Preface to the Christian Reader

Since the truth, the innocence of our churches, and our firm, certain foundation in Christ Jesus has now—praise God—come to light to such an extent, and has been revealed and explained through extensive, manifold writings to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. It is now clear that those who still consider our doctrine suspicious are, for the most part, lacking much more in conscience than they are in knowledge. Even the clamorers who speak against us here and there must leave our clear, irrefutable, correct reasons, proofs, and testimonies—drawn from the Word of God, the orthodox consensus of the ancient pure churches, and also from the Augsburg Confession and Apologia—unchallenged and unrefuted. Instead, they must resort to either terrible calumnies and blasphemies, or to defiant threats of the secular arm against our churches and those who are devoted to our Christian doctrine.

However, experience shows that there are still here and there some weak, simple, good-hearted people who are taken in by the impetuous, unceasing clamor. They act as if we were teaching a peculiar, erroneous doctrine about the Holy Supper that has been rejected by the universal Church. Because until now they have not obtained (or have not been permitted to read) our books, writings, and previously published defenses, we have had this report and defense newly printed for their benefit and to rescue the truth.

We do this so that such simple people may not henceforth sin against all right and fairness with false, unfounded judgments, and thus carry a bad conscience before God by refusing (as all justice demands) to hear the other side with modesty, consideration, and reflection. We also do this in consideration of what the ancient teacher Augustine writes (De Trinitate, Book 1, Chap. 3): that it is useful that sometimes various books are written about the same question and article of doctrine, nevertheless diverso stylo, non diversa fide—that is, with a different style of writing, but not with a different faith. And this, he says, is so that the heretics may be all the more strongly convicted when their manifold snares are countered in various ways.

Our churches have always testified—and all true Evangelical churches must confess this—that in matters of religion one should lay no other foundation than that which is laid: Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 3), who alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14). However, our opponents today build almost more upon certain human titles and names, or upon certain writings produced in our own time, than upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Therefore, our side has always demonstrated and proven that no human writings (whatever name they may have) can be given the same authority, dignity, and respect as the Holy Scripture and the certain, infallible articles of our universal Christian faith. (For whoever holds to these and agrees with them can in no way be declared a heretic or condemned).

Yet we have proven well (not only in the recently published Admonition concerning the Bergic Book [the Formula of Concord], but in other writings long before) that by the grace of God we are devoted to no doctrine that has been rejected by the Evangelical churches or by the Augsburg Confession. Indeed, we have shown that our very doctrine of the Holy Sacraments and the Holy Supper can be powerfully maintained and confirmed by the Augsburg Confession and Apologia, provided one understands them according to the Word of God and the unanimous testimonies and clear statements contained therein. Every simple Christian will perceive this from the questions and report [the Catechism], and indeed from the very own words of the Confession and Apologia.

Meanwhile, the opponent—as is unfortunately only too obvious—not only dares to declare as heretics and publicly blaspheme the principal writer and defender of the Augsburg Confession and Apologia [Philip Melanchthon], but also attempts to alter many points of the Confession, to introduce and append new ones, and to suppress and make suspicious its stately Recognition approved by all Evangelical Estates in the year 1541, as well as its Repetition. This is done so that, instead of such a Confession and useful explanation, the new Bergic Book [Formula of Concord]—forged in corners by the Ubiquitarians and Flacians—might be smuggled in, and the defiant pride, arrogance, and error of certain restless theologians might be maintained and canonized.

With what conscience those who wish to be considered Evangelical, pious, sincere, and simple can accept and attach themselves to such new doctrines and teachers—while rejecting the pure, clear doctrine and words of the Augsburg Confession, known and acknowledged at all Imperial Diets, under the pretext that the Flacian-Brentian crowd blames them as Sacramentarian or Calvinistic—we leave for all sensible and sincere people to judge. Consider whether such people do not bring the heavy wrath of God upon themselves and severely burden their consciences, since it cannot be justified before God nor the world when one condemns people without any right foundation or cause other than a common public rumor. And consider whether such people are not steering themselves toward public apostasy when they do not weigh and test these things, and no longer wish to hear the voice of the true Shepherd, nor the ancient confessions of our Christian Evangelical forefathers, but instead lend their ears to these new ambitious schemers and unauthorized condemners.

May the dear God grant grace, that human names and the prestige of persons may no longer blind the simple, but that Jesus Christ, the true Master and Teacher, may be heard, and that what agrees with His Word and the consensus of the orthodox churches may be accepted. Amen.

The Doctrine of the Sacraments from the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and Repetition, as well as the Frankfurt Recess, presented in Questions with their own words.

What are the Sacraments?

[a] They are ceremonies or external, [b] powerful, and certain signs, [c] seals, [d] pledges, [e] and testimonies of God's covenant, [g] and of divine grace and will toward us, [h] which have God's command and an attached divine promise of grace, [i] through which God reminds and strengthens our hearts to believe all the more certainly and joyfully, [k] and gives us that which the divine promise, which is attached to the same ceremonies, offers, [l] and what the external sign signifies.

• [a] Apologia, What a sacrifice is, etc. Item, Of the Church. Repetitio of the Sacraments.

• [b, e, g, i] Apologia, Of the Sacraments, etc.

• [c] Of Repentance. Item, what a sacrifice is.

• [d] Repetition of the Supper.

• [f] Apolog. Of Repentance. (Note: "f" is listed in the margin but absent in the text, likely a printer's placement error).

• [h] Apol. in the 13th Article.

• [k] What a sacrifice is.

• [l] Of Sacraments.

How many things are in each Sacrament?

[a] Two: the external sign, and the Word.

• [a] Apol. Of the right use, etc. Item, Answer to the Adversaries' Argument.

What is the sign?

[a] The ceremony. That is, the external sign or work, [b] which has God's command and is placed before the eyes like a painting, by which that is signified which is preached through the Word, [c] and like a seal and confirmation of the words and promise, as Paul also calls it.

• [a] Apolog. Of the Sacraments, etc. What a sacrifice is, etc. Of the right use, etc.

• [b] Of the Sacraments, etc.

• [c] Of the right use, etc.

What is the Word?

[a] The Word of the Gospel, [b] or promise of grace, [c] in which the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace is promised to us, [d] and all the benefits of the LORD Christ, [e] which is attached to the sign and properly belongs to the New Testament, and is the New Testament.

• [a, c] Confessio in the 13th Article.

• [b, e] Apol. Of the Sacraments. Item, Of the right use, etc.

• [d] Repetition of the Sacraments.

Why did God institute the Sacraments?

[a] Not only so that the signs may be [b] marks of profession and of the Christian estate and faith, [c] by which Christians may externally recognize one another, [d] and be reminded of brotherly relation and love. [e] But much more, that they are [f] signs of grace [g] and testimonies of the divine will toward us, attached as signs to the word of the Gospel. And just as the Word admonishes us to believe, and demands and awakens faith, so the Sacraments admonish us to believe, demand and awaken faith, as signs and seals of the Word. [h] For to this end the external signs are instituted: that through them hearts may be moved (namely through the Word and external signs together) so that they believe. When we are baptized or when we receive the body of the LORD, we believe that God truly wishes to be gracious to us through Christ, as Paul says: Faith comes from hearing, etc. [i] This is then the right use of the Sacraments. Here also is found the thank-offering or thanksgiving. For when the heart and conscience perceive from what great need, distress, and terror they have been delivered, they thank God from the bottom of their hearts for such an immense, unspeakable treasure. They also use the ceremonies or external signs to the praise of God, showing that they receive such grace of God with gratitude and esteem it highly.

