# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1847 10 13_S150
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

the Lord was heartily praised for such unspeakable grace, and there arose so fervent and blessed a joy as no pen is able to describe. Almost all of Upper Germany joined the Concord. "We see from many clear signs," the men of Augsburg declared, "that this Concord comes not from men but from God," and they expressed their joy over it to Luther, very tenderly and nobly, in the following words: "We may rightly say with the apostle St. Paul: Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulations. For since nothing more grievous could hitherto have befallen Christendom than this discord between us, who would not take comfort and rejoice in this new, blessed beginning of a Christian Concord? . . . May our Lord Christ, who is our peace, and who came for this purpose, that he might reconcile us with his Father and make one out of the two, himself continually increase and preserve, unto the end, this mind and heart with which we have embraced one another, which he himself has also given, through his Spirit, out of mercy toward his Christendom. . . . As for our writing, Your Reverences should not doubt that we have sent you not a dead letter but our living heart; just as we also certainly hold that we have received from you not dead letters but the living heart of Christian love, as Your Reverences' words also clearly and expressly state: that you too wish to show yourselves toward us with such heartfelt and upright Christian love as we receive you with true love and faithfulness. Likewise: you may certainly assure yourselves in Christ Jesus that you can lay upon us nothing that we would not gladly and joyfully do, indeed also suffer, in order to confirm the Concord. When we read this, it seemed to us that we had received a particularly sweet taste of a wholly friendly heart, and we wish from God that whoever should presume to turn or disturb such a Christian heart and mind toward Your Reverences may himself be disturbed again by God; and on the other hand, that whoever helps to further this Christian Concord, by whatever means he can, may be repaid for it again by God." Hermann Fick.

Why Are the Words of Institution, "This Is My Body; This Is My Blood," to Be Understood Literally?

(Continued.)

4. We come now to a fourth reason why we must believe that these words are to be understood literally, and this reason is: because Christ is omniscient, and therefore could also look into the future. — That short-sighted man often expresses himself ambiguously is no wonder, for he often does not suspect and cannot foresee how his words may be misunderstood, and what sad consequences a single obscure and ambiguous expression used by him may have. But consider: Christ, the eternal Son of God, could look into the future; everything that later happened in his church once stood bright and clear before his eyes, as if it had already happened; he foresaw in how many millions of souls the question would arise: How are the words to be understood, "This is my body; this is my blood"? He foresaw what a fierce battle would one day break out over these words; he foresaw how his faithful servant Luther, and many thousands of upright souls after and with him, would be bound in their conscience not to depart from the true meaning of those clear words and not to arbitrarily attach to them a figurative meaning; he foresaw how the dispute over the true meaning of those words would result in a great, dangerous, and ruinous division of his church, the loss perhaps of countless souls, and altogether unspeakable, nameless grief and heartache in the church of the last times. Let one consider this and now ask oneself: if it had been Christ's will that the words "This is my body; this is my blood" should not be taken literally, as they stand, would it not then have been — it is dreadful to say — most unwise, unloving, and cruel of him not to have added that these words have a non-literal meaning, and what that non-literal meaning was? What? Before Christ's eyes the future lay like the present; he saw beforehand what discord would arise in his church over these his words, and how countless souls would perish over it; he already heard the sighing of the most faithful hearts for truth and clarity; he also knew that he could prevent all this if, instead of "This is my body," etc., he had said: "This signifies my body," or "this is a sign of my body," and the like — and should Christ have disregarded all this and, in defiance of the peace of his church, the rest and the salvation of countless souls, nevertheless have spoken in a figurative, obscure, and ambiguous manner? Would not Christ himself then actually bear the guilt of all the calamity that arose from the misunderstanding of his words? What? Could a Christian let himself be persuaded of that? No, far be it! As surely as Christ foreknew all the fates of his church, and also the struggles within it over the true meaning of the words of institution of his holy sacrament, so surely did he speak in just such a way that only he misses his meaning who does not take his words simply as they stand; so surely, then, are the words "This is my body; this is my blood" not figurative and non-literal, but to be understood according to the sound of the letters, that is, literally. A Lutheran Christian can be as certain of this as he can be assured of the wisdom* and love of his Savior.

5. A fifth reason for the literal understanding of the words of institution is furnished us by those passages of Scripture in which the holy Supper is also treated elsewhere. Thus, first, the apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:16: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Of this passage Luther writes: "This text I have extolled and still extol as the joy and crown of my heart. This is indeed a text so bright and clear as the enthusiasts and all the world could neither desire nor demand." (See: Great Confession of 1528.) And who must not join in this confession of our dear Luther? — When the opponents of the doctrine that in the holy Supper the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ are present and received with the mouth are confronted with the clear, plain words of institution, they usually respond: Yes, it does indeed say there, "This is my body; this is my blood," but one must also interpret it rightly. They say: who would dare reject Christ's own words? Far be it! Rightly interpreted, we accept them too."* But what is usually meant by the "right interpretation"? Evidently nothing other than an interpretation according to the fancy of one's carnal reason; for whoever truly wishes to accept the right interpretation which the Holy Spirit himself has given concerning Christ's words can do nothing else but take Christ's words as they read. Clearly and plainly the Holy Spirit said through Paul that the cup of blessing is not a sign but the communion of the blood of Christ, and that the bread which we break is not a signification but the communion of his body. These words are evidently so glorious a confirmation of the literal understanding of Christ's words that it could not be more glorious. These words are a veritable thunderclap for all those who deny the true presence of the body and blood of Christ, for even a child can perceive that if bread and wine in the holy Supper are the communion of the body and blood of Christ, then the latter two cannot be separated from the blessed elements; rather, both must be united with them, and truly and actually

* There are Reformed theologians who, in order not to have to abandon their false doctrine of the holy Supper, would rather abandon their faith in Christ's wisdom. Thus, among others, the notorious Albrecht Hardenberg, a preacher in Bremen who defected to the Reformed party in 1552, said: "Christ, occupied with thoughts of death, out of all-too-great sorrow and great anguish of soul, did not know what words he should use in instituting the holy Supper." (Schlüsselburg, Catalogus haereticorum, Tom. III, p. 295.) A sadly candid confession!

* Others are as candid as Hardenberg above, and say outright that one may look at the words of institution only "with the left eye, and must direct the right eye toward the whole of Christian doctrine," as Victorinus Strigel writes; indeed Schwenckfeld gives outright the rule: "One must put these words, 'This is my body,' out of one's sight, for they hinder spiritual understanding!" (See Luther's Short Confession of the year 1544.)