 

TEE HES?OR§CAL DW‘ELOPMEHT 0F
WE'HER‘S- 9$CTRSNE OF THE LGRD’S- S'UW’ER

‘5’th hr the Dam» of M. A.
MECHSGAN STATE UNWERSETY
James Martin E5“:
1958

ma: IIﬂ'WLIépr u-~~r.~r_,«;-:«-—-~-

M'-' . u}... :31

+3

CF

. my: "1 N." 'r~ 7": T 1“ r.‘ r: :rrrn'“
LU’fIi‘i’S D “P. ' Edi- ‘LF .1‘.; US$10.15. uU-‘ W)

2.1 a ﬂaw A. —A&.L

By

J; “ft“ 0 zap-TI“? rﬁrvr‘r‘

IN AJSTT‘CT

submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Eichiean State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree or

‘QX'Z‘ (“v-(w) 9V? .0. p9"
l.-;'. ‘ L J\l\ 1;,

Department of History

1958

Approved

 

“Cajor Professor

The sacrament variously known as the Lord's
Supper, the Holy Eucharist, or the Holy Coenunion,

was probably the most hotly debated toeic in the

’J

sixteenth century. Hot only did Catholics 83m
Protestants take Opposing stands, but the Frotee-
tents themselves divided on this issue. mertin
Luther was one of the central fivuree in this three
way diepute. In 1520 he published a denunciation
of the Catholic view of the sacrament and proposed
a reformed doctrine in its place. But a few years
later Luther's own view of the sacrament came under
attack by more radical reformers who felt that he
had not gone far enough in this particular reform.
The first of these wee Luther’s former colleague
Andreas Corletedt. The attack wee later taken up
by Ulrich Zwingli, the leader of the Eeforeetion in
Switzerland. Luther vigorously defended his View
against both of these attacks in a series of polemic
cal treatises. In 1529 a meeting was erroneed be-
tween Zwingli and Luther at Eerburg in an attempt
to resolve the dispute. The differences were found
to be irreconcilable, and the breach in the ranks
of the Protestants reeeine uncloeed to this day.
Luther's thoughts on the sacrament were
long and complicated, and it is impossible to sum-

marize his position intelligihly in a few sentences.

to can only mention a fee of the major issues in-
volved. against the Catholic Church Luther I) argued
that both the breed and the vine must be given to

the communiconte according to the biblical account

of the institution of the sec euent, 2) rejected the

doctrine of treneuhetentietion, but retained belief

in the reel presence of the body end blood of Christ
in the breed and wine, and 3) rejected the doctrine

of the sacrifice of the tees, but insisted that in
the eecrerent forgiveness of sins is granted through
faith in the words of institution: "Thie ie m:

body end blood, given and shed for you for the
remierion of sine.” trainot the attacks of Carl-
etndt and ﬁrinrli, who both insisted that the sec-
renent is eirply e cynbollcel meal in commemoration
of Christ's death, Luther had to defend his belief
in the Real Freoence end his association of the
forgiveness of nine with the sacrament.

Rut Luther's writings on the Rord'e fugper
offer the historian much more than eiejly the de-
lineation of one particular theological positive.
They ere, in the author's opinion, en excellent
source for gaining a broad, general idea of the
content and method of Luther's thought. This is due
to the fact that in developing and defending his
doctine of the Lord's Supper Luther justified his

stand in terms of other important elements in his

thought. In fact, there is probably no other body
of writings in Luther's whole output in which so
many elements of his thought have been gathered
together into one context. Soee of the major is—
sues involved are his doctrine of justification,
his concept of the more of Goa, his attitude toward
the relation of the world of materiel things to
the world of the spirit, and hie e titude toward
the role of reason in religion. Therefore the
author's purpose in this thesis is not only to
tell 3233 Luther's position on the Lord's Supper
was, but to tell Egg’he took that position, in the
hope thet the reader will come away with a breeder

underetenﬂing of Luther ee a religious thinker.

Approved

mi, 11:. thm . ‘ \7'" 9,»? \1'3-~~“,1m
J...» -::f‘:r 5“ IJl-‘J ..I..:!«_-’¢ -'~- 49*

Jun-a1.) LL:
OF

T97H7To< ~59". . c D .CM: T"? 6...? r-v-zvr‘ T «as. 0‘ . ('u («9.99% '. 5-719)
L3 . .~ ...--..'.-‘t- at «A... .v 1191;!“ D.‘ L'ULA~';.L

A}... LA .‘g'.

F?

h‘nrﬂﬂ‘ (1191\511111 f9r~f~n1$ﬂ
1...; 16.3 L;- ‘9. .LJ.‘ 433.16.. .16...

A TE! SIS

Submitted to the Collere of Fcience and ﬁrts
michlgan State University of Agriculture and

Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirement.s for the de3ree of

9.: 03‘1““ ‘. farm?“
0 $ L! ‘- :‘J.:\ {IIF I... « ih’

Departrcnt of History

 

.28” or 15:02 653-530.?

TA B LE OF (7.1313111???)

