# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1847 08 17_S142
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

the mouth, though the manner is spiritual." (Ib.)

For Mr. Nast's further benefit, and for the further instruction of our dear readers concerning the actual doctrine of our church, let the following concise testimony of the godly Gerhard find a place here. "When we confess," he writes, "that we believe in a true, real (realem), and essential presence of the body and blood of Christ, we by no means mean thereby an impanation (impanationem), or an incorporation (incorporationem), or a consubstantiation, or a physical (natural) enclosure, or a local (spatial) presence, or a hiding away (delitescentiam) of a small body under the bread, or an essential change of the bread into the body, or a continuing binding of the body to the bread outside the use of the Supper, or a personal union of bread and body. Rather, we believe, teach, and confess that, according to Christ's own institution, in a manner known to God alone but incomprehensible to us, the body of Christ is truly, really, and essentially present, united with the bread of the Supper as with the means ordained by God, so that by means of that bread we take and eat the true body of Christ in this high mystery. This presence, however, is called, first, a sacramental presence — not because it would be merely a symbolic (schetica) presence represented in outward signs (signifieativa), but because in this mystery something heavenly is communicated and given to us by means of outward symbols.*) It is called, secondly, a true and real presence, so that a figurative, pictorial, and merely represented (repraesentativa) presence is excluded; it is called, thirdly, an essential presence, so that the notion of a mere power (or efficacy) of the body of Christ being present in this mystery is ruled out; it is called, fourthly, a mysterious (mystica), supernatural, and incomprehensible presence, because the body (and the blood) of Christ are present, distributed, and received in this mystery not in a manner of this world, but in a mysterious, supernatural, and incomprehensible manner." (See: Harmoniae Evangelistarum etc., continued by J. Gerhard. Chap. CCLXXI, fol. 784, Rotterdam edition.)

From this the reader can see that our Mr. Nast, in any case, was not standing on his own feet when he ascribed the doctrine of consubstantiation to the Lutheran church, but that in misapplied good nature he probably copied it from some rogue. This, however, is easy to forgive in Mr. Nast, since, as is well known, he came to America in an unconverted state and therefore, naturally, had until then felt no calling within himself to study Lutheran dogmatics thoroughly. Not knowing something is no disgrace (that is, after all, the common lot of mortals); only not wanting to learn something necessary is shameful. But Mr. Nast will certainly not allow this to be said of him, and will henceforth impress the above very instructive passage from Gerhard deeply upon his memory.

*) But this is precisely what constitutes the essence of a sacrament, as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are called.

As for the second point, namely the doctrine of the church fathers on the Holy Supper, we would, to Mr. Nast's credit, gladly assume that here too he did not see with his own eyes, and was therefore led astray by some unknown author, such as d'Aubigné, yet we cannot, with the best will, fully acquit him here of deliberate falsification, which really seems to have become second nature to him. First, it is plainly a dishonest stratagem which Mr. Nast employs when, before presenting the passages of the church fathers, he lays down the principle "that the church fathers wrote in a style overloaded with poetic images, and that their rhetoric consisted largely of hyperbole." By this he seeks to throw sand in his readers' eyes, so that whenever they find the Lutheran doctrine of the Holy Supper in the church fathers, they will always think: that is an image, that is a hyperbole (an exaggeration). A sensible person knows, of course, that it is not enough to say that this author is rich in imagery, and that therefore not all his words are mere images, but that there are certain rules by which one must decide where an author employs figurative speech and where he uses literal speech. But here Mr. Nast deals with the church fathers just as the rationalists deal with the Bible. By talking a great deal about the oriental figurative language of Scripture, these too know how to conjure away masterfully from Scripture its most important doctrines, such as that of the atonement, of the devil, and so forth. This habit of taking such sly detours probably still clings to Mr. Nast from the time of his unbelief. This does mitigate his guilt somewhat, for deep-rooted maladies do not vanish so suddenly; yet Mr. Nast should at least from now on watch himself more closely, so that he does not fall back into his old ways, since this is least becoming of all for a new founder of a religion.

A second trick to which we must draw Mr. Nast's attention is that he says he wishes to "cite passages proving that the early church... regarded bread and wine merely as symbols, tokens, and seals of the redemption through Christ's death," while he does not cite even a single passage in which a church father asserts that the earthly elements in the Holy Sacrament are mere symbols or signs. We must confess that this is again such a flagrant piece of falsification that we are tempted to chastise Mr. Nast severely for it. Let it suffice, however, to declare to him herewith that his whole series of citations from the church fathers proves nothing, absolutely nothing, for the Reformed and against the Lutheran doctrine of the Holy Supper, since the dispute is not whether bread and wine are signs in the Holy Supper, but whether they are mere signs. The former the Lutherans also assert, as Mr. Nast can easily see from the small old Württemberg Catechism, but the latter we deny. We maintain: just as the dove that hovered over Christ's head at the Jordan was a sign of the Holy Spirit, and yet the Holy Spirit was also truly present under this sign, so that, pointing to the dove, one could say, "that is the Holy Spirit" — so also bread and wine in the Holy Supper are indeed signs, emblems, symbols, etc., but not mere, empty signs; rather, the body and blood of Christ are truly present under these signs, for the Lord, who does not lie as certain people do, has said: "This is my body, this is my blood."

If Mr. Nast were familiar with the rules for interpreting a writer, he would not have committed such follies as the present one and drawn the conclusion: the church fathers call the elements signs, therefore they are mere signs. That does not follow at all. Note well: if a writer says something minor about a matter in one place and something important in another place, then the true interpreter is not the one who subtracts the important from the minor, but the one who takes both together and finds in them the whole of his author's teaching.

We have now given our readers the right key to understanding the church fathers; we do not consider it necessary, therefore, to take up Mr. Nast's alleged proofs one by one. Keeping in mind what we have noted, everyone will now, we hope, easily see through, even without our further assistance, the evasions by which the Apologete tries to mislead its readers. We will only mention this: that even the famous United [Church] professor Neander of Berlin, although by no means favorable to Lutheran doctrine, must nevertheless admit of Tertullian — who seems to teach in the most Zwinglian manner of all — that he was "scarcely capable of regarding the sign as a mere sign of the divine thing." (See Antignostikus, loc. cit., p. 519.) This admission must carry particular weight for Mr. Nast, since he has appealed precisely to Neander on the doctrine of the Holy Supper.

In passing, we must, for its own self-knowledge, draw the "Apologete's" attention to yet another falsification which it has again permitted itself in the number cited. We had, namely, quoted two striking proof-texts from Ignatius. But what does the "Apologete" do? It seeks to refute the first in a lame manner, while it passes over the second passage — which allows of absolutely no distortion — with dry feet, and yet continues with the words: "The next testimony which the 'Lutheraner' cites is from Justin Martyr." What, Mr. Nast, is that the next one? Do look again! Have you not found the other passage from Ignatius: "There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union with his blood"? Naturally one prefers to pass over such a passage rather than vainly attempt to interpret it in good Zwinglian fashion.

Since, however, we are about to travel to the conference, we must postpone communicating, from the church fathers cited by Mr. Nast, such passages as prove irrefutably that they regarded the elements not as empty signs but as the bearers of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

(Submitted.)
Methodism.

Not far from our present church stands another, older one, whose owners are, for the most part, members of the Evangelical Lutheran congregation of Neumelle. Into that church the Methodists crept in, without first asking our congregation's permission, and held worship services in it. Since our congregation now had to fulfill the Lord's command, "Beware of false prophets!", it charged its elders with locking that church and posting a notice on