blind, mad, nonsensical, furious, foolish and raving; this consequence is certain. What devil told us to invent such things from our heads? … Who has commanded us to draw more into the sacrament than the clear words of Christ give? Who has made you sure whether these consequences are true? How do you know what God is able to do? How can you measure his wisdom and power, that he could not have a body and blood in the sacrament alone, that nevertheless his soul and divinity would not be in it, although his soul and divinity cannot be without body and blood? Who will refrain from finding and fathoming anything in such of his miracles apart from and above his words?"
1332) Inst. IV, 17, 30.
1333) Heppe, op. cit. Wolleb: Materia interna [coenae Domini] est Christus cum tota satisfactione et merito suo. Frank (III. 46 f.) rightly says of Calvin: "Calvin, who on the one hand maintains that the body of Christ is still given, indeed that the Holy Spirit nourishes us with the substance of his flesh and blood, denies on the other hand the communication of this very substance, in whose place he puts the beneficia, quae
418 > The Lord's Supper. [ed. ~ 358]
is to say: The "benefits of Christ" etc. are, as Lutherans and Reformed admit, not received with the mouth. Since in the Lord's Supper it is a question of oral reception, as is evident from the words of institution: "Take, eat, this is my body," the benefits of Christ are not to be used for Christ's body and blood as materia coelestis. Then, again, it must be remembered that in the Lord's Supper Christ gives us what was given for us in death and poured out for the forgiveness of sins. The benefits of Christ, Christ's merit, the forgiveness of sins, are not given for us and shed for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, to use the benefits of Christ, etc., as substitutes for Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper is a self-judging alloeosis. — By the way, again, it is not at all serious when Reformed theologians talk as if they allow "Christ's benefits," "Christ's merit," and "Christ's satisfaction" to be given in the Lord's Supper. Since, according to Calvinist doctrines, Christ's benefits and merit are not at all acquired for all men, they cannot, of course, be present in the Lord's Supper for all communicants. Here, too, there is only a playing with words.
3. The Holy Spirit and the action of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Calvin, at the same time dismissing the essential presence of the Body of Christ, says that the power (virtus) of the Holy Spirit is in the Lord's Supper. At this point Calvin becomes very eloquent. He says of the Holy Spirit that, overcoming all distances, He pours into the souls of believers.1334) In contrast, Calvin's successor, Beza, as we have already seen, judges that it is nonsensical to substitute the Holy Spirit and the action of the Holy Spirit in the
in suo corpore Christus nobis praestitit. In the Consensus Tigurinus it is said (Niemeyer, p. 215) of the Lord's Supper: Christ, "by remaining entirely after his body in heaven, descends to us with his power, totus secundum corpus in coelo manens, ad nos sua virtute descendit. [Google] Kirn also (Dogmatik, p. 130) rejects the actual version of the words of the Lord's Supper and has Christ "meet" his disciples in the act of the Lord's Supper in such a way that he "presents to them the healing powers of his body and blood given in death." Hodge also says (Syst. Theol., III, 646): "To receive body and blood as offered in the Sacrament . . is to receive and appropriate the sacrificial virtue or effects of the death of Christ."
1334) Calvin, De vera participatione Christi carnis et sanguinis Christi in s. coena in Tractatus Theol., Geneva 1576, p. 1167 sq: Tenendum est, nocn opus esse descendere carnis essentiam e coelo, ut ea pascamur, sed ad penetranda impedimenta et superandam locorum distantiam sufficere Spiritus virtutem. [Google] So often, also Inst. IV, 17, 24.
419 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 358-359]
Lord's Supper for the body and blood of Christ, because the Holy Spirit and the action of the Holy Spirit are not given in death and shed for the forgiveness of sins.1335) Incidentally, the Reformed are not serious about the gift of the Holy Spirit and the action of the Holy Spirit in the Lord's Supper either, since Zwingli and Calvin maintain that the Holy Spirit does not use such external things as the sacraments as "chariots" (vehiculum, vasculum, plaustrum).1336)
4. Spiritual fellowship with Christ and incorporation into the body of the church. This substitute for the materia coelestis enjoys special popularity both among the Reformed and the newer theologians.1337) To see the impossibility of this substitution, we need only recall how Beza takes to ad absurdum those of his co-religionists who want to substitute for the Body and Blood of Christ the benefits of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, if we wanted to substitute for materia coelestis "spiritual fellowship with Christ," the words of the Lord's Supper would have to read thus: Take, eat, take, drink; this is the spiritual fellowship with Christ given and shed for you for the remission of sins. And, Take, eat, take, drink; this is the insertion into the Christian Church, which is given and shed for you for the remission of sins. The spiritual fellowship with Christ as well as the incorporation into the body of the Christian church belong, of course, also to the Holy Communion. But they belong to the fruit and consequence of the faithful use of it, as is to be explained in more detail under the purpose (finis cuius) of the Lord's Supper.
