8. The purpose of holy communion.
(Finis cuius coenae sacrae)
That the purpose of the Lord's Supper is the forgiveness of sins has already had to be explained repeatedly and in detail in another chapter, especially in the section: "All means of grace have the same purpose and the same effect"1372) and in the section: "The relationship of the Lord's Supper to the other means of grace. 1373) We also saw already that this purpose of the Lord's Supper is not obtained by deduction from other scriptural passages or by theological construction, but is expressed perfectly clearly in the words of the Lord's Supper itself. When Christ adds to the words: "This is my body": "which is given for you" and likewise adds to the words: "This is my blood": "which is poured out for you for the remission of sins," he intended to evoke in his disciples at the first Supper, and in all subsequent repetitions of the Supper until the Last Day, the idea in all communicants that through Christ's atoning death they have a gracious God, that is, the forgiveness of sins. Any other understanding of the words of the Lord's Supper is absolutely excluded. Likewise, we saw that in the much disputed passage of Scripture, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood," the finis cuius of the Lord's Supper is directly expressed, because "the New Testament," according to the explanation of Scripture, is nothing other than the forgiveness of sins. Thus we hold: the Lord's Supper gives forgiveness of sins, and no other forgiveness of sins than the word of the gospel and baptism. The Lord's Supper, however, has a wonderful secondary circumstance which is not found in the other means of grace. In the Lord's Supper Christ confirms and seals the promise of the forgiveness of sins by the presentation of his body, which was given in death for us, and by the presentation of his blood, which was shed for us for the forgiveness of sins. In the Lord's Supper the forgiveness of sins is attested and sealed
act were prevented, the question arises whether, by virtue of the recitation that had taken place, the body of Christ was united to the bread in a secret way, even apart from the use of the bread, which consists in eating and was unexpectedly prevented. Here, surely, every sensible person would rather answer in the negative than in the affirmative."
1372) p. 127 ff. <w:t>1373) p. 343 f.
436 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 374-375]
through the presentation of the ransom by which it is acquired. Therefore Luther breaks out into the following praise of the Lord's Supper:1374) "I love it with all my heart, the dear, blessed Supper of my Lord Jesus Christ, in which he gives me his body and blood, also bodily, into my bodily mouth, to eat and drink with such exceedingly sweet, kind words: Given for you, poured out for you."
As is well known, from the beginning the accusation was raised against Luther that he so emphasized the essential presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper that he forgot about the "spiritual enjoyment" of the atoning death of Christ, that is, the forgiveness of sins. This was one of the many ways in which Carlstadt, Zwingli, Oecolampadius and comrades were able to deceive Christians about Luther's doctrine and thus to disrupt the church of the Reformation. Adolf Harnack and others have repeated the untrue accusation1375) Luther, however, held to the Real Presence with great determination because it is taught in Scripture, and departing from the Word of Scripture in one place makes the whole Word of Christ waver in principle and in consequence. Nevertheless, Luther maintains that the Real Presence is merely a means to an end, namely, a means of presenting and assuring the forgiveness of sins, through the appended words of Christ: "given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." After Luther has proved from Scripture in the Large Catechism "the first matters concerning the nature of this sacrament," namely, the Real Presence, he says of the purpose "for which the sacrament is finally instituted," namely, the presentation of the forgiveness of sins: "which is also the most necessary thing in it, that one may know what we are to seek and get there."1376) Luther by no means puts the real presence "in the place of sola fides,"1377) but he lets the real presence remain the support intended by Christ for sola fide. The Lord's Supper is for him "food for the soul"; "it is given for daily pasture and feeding, so that faith may recover and be strengthened."1378) But the "faith" of which Luther speaks here is for him nothing other than faith in the forgiveness of sins. The Lord's Supper falls under Luther's
1374) St. L. XIX, 1292.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1375) Dogmengesch., Grundriß 4, p. 433.
1376) M. 502, 20 ff. [Trigl. 757, 20 🔗]<w:t>1377) Against Harnack, op. cit.