• [a, c, e, g] Confessio in the 13th Article.

• [b, f] Apologia, Of the right use, etc. Repetitio of the Sacraments.

• [d, i] Apologia, Of the right use.

• [h] Of the Sacraments.

How do the Sacraments awaken and strengthen faith?

[a] Just as God gives the promise (or the Word) so that it enters the ears to awaken such faith, so He also gave the external sign and set it before the eyes, [b] to inwardly draw and move the heart to faith, [c] and to strengthen faith. For the Holy Spirit works through the Word and external signs, [d] and the Word and external signs work the same thing in the heart. As Augustine said in an excellent word: The Sacrament is a visible Word. For the external sign is like a painting, through which that same thing is signified which is preached through the Word. Therefore, both accomplish the same thing.

• [a, c] Apologia, Of the right use, etc.

• [b, d] Of Sacraments, etc.

What is the right use of the Sacraments?

[a] To the right use of the Sacrament belongs faith, which receives the divine promise and the promised grace that is offered through the Sacrament and the Word. For Sacrament and promise belong together, and the Sacraments are nothing other than signs and seals of the promise. Now, one cannot receive the promise in any other way than through faith. Therefore, faith also belongs to the right use of the Sacraments. And we speak here of faith in this way: that I believe for myself that my sins are forgiven me—not only a common faith that I believe God exists. [b] This true use of the Sacrament comforts and refreshes the conscience. Therefore, the Sacraments are rightly and powerfully used when one believes in them, and firmly holds to the faith that is strengthened by them—that God will give us what He has promised in the Gospel. For this promise He has instituted and ordained these signs and testimonies to admonish us, as Paul teaches concerning the use of the Sacraments in Romans 4.

• [a] Apologia, in the 13th Article of the Sacraments, etc.

• [b] Confessio in the 13th Article.

Do those who use the Sacraments without such faith also become partakers of these spiritual goods?

[a] The wicked and godless hypocrites have communion with the true Church only in external signs, names, and offices. But they are not the true people of God, nor members of Christ. [b] And nothing can be a Sacrament outside of the use which God has instituted. [c] An entirely different and foreign work is made out of the Sacrament when it is made into a spectacle held solely for external memorial, much like one plays a tragedy. For what God institutes are not merely external spectacles, but signs of His promise and grace, and they demand faith. Therefore, the ceremonies are only Holy Sacraments for those who exercise their faith in them. Without such faith, whereby one receives the sign as a testimony of the divine will toward us, to believe that God will certainly be gracious to us, the ceremonies are not a Sacrament, but solely an external, useless, vain spectacle. This is like the circumcision of the Jews and Turks today, or the sacrifices or tragedies of the heathens, and is a practice of idolatry no less than the false worship of Baal in the time of Elijah.

• [a] Apolog. Of the Church.

• [b] Repetitio of the Supper.

• [c] Apolo. recognit. Of the Masses for the Dead.

What is the rejected, erroneous counter-doctrine regarding the Sacraments?

I. [a] When it is taught that the Sacraments are instituted only so that they should be signs by which Christians may externally recognize one another, like a watchword or a banner in war, [b] and when one interprets the Sacraments only as pointing to love, and not much more to faith, and primarily to the faith needed as signs of the divine will toward us.
II. [c] Also rejected is the ugly, shameful, ungodly doctrine, [d] as an abominable blasphemy against God, and Pharisaical and heathenish hypocrisy, [e] and public idolatry, of the ex opere operato, that is, of the performed work. [f] That is, when one teaches that for the use of the Sacrament this faith is not required (the faith that the forgiveness of sins is offered, which must be received through faith), but rather [g] one teaches that the Sacrament, or the performed work, justifies and makes one pious before God simply for the sake of the work being done, and brings with it grace, [h] that is, the forgiveness of sins, and the entire benefit of redemption. [i] This same thing which is signified through the visible Word and external signs, [k] and is offered through the divine promise which is attached to these ceremonies, [l] even without this faith being spoken of, and even if the heart has no good thought toward it. [m] And it is taught that the ceremonies can be a Sacrament even when one makes an entirely different and foreign work out of it, outside of the institution, and makes an external useless spectacle out of it without such faith that God wishes to be gracious to us; just as the Jews and Turks today make a spectacle out of circumcision, and the heathens in former times kept many ceremonies inherited from their fathers.
III. [n] That God's Word and Sacrament are without power when the godless preach or administer the Sacrament.

• [a] Confess. and Apol. in the 13th Art.

• [b] Apol. Of the right use of the Sacrament.

• [c] Apolo. Of Sacraments.

• [d] Apol. Of the Mass.

• [e] Apol. Of Masses for the Dead.

• [f] Confess. in the 13th art.

• [g, l] Apol. Of Sacraments. Item, of the Mass. Confess. in the 13th Artic.

• [h] Repetitio of Sacraments.

• [i] Apol. of Sacraments.

• [k] What a sacrifice is.

• [m] Apolo. recognit. of Masses for the Dead.

• [n] Apol. of the Church.

How many Sacraments of the New Testament are there?

[a] Two: Baptism, and the Supper of the LORD.

• [a] Apologia and Repetitio of the Sacraments.

Concerning Baptism.

What is the sign of grace in Baptism?

[a] The entire ceremony or external work, in which God, or the minister in God's stead, baptizes us.

• [a] Apol. What a sacrifice is, etc. Repetitio of Baptism.

What is the promise that is signified and testified through this sign?

[a] That we are washed from sins and born again through the Holy Spirit.

• [a] Repetitio of Baptism.

What does it mean to be washed from sins and born again through the Holy Spirit?

[a] To be received into grace by God, redeemed through His Son Jesus Christ, to have the forgiveness of sins, and to be sanctified and renewed through the Holy Spirit.

• [a] Repetitio of Baptism.

Where is this promise attached to the external water bath?

[a] In the words: Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. [b] Item, He who believes and is baptized will be saved. [c] Item Galatians 3: All of you who were baptized have clothed yourselves with Christ. Item Titus 3: Out of His mercy He has saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Item 1 Peter 3: Baptism saves us, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God, etc.

• [a, c] Repetitio of Baptism.

• [b] Apolo. What a sacrifice is, etc.

Does the water then wash away sins?

[a] Only through faith are we freed from sins, through the blood of Christ.

• [a] Apolo. How we are justified before God. Item, of the forgiveness of sins.

Why then is such a thing ascribed to Baptism?

[a] Because it is a sign of grace, the forgiveness of sins, and sanctification, [b] so that it may be testified that God offers and gives us the same therein, according to His promise.

• [a] Repetitio of Baptism.

• [b] Apolog. What a sacrifice is, etc.