5. The transfigured body of Christ, the "glorified human nature " of Christ, the exalted Christ, etc. Calvin allows the powers of the glorified body of Christ to pour into the faithful soul, and more recent theologians speak of a spiritual-bodily effect of the Lord's Supper, because in this sacrament the glorified body of Christ is received.
1335) Epist. 5 ad Alemaimum, p. 57, ed. Genev., in Gerhard, L. de s. coena, § 76: "Well, let us substitute for these words 'body' and 'blood' that exposition and say: This is the effect of my death, which is given for you, and this is my spirit, which is shed for you. Is there anything more foolish (ineptius) than this talk?"
1336) Zwingli, Fidei Ratio; Niemeher, p. 24. Calvin, Inst. IV, 14, 17.
1337) Calvin in his commentary on 1 Cor. 10:16; Zwingli in his response to Bugenhagen's letter, St. L. XX, 517; Kirn, Dogmatik, pp. 129 f.
420 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~359-360.]
But the words of the Lord's Supper say nothing about a glorified body, and neither the essence of the Lord's Supper (the real presence) nor the salutary effect of it (the forgiveness of sins) is to be based on the glorification of the body of Christ. Not being transfigured did not hinder the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the First Supper, and being transfigured does not promote its presence in the celebrations of the Lord's Supper that now take place in the Church until the Last Day. The Real Presence has its completely sufficient reason in the words of institution: "This is my body" and "This is my blood". Only in response to the Reformed objection that a human body cannot be present in several places at the same time do we point to the fact that Christ's body is not merely a true human body, but also the body of the Son of God, to whom Scripture expressly ascribes divine attributes communicated on account of the unio personalis — among these also omnipresence. ¶ Very correctly Walther says:1338) "The presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper is not to be based on the glorification of the body of Christ. The glorification gives only spiritual, not divine attributes to Christ's body. We believe that Christ's body is present and received in the Lord's Supper 1. because of the promise of Christ, 2. because Christ's body is the body of the Son of God." Walther attaches a warning to this: "Men like Sartorius and others, who have otherwise written many excellent things, use the glorification of the body of Christ as a support for the presence of the same in the Lord's Supper. But this is a false support, and false supports are as dangerous as an open contradiction. It is false to say that Christ can now give us his body in the Lord's Supper because he is glorified. In this false reasoning lies the fact that Christ could not give His body in an unenlightened state, which the first communion would annul." 1339) If
1338) Lectures 1874.
1339) Kromayer says to the reformed objection that also a transfigured body is not omnipresent: Ex epistula ad Phil. 3:21, quod corpus nostrum humile conformaturum sit corpori suo glorificato, cum tamen corporibus glorificatis omnipraeseutiam derogemus, obiiciunt. Sed respondemus distinguendo inter corpus glorificatum et maiestaticum. Christus humile corpus nostrum conformabit corpori suo glorificato, non maiestatico. Corpus glorificatum et spirituale quid sit, ex corpore Christi post resurrectionem et quibusdam actibus particularibus ante resurreationem ipsius discimus, v. g., quando factum fuit αφαντον, quando fores clausas
421 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 360-361]
the communicants now also receive the glorified body, because the glorified one is identical with the unglorified one, yet according to the words of the Lord's Supper it does not come into consideration as the glorified one, but as the one given there for our reconciliation (τό νπερ υμών δώόμενον), i.e. as the pledge and medium of the forgiveness of sins.