1378) Large Catech. M. 502, 23 ff. [Trigl. 757, ibid., 23 🔗]
437 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 375-376]
concept of the "distributio meriti Christi".1379) Luther repeatedly inculcates that even the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper do not help, but only harm, unless there is faith in the heart in the words: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." And because the Reformed did not cease to postpone the status controversiae, and spoke of a carnalis esus of the sacrament on the part of the Lutherans,1380) even after the proceedings of Zwingli and Oecolampadius continued, to ascribe to the Lutherans an appetite for "human flesh,"1381) so also the Formula of Concord repeats Luther's doctrine that "without spiritual nourishment even sacramental or oral eating in the Lord's Supper is not only unwholesome, but also harmful and condemnable."1382) The Formula of Concord has Christ say about the purpose of the Lord's Supper: "By establishing, sealing and confirming this my testament and new covenant, namely the forgiveness of sins, with you men".1383)
If we want to formulate the finis cuius of the Lord's Supper as sharply as possible, we must say something like: The real presence is certainly a necessary condition for the wholesome use of the Lord's Supper. All who do not believe in the Real Presence should not use the Lord's Supper, because they do not distinguish the Body of the Lord.1384) But it is not faith, insofar as it believes the essential presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, that makes the use of the Lord's Supper wholesome, but faith, insofar as it believes the words "given and shed for you," that is, the forgiveness
1379) Luther (XX, 925): "The blind, foolish mind does not know that meritum Christi and distributio meriti are two things, and mixes them together. Christ once earned forgiveness of sins on the cross and purchased it for us; but he distributes it where he is, every hour and in every place, as Luke writes, ch. 24:46 f.: "Thus it is written, that Christ must suffer, and rise again the third day" (there stands his merit), "and preach repentance and remission of sins in his name" (there stands his merit distribution). Therefore we say that in the Lord's Supper there is forgiveness of sins, not because of the food, or that Christ there earns or acquires forgiveness of sins, but because of the word, by which he distributes such acquired forgiveness among us, saying: 'This is my body, which is given for you'. Here you hear that we eat the body given for us, and hear and believe this in the meal; therefore forgiveness of sins is distributed there, which was nevertheless obtained at the cross."
1380) Thus Calvin, Inst. IV, 17, 25.
1381) Bezas κρεωφαγία, p. 383, note 1256.
1382) M. 660, 61. [Trigl. 995, Sol. Decl., VII, 61 🔗]<w:t>1383) M. 658, 53. [Trigl. 991, ibid., 53 🔗]<w:t>1384) 1 Cor. 11:29.
438 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 376]
of sins through the Lord's Supper. It is the same here as, for example, in Christology. The belief that Christ is true God and man is a necessary condition for the saving faith in Christ.1385) But it is not faith, insofar as it believes the true deity and the true humanity of Christ, that makes saved. The devils also have this faith.1386) Only faith that believes in the forgiveness of sins, which Christ, true God and man, has acquired for him and promised in the Word of God and in the sacraments, makes him saved. All who deny the forgiveness of sins as the first and foremost end of the Lord's Supper make Christ's Supper practically worthless, no matter what they believe or do not believe about the nature of the Supper.
We still have to deal with this antithesis now. The forgiveness of sins as finis cuius of the Lord's Supper is denied by the Romanists. The Tridentinum pronounces the anathema on all who say that the main purpose of the Lord's Supper is the forgiveness of sins (remissio peccatorum).1387) Carlstadt sought to instruct Christians, "This is a mean and abominable pity that our Christians seek forgiveness of sins in the sacrament."1388) Likewise, Zwingli admonishes that while one should celebrate the Lord's Supper as a "commemoration" (commemoratio) of Christ's death, one should beware of the idea that forgiveness of sins is offered in the Lord's Supper.1389) The same teaching is given by Calvin. The Consensus Tigurinus warns against the idea "as if the visible sign, while it is offered, at the same moment brings also the grace of God.1390)
These admonitions not to regard the Lord's Supper as a presentation of the forgiveness of sins acquired from Christ are, of course, in accord with Zwingli's and Calvin's doctrines. Because both teach,
1385) Matt. 16:13 ff.<w:t>1386) Matt. 8:29.
1387) The quote is printed on p. 396, note 1282.
1388) On Anti-Christian Abuse, etc. St. L. XX, 94.
1389) Opp. III, 258: Coena dominica, ut eam Paulus appellat, mortis Christi commemoratio est, non peccatorum remissio. Ebenfo in Fidei Ratio, Niemeyer, p. 29 sq.: Si remissionem peccatorum [efficiat], ut una pars perhibet, ergo discipuli adepti sunt remissionem peccatorum in coena, frustra igitur Christus est mortuus. [Google]
1390) Niemeyer, Pastor 195: Aesi visibile signum, dum in medium profertur, eodem secum momento Dei gratiam adveheret.