What is the right use of Baptism?

[a] That we believe, when we are baptized, that God truly wishes to be gracious to us through Christ. [b] And through this testimony it is confirmed that God makes a covenant with us and receives us into grace, and we, on our part, make a covenant with God to call upon this true God in true faith.

• [a] Apolog. Of the Sacraments, etc.

• [b] Repetitio of Baptism.

Since young children do not yet believe, why should one baptize them?

[a] Because the grace and Holy Spirit are also offered, promised, and given to them. And therefore, they should also be incorporated into the Christian churches through Baptism.

• [a] Apolo. Of Baptism. Repetitio of Baptism.

What is the rejected, erroneous counter-doctrine of Baptism?

I. [a] That Baptism is not necessary.
II. That Baptism should be repeated.
III. [b] That those who have sinned after Baptism cannot obtain forgiveness of sins at any time, even if they are converted.
IV. [c] Also rejected are the Anabaptists, who teach that infant baptism is unnecessary, useless, and wrong.

• [a] Repetitio of Baptism.

• [b] Confess. and Apo. in the 12th Artic.

• [c] Confess. and Apol. in the 9th Artic.

Concerning the Supper of the LORD.

What is the sign of grace in the Supper?

[a] The external ceremony, [b] which is a memorial of the death of Christ, [c] and is placed before the eyes as a visible Word and painting, by which that is signified which is preached through the Word.

• [a] Apol. What a sacrifice is, etc. Of the right use, etc.

• [b] What a sacrifice is, etc.

• [c] Of the Sacraments, etc. Of the right use, etc.

What is the promise that is signified and testified through this sign?

[a] The promise of grace and forgiveness of sins, [b] and of the entire redemption and benefits of the Son of God, promised in the Gospel, [c] which is attached to the sign. [d] For the Sacrament was instituted by Christ to comfort terrified consciences, to strengthen their faith, that they should believe that Christ's flesh is given for the life of the world. [e] And in this partaking [f] of the LORD Christ's ordinance of His Supper, He is truly, livingly, essentially, and presently there, and He certainly applies Himself and His benefits to us. With the bread and wine, He is truly given and received, and to us Christians His body and blood [g] is given to eat and to drink, and we are united with Christ through this food, having grace and life.

• [a, c] Apolo. Of the right use of the Sacraments.

• [b, e] Repetitio of the Supper.

• [d, g] Apol. Of both kinds.

• [f] Frankfurt Recess. Repetitio of the Supper. Confess. and Apol. in the 10th Article.

How is Christ essentially present, and given to us as food in the Supper?

[a] That we are not only united with Christ spiritually through true faith and pure love, but we also have a union with Him according to the flesh. Christ is the vine and we are the branches; [b] that we are united with Him, drawing sap, [c] grace, and life from Him, as Paul says: We are all one body in Christ. Although we are many, [d] yet we are one in Him, so that we all partake of one bread. And that we are in Christ and Christ is in us, makes us His members, washes and purifies us from our sins through His blood, remains in the believers, works comfort in them, and establishes this wonderful union with us. Of this He says: Abide in me, and I in you. Item: I am in them, and you in me.

• [a, c] Apolo. in the 10th Article.

• [b] Of both kinds, etc.

• [d] Repetitio of the Supper. Frankfurt Recess.

Where is this promise regarding the partaking of the bread and wine set in the Supper?

[a] The Word in the New Testament is the true promise of grace which is attached to the sign. And this promise in the New Testament is the promise of the forgiveness of sins. [b] As the text and the words in the Supper clearly declare the forgiveness of sins: This is my body, which is given for you. This is the cup of the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. [c] When we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, Christ says clearly, that is the New Testament. Therefore we should firmly believe that grace and the forgiveness of sins, which are promised in the New Testament, happen to us. And we should receive such in faith, comfort our terrified, timid conscience with it, and rely upon it with absolute certainty that God's Word and promise do not fail, but are as certain as if God had sent a new voice or new miraculous sign from heaven. Through this the grace is promised. [d] Paul also speaks explicitly of the partaking: The bread is the communion with the body of Christ.

• [a] Apolog. Of the right use, etc.

• [b] Of Repentance.

• [c] Of the Sacraments, etc. Item, Of Repentance.

• [d] Frankfurt Recess.

But are the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ itself?

[a] The Word offers us the forgiveness of sins, [b] and that we are united with Christ, having grace and life. [c] The external signs or Sacrament are nothing else than a sign, seal, and confirmation of the word and promise, as Paul also calls it. [d] And the ancients speak clearly that the nature of the bread remains, but with it the gifts are given, that is, the body and blood of Christ. Later, new modes of speech were introduced, claiming that the bread is transformed, like the staff of Moses into the serpent. After that, the monks invented another mode of speech: that the bread loses its essence, undergoes a transubstantiation, and is therefore the body in the form of the bread, even outside of the partaking.

• [a] Apol. Of the right use, etc.

• [b] Of both kinds.

• [c] In the 13th Article. Of the Sacraments, etc. Of the right use, etc.

• [d] Frankfurt Recess.

In what understanding, then, is it called the body and blood of Christ?

[a] That it is a memorial of the death of Christ, [b] and a Sacrament, that is, a seal and sign of the covenant and of grace in the New Testament, namely the reconciliation and forgiveness of sins. As the words clearly declare in the Supper the forgiveness of sins: This is my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. [c] And this Sacrament was instituted by Christ to comfort terrified consciences, to strengthen their faith, that they should believe that Christ's flesh is given for the life of the world, and that through this food we are united with Christ, having grace and life. [d] And Christ, with this bread and wine thus ordained by Him, gives us Christians His flesh and blood to eat and drink. He thereby testifies that we are His members and He works in us, as Hilary says: If one partakes of and drinks this, Christ is thereby in us, and we in Him. As Paul speaks of the partaking: The bread is the communion with the body of Christ, that is, the bread is the means by which the communion of the body of Christ is communicated to us.

• [a] Apolog. What a sacrifice is, etc.

• [b] Of Repentance.

• [c] Of both kinds, etc.

• [d] Frankfurt Recess.

What is the right use of the Supper?

[a] When terrified consciences are lifted up again through faith in the divine promise. [b] For the Holy Sacrament is instituted so that our faith may be awakened, and consciences comforted that grace and forgiveness of sins are promised to them by Christ. [c] And this is the right divine worship in the New Testament, for which Christ instituted this Sacrament. When He says: Do this in remembrance of me. To do such in remembrance of Christ is not a vain thing consisting only of gestures and works, solely for a memorial and as an example, as one remembers the histories of Alexander and such like. Rather, this means to know Christ correctly, and to seek and desire Christ's benefit. The faith, then, that recognizes the overflowing grace of God, makes one alive. And that is the right and most noble use of the Sacraments. There is also, and here is found, the thank-offering, or thanksgiving, that the heart thanks God for such a great, unspeakable treasure, and also uses the ceremonies or external signs to the praise of God. And so the Fathers speak of a twofold effect or use of the Sacrament. First, that the consciences are comforted; Second, that praise and thanks are given to God. The first properly belongs to the right use of the Sacraments, the other to the offering. Of this comfort Ambrose says: Go to Him, that is, to Christ, and receive grace. For He is the forgiveness of sins. He asks, but who is He? Hear Him Himself speaking: I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not hunger. There He indicates that with the Sacrament the forgiveness of sins is offered. He also says one should grasp such with faith. [d] Because Christ instituted the Supper, wherein through the divine promise the forgiveness of sins is offered, we are reminded that through the external signs our faith is strengthened, that through it we also confess our faith before the people, and praise and preach the benefits of Christ, as [e] Paul says: As often as you do this, you shall proclaim the LORD's death. Item, St. Paul says: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He names both bread and cup. The whole Church uses both, and makes a brief preface before it, that those who wish to use the Sacrament should receive it together.