The sacramental union (unio
penetravit, quando fulsit instar solis in monte Tabor; corpus maiestaticum Christus ex unione personali eum λόγω et sessione ad dextram Dei obtinet. Quod omnipraesens sit, ad maiestaticum ipsius corpus pertinet. [Google] (Th. posit.-pol. I, 913 sg.; in Baier III, 501.) — Burger (RE.2 I, 37): "Against this objection" (that a human body could not be in many places at once) "the calling to the state of transfiguration in which Christ stood was not sufficient. For the glorification does not abolish the nature of corporeality as such, and no one would claim even of the transfigured children of God that by virtue of their glorification they could be bodily everywhere or at many places at once. But the Lutheran confession does not say this either. The power of the freest disposition over his corporeality, as it is ascribed to Christ in the institution of Holy Communion and in its continued celebration, does not come to him by virtue of his glorification, but by virtue of the union of human nature with divine nature in his God-human person. From this union of the divine and human natures in the unity of his person follows not a mixture of both, but a mutual communication of their powers and attributes (communicatio idiomatum). They are not bound together in such a way that each of them manifests itself separately from the other, but where Christ is and has promised to be, there he is whole, unmixed, but also unseparated according to both natures. By virtue of this marvelous, unique reception of the human nature in Christ into the fellowship of the divine nature, which is beyond human comparison, the spatial limitation of corporality is not applicable to the body of Christ, and he also has more than one way of being present wherever he wants, not only the spatial one, According to this, he is always enclosed in a certain place and cannot be in another place at the same time, but as all things are always and everywhere present to him, so he is also present to all things where he has promised to be, and no spatial barrier prevents him from also bodily exercising his presence in holy communion, after he has promised to do so. This is the so-called ubiquity of the body of Christ, not a spatial extension of his body through the whole universe, an unthought which would, however, annul the humanity, but the ability, which comes to him by virtue of the union with the divine nature, to prove himself bodily present everywhere where he wants to do so, and he has promised to do this in the Holy Supper. The possibility of this presence, then, rests not on the glorification of Christ, but on the union and mutual communication and interpenetration of the divine and human natures in the unity of his Person."
422 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 361-362]
sacramentalis). Since, according to the words of Scripture, there is a double matter in the Lord's Supper, namely bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ, it is at the same time taught that in the Lord's Supper there is a binding (unio) between the earthly and the heavenly element. This binding is appropriately called the unio sacramentalis. It consists in the fact that with the bread Christ's body and with the wine Christ's blood is received. ¶ All substitutes for the unio sacramentalis are to be rejected. Because the Romans allow only a sham bread in the Lord's Supper, they substitute transubstantiation for the unio sacramentalis. ¶ As far as the Reformed are concerned, they also use the expression unio sacramentalis. But because they teach that in this unio the body of Christ is separated from the bread of the Lord's Supper as far as heaven is separated from the earth, they describe their unio sacramentalis more closely as an image-forming union (unio significativa, repraesentativa, symbolica). This "representative" union has a very peculiar nature. It behaves with the same in such a way: Just as an image we have of the apostle Peter here on earth is bound up with Peter now in heaven, in that it represents the apostle to us in image and in this way makes him present to our spirit, so also the communion bread on earth is united with the body of Christ in heaven, in that the bread represents Christ's body to us and in this way makes the body of Christ present to our spirit. It should be noted, therefore, that when both Reformed and Lutherans use the term unio sacramentalis, they mean just the opposite. The Reformed understand by it the absence, the Lutherans the presence of the substantial body of Christ. The fact that many Reformed also call unio sacramentalis vera, realis, substantialis, etc., does not change this. Their opinion remains this: As a picture of Peter on earth pictures for us the real Peter in heaven, so also the bread in the Lord's Supper pictures for us the real, substantial body of Christ in heaven. The Reformed, in spite of their talk of a substantial body of Christ and a true, substantial union, do not get beyond the "imaging union," because they are quite willing to hold that Christ's body is as far separated from the Lord's Supper as heaven is from earth. ¶ The Lutheran church, on the other hand, holds to the scriptural concept of unio sacramentalis, according to which the bread and Christ's body are
423 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 362-363]
are so bound in the Lord's Supper that they are received in one undivided act with the mouth (manducatio oralis), as the words read: "Take, eat, this is my body." ¶ Following the twofold material and the unio sacramentalis, the question has been discussed how the mode of receiving the body and blood is to be described in more detail. It is to be said: 1. because the twofold material is bound into a sacramental unity, that is, because Christ gives his body with the bread and his blood with the wine, not only bread and wine, but also the body and blood of Christ are received with the mouth (manducatio oralis). But because the binding of the materia coelestis with the materia terrena is not a natural or spatial but a supernatural binding (no localis inclusio, impanatio, consubstantiatio), the body and blood of Christ are also received with the mouth not in a natural but in a supernatural way. The Formula of Concord, on the basis of the unio sacramentalis, holds to the oral reception of the Body and Blood of Christ on the one hand, and to the supernatural mode of reception on the other. It says: "Since Christ over the table (mensae assidens) naturally hands to his disciples bread and natural wine, which he calls his true body and his true blood, saying, Eat and drink, such a command, by virtue of the circumstances, cannot be understood otherwise than from the oral eating and drinking, but not in a gross, carnal, capernaitic way, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way."1340) Adolf Harnack, in characterizing Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, quotes only these few words, "The body of Christ is bitten with the teeth." 1341) We cannot but accuse Harnack here of falsifying history. Because Harnack quotes verbatim, he has looked up the words in Luther. To be sure, Luther says: "Whoever eats this bread eats Christ's body; whoever crushes this bread with teeth or tongue crushes Christ's body with teeth or tongue." But Luther immediately adds: "and yet it remains true throughout that no one sees, grasps, eats, or bites Christ's body as one visibly sees and bites other flesh".1342) If Harnack wanted to remain historically true, he would at least have to say: Luther teaches both, namely that Christ's body is eaten and bitten with the teeth
1340) M. 661, 64 [Trigl. 995, Sol. Decl., VII, 64 🔗]<w:t xml:space="preserve">1341) Grundriß der Dogmengeschichte 4, p. 434.