439 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 376-377.]
that God's grace in Christ is not available at all to all men, but only to the elect,1391) so also the Lord's Supper cannot be the presentation of a grace that all communicants could take hold of by faith. But according to Zwingli's and Calvin's doctrines, there is no forgiveness of sins in the Lord's Supper for the elect either, since according to both doctrines the saving revelation of grace and the effect of grace on the elect takes place directly, in the secret action of the Holy Spirit, not through the means of grace.1302) The character of the means of grace, as of the word of the gospel and of baptism, so also of the Lord's Supper, always presupposes that Christ has acquired grace for all men, and that the efficacy of the Holy Spirit does not take place without the means of grace and alongside them, but through the means of grace. Therefore we have the following situation: Even if the Zwinglian-Calvinist Reformed were to teach according to Scripture about the nature of the Lord's Supper, namely the Real Presence of the body of Christ given in death and the Real Presence of the blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins, this would not have the slightest practical value as long as they deny the gratia universalis and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit working through the means of grace. But do not Zwingli and Calvin, in spite of their denial of universal grace, in hundreds of passages call the Lord's Supper a sign, emblem, pledge (signum, tessera, pignus) of the grace and benefits of Christ acquired through Christ's death on the cross? Admittedly, they speak in this way.1393) But they have no right to such talk as long as they hold to gratis particularis. If Christ's body is not given for all, then the sign of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper does not point
1391) Calvin, Inst. III, 24, 12. 15. Hodge, Syst. Theol., II, 323.
1392) Zwingli's Fidei Ratio; in Niemeyer, p. 24-26. Calvin, Inst. IV, 14, 17. Consensus Tig, ch. XVII. Hodge, II, 684: "Efficacious grace acts immediately."
1393) Calvin, Inst. IV, 14, 17; 17, 1. 11. In the commentary to 1 Cor. 11:24: Coena speculum est, quod Christ crucifixum nobis repraesentata. In the Consensus Tigurinus [Google] it says (Niemeyert, p. 193): Hic unus inter alios praecipuus (finis Sacramentorum), ut per ea nobis gratiam suam testetur Deus, repraesentet atque obsignet...[Google] In the Epositio to Cons. Tigur. Calvin even believes he may say: Facessat igitur putida illa calumnia, theatricam fore pompam, nisi re ipsa praestet Dominus, quod signo ostendit. Neque enim dicimus quidquam ostendi, quod non vere detur. [Google] (Niemeyer, p. 213.)
440 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 377-378]
all the participants in the Lord's Supper, and therefore none of them, to the grace purchased by Christ's death on the cross. If the faith of the individual is to adhere to "the sign", then the sign must necessarily apply to all. If the sign does not apply to all, then the sign is for the individual a support not for faith but for doubt. Zwingli and Calvin, to be sure, point to "the spiritual enjoyment" of the body and blood of Christ as on the strong side of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The Lutherans, by the doctrine of manducatio oralis, are said to eclipse, even make impossible, the spiritual enjoyment which is accomplished by faith. But it is obvious that Zwingli, Calvin and all those who follow them, for their part, make all spiritual enjoyment completely impossible as long as they deny that Christ's body is given to all men without exception. The same complete destruction of the "spiritual enjoyment" that takes place through faith also follows from the Reformed doctrine of a secret, direct action of the Spirit. First, faith, through which spiritual enjoyment is imparted, does not have as its object secret workings of the Holy Spirit in the human heart. The object of faith, insofar as it makes one a child of God, is the gracious disposition in God which Christ brought about by his atoning death and which he presents or offers to men in Word of God and sacrament. He who wants to make secret effects in the heart of man the object of faith teaches the Roman gratia infusa, not the Christian saving grace, which is always only gratuitus Dei favor propter Christ. On the other hand, such secret, direct effects of the Holy Spirit do not exist at all. What is spent for it is man-made. And the faith based on it is also man-made sentiment, which is wrongly put on the account of the Holy Spirit. This is as certainly true as all the revelation and effect of the Holy Spirit promised to us men is accomplished through the means of grace. Furthermore, the Zwinglian Calvinist Reformed have no right to speak of a "memorial supper" of Christ's death in binding with the Lord's Supper. A memorial meal of Christ's atoning death is had in the Lord's Supper only by those who hold the Scriptural doctrine that Christ died for all mankind. All those who hold to the doctrine of gratia particularis have in the Lord's Supper not a memorial meal, but a meal of doubt. Suppose an earthly host were to invite a hundred guests to a meal, but in the process
441 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 378-379]
declare that only twenty elect,1394) known to him alone, should come to the actual enjoyment of the meal, the hearts of the whole invited company would be filled with doubt. The same mood must take hold in all participants in the Reformed "memorial meal" as long as they hold to the error that Christ's death does not apply to all, but only to the elect. Finally, the Reformed have no right to the expression in which they finally all agree, namely, that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are "symbols" of the body and blood of Christ. The symbol extends no further than the thing symbolized. Now, if the body of Christ is not given for all, the bread and wine cannot be symbols of the body and blood of Christ to all participants in the Lord's Supper. Thus Zwingli's and Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper collapses in itself, both when we look at what they give up for the essence of the Lord's Supper, namely that bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and when we consider what they still want to hold up with regard to the fruit and effect of the Lord's Supper, namely that bread and wine are signs, symbols, etc. of God's grace, a memorial meal of Christ's death, and thus convey the spiritual enjoyment of Christ's atoning death through faith.