• [a, c] Apol. Of the right use of the Sacraments.

• [b] Confess. Of the Mass.

• [d] Apol. Answer to the adversaries' Argument.

• [e] Confess. and Apo. of both kinds, etc.

What is received in the Supper without such faith?

[a] Just as the promise is in vain if it is not grasped through faith, so also the ceremony or external sign is useless; unless the faith is there which truly trusts that the forgiveness of sins comes to us, and comforts the terrified conscience. [b] For he who believes the divine promise, and receives the promised grace, which is [c] offered through the Sacrament and Word. Because the Sacrament is instituted so that consciences may be comforted and reminded that grace and forgiveness of sins are promised to them by Christ. Therefore, this Sacrament demands faith, and without faith it is used in vain. [d] He who now does not regard faith as necessary has already lost Christ. Therefore, hypocrites and evil persons are among the true Christians, members of the Church, only insofar as the external signs are concerned.

• [a] Apol. Of the right use, etc.

• [b] Of the Sacraments.

• [c] Confess. of the Mass.

• [d] Apolog. of the Church.

Who should use the Supper, and be admitted to it?

[a] Christ instituted this Sacrament for His memorial, and that is its most noble use of the Sacraments. From this, one may well notice who are properly fit for the Sacrament: namely, the terrified consciences, which feel their sins, are terrified before God's wrath, and long for comfort. Therefore the Psalm says: He has made a memorial of His wonders, the gracious and merciful LORD. He has given food to those who fear Him. [b] Also, the Church has the authority of a spiritual jurisdiction, that is, power and authority, to exclude from the Christian congregation those who are found in public vices. And to readmit them, when they convert, [c] and grant them Absolution with satisfaction. Since it is unseemly that one should admit those who have fallen into open vices without testing to the Sacrament, [d] therefore those should be banned and excluded who live in open vices like fornication, adultery, etc. Item, those who despise the Holy Sacrament. We hold this according to the Gospel and the old Canons.

• [a] Apol. Of the right use, etc.

• [b] Of the Power of the Church.

• [c] Of Confession and Satisfaction.

• [d] Apolo. in the 11th Art.

What is the rejected, erroneous counter-doctrine of the Supper?

I. [a] Those are rejected who teach that the Supper is not a sign of the divine will toward us, but is ordained only so that people may recognize each other by their profession, and that Christ with this sign [b] wished to remind us of brotherly relation and love, because eating and drinking together signifies a friendship.
II. [b] Item, those who teach that the LORD Christ is not essentially present, [c] and that the true body and blood of Christ are not truly present, [d] and distributed to those who partake in the Supper of the LORD. [e] And that there is no union with Christ according to the flesh at all.
III. [f] Item, of the error vom opere operato, of the performed work, which is a public idolatry contrary to all Scripture, Prophets, and Apostles, and a false worship [g] which the Antichrist has made in the Church out of the Supper of Christ, by teaching that the Sacrament is a sacrifice for sin to reconcile God. Out of this terrible error it followed [h] that an entirely different and foreign work, outside of the institution, a vain external spectacle, and using the ceremonies without faith, and differently than how it is ordained in God's Word, [i] was declared a Sacrament, just as the Persians carried around a fire and worshipped it as their god.
IIII. [i] Also the division of the Sacrament, contrary to the institution of Christ. [k] And those who treat their candles, altar cloths, pictures, and similar decorations as necessary pieces, and thereby establish God's worship, are the Antichrist's servants, of whom Daniel says that they will honor their God with silver, gold, and such decorations.

• [a] Apol. Of the right use of the Sacraments.

• [b] Frankfurt Recess.

• [c] Confess. and Apol. in the 10th Artic.

• [d] Frankfurt Recess.

• [e] Apolog. in the 10th Article.

• [f, h] Apol. recognit. Of the Masses for the Dead. Repetitio of the Supper.

• [g] Confess. & Apol. of the Mass.

• [i] Confess. and Apologia, of both kinds.

• [k] Apologia, What a sacrifice is, etc.

Further Report concerning the Holy Supper from the Augsburg Confession, Also concerning the Breaking of Bread and other Ceremonies from Dr. Luther's Writings.

The History of the Augsburg Confession

It cannot be denied, but rather the proceedings of the Imperial Diet openly acknowledge, that when the first Confession was presented at Augsburg in the year 1530 to Emperor Charles V on behalf of certain Electors, Princes, and Cities, no other intention or opinion occurred than that they appealed in that same Confession to the Holy Scripture and the unanimous consensus of the ancient, true Catholic churches. According to this, the Estates wished their Confession to be presented and understood. For thus it is stated therein at the 21st Article: “Since then this our Confession is clearly grounded in Holy Scripture, and moreover is not contrary nor opposed to the universal, Christian, indeed Roman Church, insofar as can be noted from the writings of the Fathers; therefore we also judge that our adversaries cannot disagree with us in the above-mentioned articles.”

Now, one also cannot deny that the article concerning the Holy Supper was initially framed in a Papistic manner and thus agreed with the Papistic Transubstantiation and transformation of the bread. The Papistic Estates understood and approved the mentioned article in this way and no other, as the first Apologia (in which the Canon of the Mass and the Papistic opinion are cited) sufficiently and clearly shows. But it happened soon after, in the following year of 1531, that this article, by common consent (as the Preface testifies) was corrected in the Latin copy to contain this German meaning:

“Concerning the Holy Supper it is taught that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat, and the contrary doctrine is rejected.”

If this briefly formulated Article is understood and interpreted in agreement with the words of Christ's institution, the foundation and rule of the entire Christian faith, and the unanimous opinion of the ancient orthodox churches, one can understand the true presence and partaking of the body and blood of Christ in His Supper in no other way than according to the nature and manner of the divine promise.

For at the 13th Article the Confession says thus: “The Sacraments are signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, which are instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them. Therefore one should and must use the Sacraments in such a way that it is done in faith, which believes the promises of God that are shown and set before us through the Sacraments. Through such faith we receive the promised grace which the Sacraments signify, together with the Holy Spirit.”

Item: “The Sacrament is a testimony and pledge, by which Christ testifies that He gives us the promised things, that the promise belongs to us, that He gives us His body to testify that He is powerful in us as in His members, and He gives us His blood to drink to testify that we are washed through His blood. Thus the benefits of Christ are applied and appropriated to us, not because of another's work, but through each one's faith and use of the Sacraments, etc.”

