# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_April 1856_S117
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

"In, With, and Under." 117

Immediately before and after the appearance of the Heidelberg Catechism it was, as is well known, alongside Brenz and Heshusius, the Hamburg superintendent Joachim Westphal who stood as the Lutheran champion in the controversy against the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper, from the year 1552 to 1574, Westphal's year of death. Westphal, however, in his Apologia confessionis de coena Domini contra corruptelas et calumnias J. Calvini, published in 1558, one of his principal writings, devotes to the question "de locali inclusione" (of the local enclosure of the body of Christ in the blessed bread, or of impanation and consubstantiation) an entire separate chapter, and writes therein, among other things: "Luther himself once, at the first encounter, cut off the false accusation that a local enclosure of the body of Christ in the bread was being taught, and in his book containing the great confession concerning the sacrament of the Supper he distinguished in how many ways something may be said to be somewhere, and even then denied that he taught that the body of Christ is locally enclosed in the bread. Nonetheless the opponents afterward charged us with local enclosure, and to repel this charge he answered again in his last confession concerning this sacrament, which he published in the year '44. We also have on Luther's behalf, and on ours, the testimony of Dr. Bucer, who writes in his Retractations that he had wished to prevent an impanation of Christ, or a local enclosure of him in the bread, from being introduced, and confesses that his zeal had been untimely, and that he had paid too little heed to the authority of Luther and of certain others, nor had he rightly weighed the harm the Church suffered from that so great a schism — otherwise he would not have taken offense at the manners of speech which, as they agreed with Scripture, could be used without offense (pie), which Luther and those who hold with him employed; he had believed that through those manners of speech the delusion of an impanation of Christ, or at least of a local enclosure in the bread, was being introduced among the people, but in the course of the disputation, as Luther set forth the matter of the sacrament more fully, he saw that Luther bound neither the body nor the blood of the Lord to the bread and wine by any natural bond, nor locally enclosed either of them in the bread and the wine. Finally he testifies that M. Luther, and those who truly stand on his side and rightly follow his teaching, assert in the holy Supper no impanation, nor any local enclosure of the body of Christ in the bread, of the blood in the wine, but hold the true substantial presence and distribution of the body and blood of the Lord with the bread and wine in the holy Supper. If Calvin is acquainted with this so forthright and true testimony of Dr. Bucer, then he truly stands up with a very bad conscience as a false witness against manifest truth, and maliciously imputes to us something which Bucer has already justified us against in public