That the Romanists remove the forgiveness of sins from the Lord's Supper with an anathema, we have already proved with a quotation from the Tridentinum. The energetic removal of the forgiveness of sins from the Lord's Supper is completely understandable from the Roman point of view, because the Pope's empire is based on the uncertainty of the forgiveness of sins. But the extra effort with the anathema is unnecessary insofar as the uncertainty of grace follows by itself from the Roman doctrine that the absolution pronounced by the priest is based on repentance, the complete recounting of all mortal sins with all secondary circumstances, on satisfaction by works, and moreover on the intention of the priest to absolve.1395) These and other conditions exclude any certainty of gratia sacramentalis.
Equally effectively, all Arminian Reformed and all synergistic Lutherans remove the
1394) This relationship is seen in Calvin, Inst. III, 24, 12.
1395) Trident, Sess. XIV, c. 3-6. 8, can. 4-10.
442 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 379-380]
finis cuius, that is, the forgiveness of sins, from the Lord's Supper. If the attainment of grace depends on a cooperation, a lesser guilt, a right conduct of man, a human self-determination, etc., an insurmountable gulf is thereby fixed between man and the grace offered in the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper shares the characteristic of the other means of grace. It is only a means of grace and useful to a man who is in the knowledge of his worthiness of damnation, if the offering of the forgiveness of sins is not conditioned by any human achievement, worthiness, lesser guilt, etc. It is therefore valid with respect to the grace offered in the Lord's Supper. Therefore, with regard to the purpose of the Lord's Supper, it is necessary to stand firm against the Roman, Calvinistic and Arminian Reformed, also against all synergists: As certainly as Christ adds to the words, "This is my body," "which is given for you," so certainly is the presentation, assurance, and sealing of the free and full forgiveness of sins the proper and proximate purpose of the Holy Supper. Luther: "Which also is the most necessary thing in it, that it may be known what we are to seek and get there." [Trigl. 757, Sacr. of Altar, 20 🔗]
All other effects of the Lord's Supper are not coordinated with the presentation of the forgiveness of sins, but subordinated to it. As effects of the Lord's Supper are rightly mentioned: the strengthening of faith, the union with Christ, the union with the spiritual body of Christ, the Church, the promotion of sanctification, the kindling of love for God and neighbor, the increase of patience and the hope of eternal life. But all these effects are based not only partly but entirely on the fact that the Lord's Supper is the means of forgiveness of sins. Christian faith is by its very nature faith in the forgiveness of sins available through Christ's substitutionary satisfaction. Therefore, Christian faith can also be strengthened only in such a way that its object, through which it comes into being and exists, namely, the promise of the forgiveness of sins, confronts it through the means of grace ordered by God. Nor is there any other fellowship with Christ than that which is mediated by faith in the forgiveness of sins which he has obtained. All those who want to substitute a gratia infusa for this with Rome and with Zwingli and Calvin fall under the judgment: "You have lost Christ, you who would be justified by the law,
443 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 380-381]
and have fallen from grace." 1396) There is also no other fellowship with the spiritual body of Christ, the Church, than that which is both initially effected and perpetually maintained by faith in the gospel of the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake. All who seek other means of connection with the Church thereby lose, as fellowship with Christ, so also fellowship with His spiritual body, the Church. There is also no other means of bringing about Christian sanctification than faith in the mercy of God, according to which God forgives our sins for Christ's sake. As the apostle writes, "I exhort you by the mercy of God to offer your bodies for sacrifice," etc.1397) Nor is there any other means of kindling and strengthening love for God and neighbor in a human heart than faith in the love with which God has loved us, that He forgives sins to us unworthy ones for Christ's satisfactio vicaria alone. "Let us love him, for he first loved us!"1398) and, "If God has thus loved us, let us also love one another."1399) Likewise, Paul places the joyful hope of eternal life and patience under the cross merely in succession to justification, that is, the forgiveness of sins, by faith (δικαιωϑέντες ovv εκ πίοτεως κτλ.).1400) Now because in the Lord's Supper the divine forgiveness of sins, sealed by the body and blood of Christ, is thus offered in a particularly emphatic and consoling manner, it happens that the spiritual effects mentioned are peculiarly proper to the Lord's Supper. All those who, with Rome, Zwingli, Calvin, and more recent theologians, do not let the Lord's Supper be a means of forgiveness of sins primo loco, actually make all the effects of the Lord's Supper impossible. If they remain consistent, they make the Lord's Supper a human work that separates them from the grace of God in Christ.