From these words, as well as from the Apologia, it is plainly clear that the Holy Supper has two principal parts: Namely, the external visible signs (Bread and Wine), and the promise of grace attached to such signs.

Secondly, this promise of grace of the New Testament is the words of institution: “This is my body, which is given for you; This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you.”

Thirdly, since such words are the promise of the Sacrament, it must also necessarily be that the body of Christ given for us, and His blood shed for us, are the promised grace and gifts contained therein. And just as the promise itself is truly offered to all partakers as food and drink of eternal life, so too they are received and accepted through faith. Therefore the Apologia says: “We teach that in the use of the Sacrament there must be faith, which believes the promise, and receives the promised things or gifts that are offered in the Sacrament. And this is the true and certain cause that the promise would otherwise be in vain if it were not received with faith.”

But since the Sacraments are signs of the promise, faith must therefore be present in their use. For finally, from the above-mentioned article of the Augsburg Confession, it is also clearly to be understood and concluded how Christ gives His body and blood to eat: namely, that He thereby testifies that He is powerful in us as His members, and washes and purifies us with His blood, which is an application and appropriation of the benefits of Christ, which is assured to us through the Sacrament as a testimony and pledge.

The Consensus of the Churches and the Wittenberg Concord

In such an understanding, the Upper German Cities (who otherwise presented a separate Confession at Augsburg, and in the year 1532 confessed at Schweinfurt) and hereafter in the year 1536 reached a Concord between Dr. Luther and the theologians of said Cities (the Wittenberg Concord). In it, both sides confessed the true and essential presence, distribution, and reception of the body and blood of Christ in the true use of the Holy Supper, and yet at the same time rejected the spatial inclusion and attachment of the body and blood of Christ in or into the bread and wine. According to this Concord, the Upper German Cities and churches were always held to be related to the Augsburg Confession, and recognized and accepted by Dr. Luther himself. For thus read the words of the recess, which Dr. Luther gave to the Upper German theologians as a conclusion and testimony of the made Concord:

“Reverend gentlemen and dear brothers, we have heard your all and each one's answer and confession, that you namely believe and teach that in the Holy Supper the true body and the true blood of the Lord Christ are given and received, and not only bread and wine, and that the distribution and reception truly and not imaginarily occur. And although you are only offended by and stumble at the godless partaking, yet you confess that the unworthy Christians (of whom Paul speaks) receive the body of the Lord, namely when the institution and the words of the Lord Christ are not perverted by them. Of this we will not dispute with you further. Since the matters are thus constituted, we are well united with you, and recognize you (as far as this article is concerned) as our brothers in the Lord, etc.”

When in the year 1540 at Worms at the Imperial Diet a Colloquium was set up against the Papists, to show whether the Augsburg Confession Estates were united among themselves, they brought both sides together according to the content of their erected and publicly declared Wittenberg Concord. And since the theologians of both sides understood the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper from the Action, use, and partaking, the Augsburg Confession article on this was drafted anew by the Estates with the following words, and handed over:

“Concerning the Lord's Supper it is taught that with bread and wine the body and the blood of Christ are truly given and administered to those partaking.”

These words speak of no bodily existence and presence in the earthly elements of bread and wine, but as stated, of a true presence of the partaking in virtue of the divine promise of grace, of which the Sacraments are signs, pledges, seals, and assurances. And such is clearly testified by the arguments which Mr. Philippus[Melanchthon] and his colleagues used against the Papists at the same time: namely, that nothing has the nature and property of a true Sacrament outside of the use instituted by Christ, of which mention is made from the Apologia.

Item, that the Lord Christ is present not because of the bread, but because of the believing man in the partaking of the Supper, and that He thus communicates Himself to the believer, and will dwell in them. Item, that the presence is a voluntary presence, not a natural transformation of the bread, nor a spatial inclusion in or under the bread.

The Augsburg Confession Estates openly testified in the handing over of the above-mentioned Article that they wished to accept and keep it according to the common consensus of the true Catholic churches, appealing therefore to the sayings and testimony of the ancient Church Fathers, such as Cyril, Epiphanius, Cyprian, Augustine, Gelasius, and the Nicene Council. From which it is well to deduce and conclude that just as one did not separate oneself from the old true Catholic orthodox churches in this article, but wished to remain beside them, so one should and must also seek and take the true understanding of the Augsburg Confession not only in the books written 50 or 60 years ago, but much more in the cited sayings and testimonies of the old true Catholic orthodox churches. For upon that, one appealed against the Papists, and thereby offered to let oneself be instructed. Therefore, those who confess the teachings of the ancient Catholic orthodox churches in this matter cannot be excluded from such Confession, let alone have a special new sect and schism made out of them.

In the following year (1541), the Augsburg Confession Estates handed over the article of the Holy Supper against the Papists again, but somewhat more extensively, with these words:

“Christ says: Take, eat; This is my body, and thereafter: This is my blood, etc. Therefore we confess that in the Supper of the Lord the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are administered with bread and wine to those partaking. As Hilary also says: According to the Lord's words and our faith, it is true flesh and blood, and when one receives and partakes of this, it makes it that Christ is in us, and we in Christ, and thus Christ is present, and is powerful in the partakers.”

And at the end, the saying of Irenaeus, likewise of the holy Paul concerning the communion of the body and blood of Christ, is cited for proof and explanation of the preceding article. Now what was demonstrated and proven from such sayings of Paul, Irenaeus, and Hilary... of none other does the Augsburg Confession article handed over at Worms and Regensburg speak.

In the same understanding, this Article was further and more extensively explained in the year 1551 in the repeated Confession [Repetitio Confessionis Augustanae], which was intended to be handed over to the Council at Trent, and was approved by almost all Estates, explained with these words:

“The people among us are taught and instructed that the Holy Sacraments are Divine Actions, and outside of the instituted use, such things do not have the nature and property of the Sacrament. But that in the instituted use of this Communion, Christ is truly and essentially present, and that the body and blood of Christ are truly given and communicated to those partaking, in that Christ thereby testifies that He is in them and they in Him, and that He makes them His members, and has purified them with His blood. As Hilary says: Received and partaken of, they effect that we are in Christ, and Christ is in us. That is, when one partakes of this, Christ is in us, and we are in Him.”

This Article of the repeated Augsburg Confession agrees thoroughly with the above-standing Regensburg Article... from which also followed later in the year 1558 the Frankfurt Recess... the words of the same Recess read thus:

“Concerning this Article it shall be taught, as is confessed in the Augsburg Confession, namely, that in this ordinance of the Lord of His Supper, He is truly, livingly, essentially and presently there; also with bread and wine thus ordained by Him, He gives us Christians His body and blood to eat and to drink, and testifies herewith that we are His members, applies and grants Himself to us, and works His gracious promise. As Hilary says: These things taken and imbibed, make that Christ is in us and we in Christ. That is, when one partakes of and drinks this, Christ is thereby in us, and we in Him. These words speak clearly of the partaking, as Paul expressly speaks of the partaking: The bread that we break is the communion with the body of Christ. That cannot be understood outside of the partaking, but must be understood thus, that the bread is this, by which the communion of the body of Christ is communicated to us. And thus speak the ancient distinguished scribes and Fathers of the Church of this. Irenaeus says: The Eucharist consists of two things, earthly and heavenly. The Holy Supper contains two things in itself, an earthly and a heavenly. And Epiphanius and Theodoretus speak clearly that the nature and substance of the bread remains, but with it the gifts are given, that is the body and the blood of Christ. Hereafter new modes of speech were introduced, that the bread is transformed, like the staff of Moses into the serpent; thereafter the monks invented another doctrine, that the bread loses its essence, undergoes transubstantiation (that is, a transformation), and is thus the body in the form of the bread, even outside of the partaking. That these speeches were unknown to the ancient churches is easy to prove.”

