# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 05 30_S158
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

are truly changed into the body and into the blood of Christ, and that neither bread nor wine remains, for Christ says clearly and plainly: "This (bread) is (not bread, but) my body; this (this cup) is (not wine, but) my blood."

To this we answer as follows:

If it were indeed the case that the doctrine of transformation rested on a clear scriptural basis, then the fact that the Roman church confesses this doctrine would of course be no reason to reject it; indeed, we say it frankly and freely: could one convince us of it from God's Word, we would not ask in the least after the judgment of men, but would gladly accept this doctrine too, confess it before all the world without shame, and fight for it unto death. But far from the Roman doctrine of transformation (transubstantiation) having any basis in Holy Scripture, it is rather a pitiful offspring of human rational speculation, which not only goes beyond the Word of God but also flatly contradicts it.

It is indeed true: had Christ actually said, "The bread is my body," one would certainly have to grant that, according to these words of Christ, the bread would have to be his body either in a figurative sense, or would have to be changed into his body by means of Christ's word—for what is bread is not body, and what is body is not bread.*) But where does Christ say: the bread is my body? Nowhere! He says: "This"—namely, this which I give you together with what you see—"is my body." The apostle, indeed, names both the bread and the cup explicitly in 1 Cor. 10:16, but there he does not say that this is the body and blood of Christ, but only "the communion" of the body and blood of Christ. From this the reader can see that it is an empty fiction to claim that the proper and literal understanding of the words of institution leads to the Roman doctrine of transformation; this doctrine rests instead, like the Reformed doctrine, on the fundamentally false assumption that the little word "this" refers only to the bread, whereas Christ does not say that the bread is his body, still less that it is changed into his body. The true basis of this doctrine is thus a human addition to Christ's words, and a falsification of them.

*) It should be noted that Lutheran theologians, too, indeed make use of the manner of speech that the bread is the body of Christ, but they do so in an orthodox sense. By this they do not mean to say that the bread is essentially the body of Christ, nor even that it is merely representatively so, but rather sacramentally—namely, by virtue of the sacramental union that takes place between the body of Christ and the blessed element. Just as, speaking of Christ, one can say, "The man is God, and God is man," because a personal union exists between the two. Although, accordingly, the expression "The bread is the body of Christ" can be justified, this ecclesiastical expression is nevertheless not to be confused with Christ's own manner of speech, and least of all should the latter be interpreted according to the former.

In addition, this doctrine also flatly contradicts several sayings of Holy Scripture. We cannot dwell on this here, and refer our readers to the passages in which what is eaten and drunk in the Holy Supper, and of which one partakes, is called not only the body and blood of the Lord, but also expressly bread and wine (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:26–29), and these visible elements are called the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, as for the Lutheran doctrine of the Holy Supper, it does indeed rest on the literal, proper, and simple understanding of the words of institution. The Lutheran church teaches, namely, that both are present—the outward elements and the body and blood of the Lord—and this for the simple reason, first, as concerns bread and wine, that the evangelists expressly say Christ took and gave bread and wine, and second, as concerns Christ's body and blood, because Christ, in giving these visible things, said: "This is my body; this is my blood."

That Christ speaks in this way—that he does not say, "This is bread and my body," etc.—should surprise no one, since this is an ordinary manner of speech that occurs both in daily life and in Holy Scripture. For when one hands someone two things that are joined together, one contained within the other, especially when one of them is visible and the other is not, one usually, while pointing to both, names only the more important thing, the one that actually matters, and the one that is not visible; for example, in handing over a purse containing money, or a glass containing wine, one says: "Take this, this is the money I owe you"; "Take this, this is wine that I have grown"—by which one means neither that the money has been changed into the purse, or the glass into the wine, nor that money and wine are merely signified by purse and glass, but that both are contained therein and are thereby handed over.

It is the same manner of speech when Scripture says, "Thou art the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16), "This is my beloved Son" (Matt. 3:17). The "Thou" and "This" in these words point to the whole person of Christ, who was God and man at once, and yet only the divine nature is named, as the more important thing and the one not perceptible to the senses—which of course does not happen because the man Jesus had been changed into the Son of God, or merely signified him, but because deity and humanity were united in Christ, and in him dwelt the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily. So too John the Baptist says: "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove," John 1:32. At the sight of this dove John could have said, "Behold, this is the Holy Spirit," by which he would not have indicated that this dove had been changed into the Holy Spirit, or that it merely signified the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit was in the dove, had come with it, and revealed himself under this form.*)

*) Even Calvin cannot help but acknowledge that the words "This is my body," and, pointing to the dove, "This is the Holy Spirit," stand in the same relation. He writes thus in his commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11: "Why is the name of the body applied to the bread? I think all will grant that it is in the same way that John calls the dove the Holy Spirit. Now the circumstance with the Holy Spirit was that he had appeared under the form of a dove; hence the name of the Holy Spirit is applied to the visible sign. Why should we deny that the same manner of speech occurs here? … And I say that the name of the thing signified is applied to the sign not merely because it is a figure, but rather because it is a symbolic sign by which the thing is conveyed. For the comparisons that some draw from earthly and worldly things I cannot allow, because they have something different about them from the sacraments of the Lord. The statue of Hercules is called Hercules. But what is that other than a mere empty figure? The dove, however, is called the Holy Spirit, because it is a certain token of the invisible presence of the Holy Spirit. So the bread is the body of Christ, because it surely testifies that the body of Christ, which it symbolically represents, is given to us, or because the Lord, in giving us this visible symbol, at the same time also gives us his body. For Christ does not deal in deception, that he should deceive us with empty signs; therefore it is beyond doubt to me that here the real thing is joined together with the signs." Would to God that Calvin had followed the path he entered upon here; then the split in the Protestant church would not have been widened through him, but healed!

When, therefore, Christ says, "This is my body," etc., he points with the pronoun "this" to both things that he gives: to the bread, and to the body given in, with, and under the bread; but he does not name the bread, because the disciples' eyes saw this without his needing to mention it; he names only what could not be seen—the most important thing, what man could not otherwise know, and what was above all to be set before faith, namely his body and his blood.

Thus we hope now to have thoroughly demonstrated that the words of institution, "This is my body; this is my blood," are to be taken not in an improper, figurative sense, but according to their proper and original meaning, if we are not to depart from Christ's words, make him a liar, and follow the groundless notions of our reason, which perceives nothing of the Spirit of God and to which divine truth is foolishness. We hope, in particular, to have thereby rendered a small service to those to whom the larger works of our theologians are not accessible, but who are nevertheless eager for a comprehensive consideration of Christian truth. We have not sought to persuade, but to convince through clear grounds. May our modest labor not be entirely without blessing; should it only contribute to strengthening some reader in the simple adherence to the word as it is written, that would be for us the great reward that we alone seek.

Lord, preserve for us your Word, for it is the joy and comfort of our hearts! Amen!