# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_April 1856_S116
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

116 "In, With, and Under."

defended, was expressed with the word: consubstantiation, and this term has since been retained, in order thereby to designate briefly and pointedly the real distinguishing doctrine (for no one can deny or explain away that a real one exists) of the Lutheran Church, as it states itself in the peculiar formula: that the body and blood of Christ are presented in, with, and under the form of bread and wine, and are received, eaten, and drunk with the natural mouth by both unbelieving and believing communicants alike. It is, however, a question — one that was later, and again more recently, raised by the "Lutheran Standard" and by "Lehre und Wehre" — whether a real consubstantiation or impanation is contained in this distinguishing doctrine; whether it can hardly be denied that it was decisively asserted in the eucharistic controversy of that time over against the Reformed theologians (?); and whether it was later raised to a binding article of faith in the Formula of Concord or not." Two columns further down the same writer states: "We have already earlier examined with care the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church on this and other points, and have also read through with attention the article in 'Lehre und Wehre.' We would be glad if Prof. Walther should succeed in showing satisfactorily that the errors in question were never raised to an article of faith in the Lutheran Church. Concerning the paraphrase of the Lord's words, 'this is my body,' by 'in, with, and under,' the author promises to express himself still more fully." —

Our readers see from this that the editor in question of the "Reformed Church Gazette" holds, first, that it "can hardly be denied that consubstantiation and impanation were decisively asserted in the eucharistic controversy at the time of the drafting of the Heidelberg Catechism, on the part of the Lutherans over against the Reformed," and that this was really the actual question around which the struggle turned.

We do not doubt that the writer of the above extract truly believes what he has stated in it. We must, however, remind him that he has formed his opinion of the status controversiae between the Lutherans and the Reformed at the time of the drafting of the Heidelberg Catechism, without doubt, solely from writings that appeared at that time from the Reformed side. The polemical writings on the Lutheran side of that period would have convinced him otherwise. As long as there has been a visible Lutheran Church, it has protested — both privately and in its public confessions — against the doctrine of a consubstantiation and impanation imputed to it, as against a false teaching from the acceptance of which it is far removed. Neither from that period nor from any other can even a single private writing of a recognized Lutheran teacher be produced in which those errors are set forth as truths.