What is further said of the right use and abuse, also of the Mass, is explained elsewhere, and it is highly necessary that this understanding remain in the right churches... That the partaking occurs for the strengthening of faith, as comfort, that the Son of God certainly applies and appropriates Himself and His promise to us, and with bread and wine is truly given. And that this work is no sacrifice for others... Also, some alone say this, that the Lord Christ is not essentially present, and that these signs are solely an external sign, by which the Christians make their confession and are recognized. These speeches are incorrect.

The Two Principal Questions of the Supper

This is now the public, universal, and repeated explanation of the Augsburg Confession, how one previously agreed upon it in the Wittenberg Concord, and how it was accepted hereafter at Worms and in the Regensburg Article... So that it may now also be further properly understood, of what there is actually dispute in this matter, it is to be known that there are two principal questions:

I. First, what is offered and presented to us by Christ in the Holy Supper.
II. Secondly, how that which is administered in the Supper is received and partaken of by us.

Regarding the first question, we believe and confess, according to the evidence of the above-standing Articles, that not only bread and wine (which the eyes see, the hands grasp, and the mouth tastes), but also the true body and the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with all His merits and power, are truly offered, administered, and presented in His Supper, according to the true words and promise: “This is my body, which is given for you; This is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you, for the forgiveness of sins.”

But it is not necessary that either the bread and wine be transformed into the substance and essence of the body and blood of Christ (as the Papists fabricated, and thereby caused abominable idolatry in all the world), or that under the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is locali inclusione, that is, spatially enclosed, and thus even in that place where the bread is, essentially present. As some Sophists, Schoolmen, and others have dreamed, pretending as if a small invisible body is hidden under the bread, which without all properties of a true human body, together with the bread in the hand of the priest, and simultaneously with the bread in the mouth of the communicant, is entered. This makes the Lord Christ directly contrary to the undeniable truth of His single body and all circumstances of the institution of the first Supper (two bodies fabricated at once: one visible at the disciples' table, and an invisible one hidden and grasped under the bread). Likewise, this introduces the presence of the Lord Christ as merely an idle, fruitless, and soon-ceasing presence in the Church of God, instead of a true and powerful presence.

Rather, as in the preaching of the Gospel, the Lord Christ, true God and man, together with all that He is, has, and is able, without any spatial inclusion, is offered to the hearers through the oral word, so that Christ wishes to give and appropriate Himself and all His benefits to those who wish to accept Him with a believing heart. Thus also the Lord Christ is present in this ordinance of His Supper, in the external signs, and the divine promise of grace attached to them. Not because of the external visible signs' sake, to which no promise of grace has been given (and therefore these signs are neither transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, nor is Christ's body and blood enclosed in them, or naturally and essentially united with them). But because of His divine will, Christ is thus present in the Supper, that He, through these means of bread and wine, applies and appropriates His true body and blood, His merit and power, to each one in the right saving use.

And it is well to note and diligently consider that it is expressly said that not only the merit and power of the body of Christ, but the body and the blood of Christ itself are offered to us to partake of and appropriate, and we thus in truth have a living communion with the substance of the body and blood of Christ. For although no one can enjoy and receive a physical food and drink unless he takes the food itself into his body, or as no bodily medicine can strengthen or refresh anyone unless the medicine itself is taken into the body... So we could also not become partakers of this spiritual and heavenly matter of the merit and power of Christ, unless we did not also partake of the substance of His body and blood in the Holy Supper. Therefore He does not say in the words of institution: “This is my merit, or my suffering and dying”, but “This is my body, which is given for you.”

That however the old teachers often used these speeches, that the sanctified bread is the sign, meaning, or Sacrament of the body of Christ, they do not wish to indicate an empty sign or a bare meaning, but speak of such a sign, with which at the same time, in virtue of the attached promise, also in the right use of the communicants, the true body of Christ is communicated by Christ. Also not that the body of Christ is enclosed in such a sign (for the bread is not a receptacle or container of the body of Christ, and Christ has promised to dwell not in the bread, but in the believing people), but that this sign of grace, which is visible and external, is a means, ordained by Christ, and a certain pledge and testimony, of the true partaking and communion of the body of Christ; for Christ is voluntarily present in this His ordinance, and where this is rightly kept, there He will communicate Himself to us.

II. Now as for the second question: Just as there are two different things in the Holy Supper, the external visible signs of grace (bread and wine), and the invisible heavenly gift and present (the body and the blood of Christ, together with the same's merit and power). Thus also the visible is received and partaken of in one way, and the invisible in another. The visible bread and wine is received with the physical hand and mouth, visibly eaten and drunk, bitten with teeth and digested; but the invisible heavenly gift, the body and the blood of Christ, although it is testified, assured, and handed over and appropriated to each one in the right use through the visible and external means, yet it is solely grasped and received by us with and through faith.

For just as the external man is one thing, the internal another, or as the holy Chrysostom explains this matter, there is a difference in the human body and soul, so also there is both in the Holy Supper. The external man has something that he receives, namely what he senses, and can grasp with the external senses; alongside this, the soul or internal man has his, which the external senses cannot grasp. Just as in the preaching office of the oral word, or in holy Baptism, both the internal man and the external each has its own. For the external man has with the physical ears the sound of the words, and with the whole body the pouring of water to sense. But the internal man, the heart and soul, grasps with faith all heavenly goods and gifts that are offered and given to us with Word and Baptism.

In the same manner, because in the Supper of the Lord the body and blood of Christ, together with the merit and power of the same, is offered as the grace-gift promised therein, not as food for the belly, but for the soul, such a precious and heavenly gift is truly received solely with faith, as with the internal hand and mouth of the soul. As the holy Augustine teaches and says: “You should not prepare the mouth, but the heart for this food, for therefore this Supper was instituted. See, we believe in Christ, whom we receive with faith; in partaking we know what we think, we receive a little and are satisfied in the heart; therefore it does not satisfy what one sees, but what one believes.” Item: “It is a bread and food of the heart, and not of the belly, therefore let yourself internally hunger and thirst.” Item: “That means to eat the true heavenly bread, to believe in Christ. What do you prepare the teeth, mouth and belly for? Believe, and you have eaten.” Item: “Whoever eats of this bread will live eternally. Yes, whoever eats internally and in the heart, and not he who eats externally and with the mouth, and crushes it with the teeth.”