1342) St. L. XX, 1032.
424 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 363-364]
and that Christ's body is not bitten with the teeth. If he had then pointed to the relevant passage in Luther's writings, other people would have read there and immediately recognized in what respect both are true according to Luther's doctrine. On the one hand, Luther states that there is a "sacramental unity" in the Lord's Supper through Christ's institution. He says: "Here a unity of two beings has been established; I will call this sacramental unity, because Christ's body and bread are given to us there as a sacrament." After this sacramental unity, the matter stands for Luther thus: "What is done with the bread is rightly and well appropriated to the body of Christ." On the other hand, Luther holds that "sacramental unity" is not a spatial or natural union. He says, "After all, we poor sinners are not so foolish as to believe that Christ's body is in the bread in the gross visible way as bread in the basket or wine in the cup, as the enthusiasts would like to impose on us, to pin on us with our folly."1343) And in this respect Luther says: "and yet it remains true that no one sees, grasps, eats, or bites Christ's body". Frank is also confused on this point. He writes:1344) "The apologists [of the Formula of Concord] could only claim that Luther says this for the sake of sacramental unification and insofar only secundum quid, not simpliciter, and explicitly states that it remains true that no one sees, grasps, eats, or bites Christ's body. But this defense does not cover the vulnerable parts. For if for the sake of sacramental union it may be said that Christ's body is bitten, why not for the same sake that Christ's body is digested?" Frank has forgotten here that the words of the Lord's Supper refer only to the act of eating and drinking, but do not extend to "digestion." The bread in the Lord's Supper, according to Christ's institution, is not meant as bodily food. but as communion bread, that is, as the medium of the communication of the body of Christ. Only in this function is the unio sacramentalis there and therefore happens to the body of Christ what happens to the bread. Just as the bread that falls to the ground during the distribution is not the body of Christ, so also the bread, in so far as it is
1343) St. L. XX, 811.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1344) Theol. of F. C.. III, 141.
425 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 364-365]
bodily nourished and digested as bodily food (cibus corporalis), is not the body of Christ. Quite correctly Melanchthon, Brenz and others say in an expert opinion of 1557:1345) Insofar as the bread in the Lord's Supper is bodily nourishment, the essence of the sacrament has ceased. Cum facta sumptione panis descendit in ventrem et alteratur, estque iam cibus corporalis, desiit ratio sacramenti. [Google] If the Reformed theologians combat the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper and the manducatio oratis with the objection that then the body of Christ is also "digested," this objection is a gross lack of understanding and an unconscious or even conscious mockery of the Lord's Supper instituted by Christ. This explains the serious and sharp words of the Formula of Concord:1346) "We also command the righteous judgment of God against all impertinent, mocking, blasphemous questions, which decency forbids to mention, and talks, as in a coarse, carnal, capernaitic and abominable manner of the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this sacrament quite blasphemous and with great offence by the Sacramentarians are brought forward. As we hereby completely condemn the capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, as if one were tearing his flesh with teeth and digesting it like other food, which the Sacramentarians, contrary to the testimony of their consciences about all our manifold testimonies, willfully force upon us and thus make our doctrine detestable to their hearers, and hold against it, believing, by virtue of the simple words of the testament of Christ, that it is true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ as well as drinking of his blood (veram, sed supernaturalem manducationem corporis Christi, quemadmodum etiam vere, supernaturaliter tamen sanguinem Christi bibi docemus [Google]), but our minds are caught up in the obedience of Christ, as in all the other articles of faith, and such mystery is not comprehended otherwise than by faith alone, and is revealed in the Word."