# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_December 1855_S377
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Lutheran Formula of Distribution, etc. 377

Testament for a loveless quibbling."*) But with all the greater weight
must we repeat our assertion, that here, in the deepest depth of the
mystery, there can be talk of no mere relation, but only of imparting,
of forceful appropriation, of faith-filled declaration; and that, just as
little as one may transform Baptism into a mere recitation of the act of
baptizing, with the words: '''Our Lord Jesus Christ says: Go into all the
world''' etc., just as little is one entitled to enervate the full content of
the words of distribution in the Supper through a similar circumlocution.**)
We stand with this assertion on the firm ground of Holy Scripture, of the
word of the Lord; we have the most weighty voices in the Church on
our side; what, by contrast, are a few Reformed agendas, two church
orders from the 17th and 18th centuries whose liturgical character has
not yet even been examined, and finally three church books from the
last 60 years, which stand only as warning signs, — what can these avail
against such a foundation, against such a cloud of witnesses?" (Op. cit.,
pp. 75–78.)

We think it is accordingly clear that the formula of distribution
favored in the Union Church, and proposed by Pastor Stohlmann for the
American Lutheran Church, is a thoroughly unfitting one, which an
orthodox Lutheran will least of all now allow to be imposed upon him
by immature liturgy-makers, now that it has become a shibboleth of the
Union Church.

Should it, then, still be necessary to spend a word in defense of that
formula, attacked out of sheer lack of understanding: "This is the true
body," etc.? Permit us to let Rudelbach once more take the floor on
this. He writes, namely, in the work already cited, p. 78, the following
further: "One will now also know how to appreciate the assertion that
that addition, '''Take and eat,''' as well as the other one, received in
several Lutheran church orders since the end of the 16th century, '''This
is the true body, the true blood,''' is solely a bitter fruit of the passionate
agitations against the Crypto-

*) We too agree with Rudelbach here, provided the reference is not to those who deny
the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, or who, like the
Unionists, leave it open whether one wishes to believe it or not. For as far as these are
concerned, it is clear that, by their choice of the words "Jesus says: This is my body,"
they put themselves on the same footing as the Jews, who could not bear the inscription
on the cross, "This is the King of the Jews," and wanted it set instead: "That he said,
I am the King of the Jews." (Luke 23:38; John 19:19–22.)

**) The late Tittmann judged likewise in his treatise on the union of the evangelical
churches (Leipzig 1818). He speaks, with reference to this, thus: "In this addition, in
this context, there is no other sense than if it read: Christ indeed says: This is my body,
etc., but you may take it as you like. The little word 'indeed' lies in the context, and so
does the contrast; otherwise the addition would not be needed." (Op. cit., p. 10.)