But such faith is not a bare knowledge of the histories of Christ, such as can also be in the godless and devils, much less is faith a bare thought outside of God's Word, as if the body of Christ were essentially enclosed in a wonderful supernatural way, which has no foundation anywhere in Scripture. Rather, it is the faith (by which one partakes of the body and blood of Christ and His merit and power in a saving way) of a heartfelt confidence and trust, which holds to Christ's person and office, and of His incarnation, suffering, dying, resurrection, ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God, comforting oneself from the heart and firmly concluding that Christ makes him righteous, holy, and blessed.

Thus and in this manner also formerly Luther taught and wrote of the Holy Supper outside of the dispute. For thus he writes against the Bull of Leo the Tenth: “In every Sacrament there is the word of the promise, which promises and offers grace to those who receive and partake of the Sacrament; when God promises something, faith is required for it... Likewise also in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is given in these words of the promise; Take and eat, this is my body, which is given for you... Therefore whoever partakes of the Sacrament must firmly believe in all things, that the body of Christ is given not only for others, but also for him... otherwise he will with his unbelief mock such promise and receive judgment.”

From which it is now clearly proven, that for him who partakes of the Sacrament, faith is necessary, through which he receives that which the Sacrament promises and gives. Because in every Sacrament the Word of God is, as Augustine says, the word comes to the element, and then it becomes a Sacrament, where now the Word of God is, there human faith is demanded.

Item, In a sermon on Maundy Thursday at Wittenberg, Anno 1522: “In the words of the Holy Supper, in sum, two things are presented and given to us, as promise and sign; the words belong in the ears, the signs in the mouth; and much more depends on the words of promise and pledge than on the signs; for the signs one can do without, but the Word one cannot do without... Therefore I have also said that one should pay more attention to the words than to the signs.”

Item, In the great Postil, Dominica Septuagesima, he writes thus: “To eat and drink spiritually, is nothing else than to believe in the word of God, and the signs; as Christ says in John 6, Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him... just as we eat and drink the bread and wine on the altar physically, but we believe internally, for where those had not had God's word and faith... it would have been of no use to their souls. So it also does not help us, that we receive bread and wine without faith from the altar.”

Item, in a Sermon on the 6th Chapter of John: “The bread on the altar is only a sign, like Baptism, and helps nothing, unless one has eaten the bread internally... Therefore it must be a spiritual eating, which happens in the heart. Now the Papists go and invent it out on the sign of the food, that one should eat, but the Lord has not aimed it at the external food, or on the mouth food, but on the food that one eats in the heart, and feeds upon it.”

Exactly according to this currently recounted doctrine, also formerly in the year 1526, the Preachers in Swabia wrote in their book Syngramma (which Dr. Luther approved with his Preface). Thus reads the doctrine of their same book: “It is the true body and the true blood of Christ, understood and comprehended in these words of the Lord... and offered therein to all believers... Item, It should no one opine that the body of Christ will be eaten physically, because it is eaten in the bread through the Word; just as no one should be so coarse and unwise to opine that the word of the Holy Gospel is grasped not spiritually, but with faith... Item, because the word of God makes all His divine gifts present, so therefore the body of Christ is also not otherwise made present and communicated through the word... Therefore we want it not to be held that someone is godless who opined that the faith eats the body of Christ, and drinks His blood.”

Of this their doctrine and confession, the authors write that if their adversaries also accept it, and confess with the heart, they wanted to be certain that a good peace and unity would be in all Evangelical churches.

But that some ancient teachers, whose manner of speaking also Doctor Luther has kept, sometimes speak of this mystery thus, that the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament are orally and bodily received, these are Sacramentales locutiones, that is, such manners and forms of speaking, which are accustomed to be used according to the nature and property of the Sacrament. But this manner and property to speak is that the names of the internal heavenly gifts of grace, as of the body and blood of Christ, are given to the external signs, bread and wine. Not therefore that the divine gifts of grace are physically comprehended and grasped in the earthly elements or signs, but that they, through and with the signs, in virtue of the divine promise, are truly offered and communicated to all and every one who rightly uses the same.

Just as now because of such ordinance and instituted use, the sacramental signs, bread and wine, are named the body and blood of Christ, not bodily nor essentially, but sacramentally, and propter vnionem Sacramentalem (because of the sacramental union). So also the same which is proper to the signs happens to them: as that they are looked upon with external eyes, grasped with hands, broken to pieces, and received with the mouth from the godless, is laid and attributed to the body and blood of Christ, and yet it is not properly applied to them themselves, but solely indicates the Sacraments, vere enallagen (through an exchange of words).

Concerning the Breaking of Bread, etc.

It is clearly to be seen and proven from the history of the ancient Church, that in former times among Christians, this custom was kept at the Holy Supper: namely, that those who wished to commune offered bread and wine for it on the altar, which they called oblations. From this the priests took as much as might be enough for the holding of the Holy Supper. Since these thus offered breads were otherwise, like other common bread, large and somewhat thick, one was accustomed in the distribution of the Holy Supper, according to the example of Christ and His holy Apostles, to break them.

But as Church discipline, along with doctrine, fell more and more into decline, and finally the Roman Pope gained the upper hand in the Church, this Christian custom of Communion was abolished and altered. And just as the Papistic sacrifice of the Mass replaced Communion, so also instead of the common bread, which one otherwise used for the Holy Supper, small round hosts were introduced, which are marked with the crucifix or image of the crucified Christ. By some ancient writers they are called panes numularij because of their shape, that they are round like coins. And Pope Honorius gives this reason, that by such small penny-breads it is testified that Christ was sold for 30 pieces of silver. From this introduction and alteration of the small round hosts, much abomination and abuse has followed in the Church of God, against which one still has to fight today.

Therefore, those who understood the cause of this abomination and abuse, and saw that it primarily arose from the abolition of the Christian ceremony of the breaking of bread, are not to be suspected nor blamed that they wished to bring back the breaking of bread at the Holy Supper into a Christian use and understanding of the mystery, according to the command of Christ and His Apostles. For when Christ says, “Do this in my remembrance”, He comprehends the entire action and ceremony, which He used in the institution and distribution of His Holy Supper, wills, and commands us, that we should keep it thus.

And when the holy Paul says, “The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”, he wishes thereby to remind us that the bread of the LORD'S Supper is a broken bread, and that it should be distributed with such a ceremony, according to the institution and command of the LORD.

So that one also does not think Christ has done something special here that does not belong to others to imitate, the Apostle S. Paul among the Corinthians, who were heathens, directed this ceremony of the breaking of bread, and speaks, that He gave it to them, as He received it from the LORD, to indicate he could not change or abolish anything therein, but must leave it, as it is ordained by the Founder Christ. And he sets this likeness: That just as we break the bread, that is, make many pieces out of one bread, and distribute it, so we are also reminded in such distribution of the communion of the body of Christ.

Since it can be well taken from this that the Holy Supper is named the breaking of bread because of a special mystery and cause, so one must justly conclude that the Holy Spirit has done it to our best. For if the breaking of bread were a vain, unnecessary ceremony, which had nothing to signify at the Holy Supper of the LORD, and therefore could well be omitted, why then did the Holy Spirit describe those who were converted to the Christian faith through the Apostles with a special praise and testimony: “They remained steadfast in the Apostles' doctrine, and in the fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer.”

The first Church in all places retained this custom of the breaking of bread undisplaced for over seven hundred years, as then still today the Greek churches keep the custom of the breaking of bread at Communion.

And so that one does not think it is a dangerous ceremony or use which has nothing to signify, the holy Apostle S. Paul wisely directs us to two great mysteries, which are so much more to consider, because in Sacraments there must always be a likeness (Analogia signi & rei signatae) between the signs of grace and the designated grace gifts.

The one mystery is, that instead of the word which the other Evangelists need (“This is my body, given for you”), S. Paul in 1 Corinth. 11 says, “This is my body, which is broken for you”, to indicate thereby that this breaking of bread is an internal reminder and depiction of the suffering and dying of Christ. Now it is very comforting, that just as you see that one breaks the bread to you, so you remember that the body of Christ is broken for your benefit, that is, killed for your sake, and shall be to you the life-making food for eternal life. Of this mystery also the old teacher Augustine wrote, that when the bread is broken, and when the wine is poured from the cup into the mouth of the believers, so it signifies and is set before the eyes the offering up of the body of the LORD on the stem of the cross, and the shedding of His blood from His side.

The other mystery S. Paul shows in that he 1 Corinth. 10 says, “We are all one bread and one body, because we are all partakers of one bread.” Thereby he teaches, that when one drinks of one cup, and eats of one bread, so one is thereby reminded of the fellowship that all believers have in their one LORD and Redeemer Christ, and for the sake of the same also have among themselves. For in the same way, as one bread is broken into many pieces, and we all physically eat bodily of the same single visible bread, so we are one body with Christ, and also mutually among ourselves, and are in the right partaking of the Supper more and more incorporated into the LORD Christ through faith, and united with the whole congregation of Christ, as members of one body.

These two mysteries, which the holy Apostle S. Paul points to, show sufficiently that although bread and wine are used outside of the Supper, they are yet in the use of the Supper ordained by Christ to another benefit and end. But these high and supreme mysteries are abolished through the deceit and cunning of the Devil under the Papacy, in that the breaking of bread is abolished, completely obscured, and set out of the eyes and hearts of the people.

The Pope indeed retains the breaking of bread, but only in the Private Mass, in which he breaks the Host into three pieces or parts, of which he throws one into the sky, the other to the deceased, the third to the saints. Thus the Antichrist has perverted Christ the LORD's Testament and ordinance. On the contrary, however, through omission and abolition of the breaking of bread in the Communion of the Laymen, and through the use of the small round bread, all his errors and idolatry among the common uninstructed heap are strengthened and established. Because they were so much the more prepared for it, that under the form of each bread the body of Christ should be bodily living, and that one should enclose the bread (in the Monstrance, elevated in the Mass and raised up, and rung with a little bell) as the true essential body of Christ, adore it, and bow and duck before it, bend the knee, hold folded hands up against it... and do such similar reverence toward the estate of priests, as those who alone had the power to consecrate the body of Christ. They held that priests were a far holier and purer estate than the laymen, therefore they also shaved and scraped the hands or fingers of the laymen if they somewhat accidentally touched a host.

But it is a wonder, that they do not shave and scrape the mouth, or lips and tongue of the laymen, because they nevertheless, when they let them commune, must at least touch the Sacrament with them! Since then now the Pope has done unjustly, we should fairly follow Christ.

For these and other reasons, also D. Luther highly wished and desired that the use of the breaking of bread at the Holy Supper be set up again, as such is to be proven from his ensuing word, in the book of the abuse of the Mass: “Here you see well (he speaks) that the manner and form, which one now holds in the Mass, agrees not at all with the Gospel. All three Evangelists, and Paul agree with them together, that Christ took the bread, broke it, and gave it to the disciples... Since then now breaking and giving to the disciples is nothing else, than dividing the blessed bread into many parts, and distributing the parts to the others, so there must be no Mass, unless it is according to Christ's institution and example. Also, if the Sacrament is not broken, and distributed from the priest to many, but someone holds it somewhere else, so the same is not a Christian Mass, but directly against Christ's ordinance and institution.”

And soon thereafter: “Now hold them against each other, the Antichrist and Christ: This one breaks the bread, and gives to each one of it; That one breaks it, and gives to no one of it, keeps it alone, they have invented alone a semblance of breaking. Where remains now the word of Christ, Do this? Why do they do differently and against Christ?... Therefore Luther advises and wills, one should set up the breaking of bread again, and not let the worldwide contrary use hinder it.”

That but also it is no sin, to grasp the Sacrament with hands, he testifies in the booklet of both kinds of the Sacrament to take: “Now it is certain, says he, that vain men have added and taught, that one should not use both kinds, not grasp with hands, not handle with unhallowed clothes... For through Christ, through the Apostles, and a long time afterwards, neither was instituted, nor held, but much more the contrary, as the Evangelists clearly prove. Therefore it is certain a vain service of God, to teach and hold such, as a necessary command.”

And soon thereafter: “So we come now again to the first, and say, upon command, and in the name of our LORD Jesus Christ, that those, who grasp the Holy Sacrament with hands, or without consecrated clothes, vessel or houses handle... no conscience should make about it... but shall stand upon it, and let themselves be killed many ten times, before they recant the same...”

And again: “Is it therefore unrighteous, with Laymen's hands to touch the Sacrament, that the hand does sin, or that it is unconsecrated? So it were fairer, that one did not receive the Sacrament with the mouth, much less into the belly, for it happens that with the mouth, and eyes much more sin, than with the hand.”

And soon: “A Christian is holy in body and soul, be he Lay or Priest, man or woman, whoever says otherwise blasphemes the holy Baptism, Christ's blood, and the grace of the Holy Spirit. It is a great strange thing concerning a Christian, and God cares more for him, than for the Sacrament, For the Christian is not made for the Sacrament's will, but the Sacrament is instituted for the Christian's will, and these blind heads want first to dispute, whether he may grasp the Sacrament, yes want to make a heresy out of it, Out with the stubborn and blinded heathens, who so entirely know nothing, what a Christian is called or is.”

From the bright and clear testimonies drawn here above, it appears, that nowadays the persons more than our doctrine are hostile. And since the Augsburg Confession or Dr. Luther taught or spoke thus, as we, it was all precious and good Evangelical truth. But when we keep such remnants, or such ceremonies, which Dr. Luther dropped, they need to make us all heretical and Sacramentarian. Without doubt the Lord Christ Himself would be viewed by these people, if He were on earth holding His holy Supper in such simplicity as He did at Jerusalem, as a Zwinglian!

What to think now of those who have, with such appearance and fairness against the Holy Scripture, and the old pure churches' example and use, a harmonious doctrine to hold, and yet those who scold, blaspheme, punish, and condemn us, who hereby go against the abominable abuse torn in the Papacy, to please men instead of the dear God and His holy Apostles? God wants to forgive those who do such out of ignorance, and plug the mouths of the defiant, stubborn, willful blasphemers, and open the eyes of the pious simple ones, Amen.