Chapter P33“

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . o . . o 1
II. Lather Constructs His Doctrine . . . 18
III. The Conflict With Carlstadt . . o . 51
IV. The Conflict With Zwingli . . . o . 78

Bibliographical Note a o o c o o o o o 9 o 127

.,. . u. v-._ . f‘ a-— q

it»~../: 1 1}. )1;

ﬁn gay 2, 1397, Erother crtin Luther, just
recently ordained to the prlectbj 1, cclzirrtﬁd his

f rat Cass in t%e 1;"ustinian Cloister at ”rert.

P4

Thirteen gears Iatec 111*“sr pub1ic1y denounced the
doctrine according to which that first {ass had been
celebrateﬁ, and put forward a diiﬁf at doct vine

which labelled that first ass an offense egalnvt

Goﬂ. vaia1sly a fun*eheatal chesge bad ts‘:en place
in the intervenin: years, for the piouc cnﬁ canrcrxctive
Catholic of 13”? be! by 1””0 t-ec1me a "Eutherac," a
heretic in the eyes of the Church which hul rained
him. In order to unﬁerstsrﬁ whet Luther wrote in 132%
concern mg the Tess v1 8*311 first have to r:?erstsn&
the nature of tint fundemortsl char 0 which took
place ‘esr s earlier in his mind.

In “3y 1501 Tathsr metric lateﬂ at the
Sniversity of wrfart, taking his Fechalor of Arts
degree in 1e Jtentcr 1'»(2, azd his taster of Arts in
33-1ery150'. The ultinste 3331 I other's at dies
was, accorﬁirr to his fathgr‘911'sh, a decree in law.

Put Tut her' own personal 19 clirotian was t0"wrd the

.‘V

11 0 at a “on”. Le was By rnf.re r1‘ 3'1; 3 53.313

~ «.1

re‘iciaus reﬁnes, rut cn e"trerely r1r31t1v9 sea

corccierticﬁs one we 3311. ‘rvc ﬁve wow 13? 319‘?

w

0

f his ﬂcy 7ni¥er 111 Icﬁvreﬁ t3 31rceive of 80% as

O

s terri’y1n3 ivﬁme raf‘cn ’Een as a 19v133 ?cther.
“e tcnu”kt 1? '}rich ref 90 3 CE vs a lovirc sqviar

as so every nvcv"cr of sin. ffr1c lg .ncliceﬂ “award

.

seerchinc ivtrocpectirm, u'her ”cs ecntely conscicus

of his own sinrnlness in contrast to the sbsolnte

a?

’"Rficﬂ 0P” ri”“t9§wvns09 “5 ad:. I“ lﬁﬁﬁr years

rmfhcr recoilcﬂ: "I wee never 0‘13 to Cﬁﬂsolc ﬁrrclf

receriic“ 33 begtlsﬁ but always ﬁbouhht: '“h, when

1111 you once h cone piows enonrh nnﬁ ﬂo encujh to

‘

obtain a Preoi1ws ﬁc””' ¥uch the“ hts ﬂrove “9 into

.nl

stuﬁy of 13¢ a”? eﬁtcreﬂ t*e fvcwctintnc Cloister at

'Q

'rfurt in orﬂcr t1 19v11e h‘3 33313 113? t1 th 130":

‘3.

t

of a wrectwue 398. 73 ecfcrcﬁ vccn bin r33 life With

(v “95-3-3“ “‘1‘1‘1‘m .3,‘ ‘.
...'? V._-.,.l.>‘;.

... 3. ~ , ~ ‘ t . .
. _ 4 v .
v . . - .. ’ . ._ ; ‘ t . , .. d . v . _. . .
- ...

c.

, "' 9“" -" -. -~ I" ' 'v '\ . . ...~ ~4- «v i
’1‘”! I'~-1f5 ”‘1. "‘."‘..‘...“ I.) $3.3.LCL’J 9433’. l "'1"..}' 5 3.1 tﬂ'j-tt,

 

It”. "cud-4.9“. {"3‘4‘nﬂfj. :""¥-n-6~'}i_q~‘~n "Q‘.\w.31‘*-.;r,, (3:3. 53:13.31

 

 

 

 

a .II.” — . _ W . .1— ‘-‘ __
{\ ‘1', 0 ‘I‘ﬁ ’s r ‘A ! 'P_ "\ ‘ _ ." ‘\ ' z ‘ ' . ' "i | ‘ 77:“ - 1‘1 I5 a.) t..- .) 1
.. . '24.». ’ . - O O ' L «'M‘ ..h. f . o o - _'... r u. ., O.
A I I, v ‘ --- I ‘ r '1 \ ‘ w ‘ 1 r\ ‘ ' ' "- \ ' . f" ' " ‘." " a u ,-
. ~ 199 (H- n . .--.-: \ 1 v- ~ . , . . _ - .
' ) V .-' -.:-‘ . ‘ . '9-WI at .3... . 1.. ’~ L..- A. .. ‘ - ’ I, ' C .— . ‘ - 1 A -~ . -.z 1" .
_- r a] f I - . . rv- _ ﬂ _ ‘7‘.
\ 1‘ .1". I; a- ‘- *5 I - .“1 E‘ C‘ ﬁl‘ ‘n‘ .‘- 1 ' \r.‘ t I h, .6. -. 0". ’4‘ ‘.‘ I‘- r.
-.. I"... ‘f. =13.- C; w.-. * ‘ o J. - n I .le‘l :]--M .11 3'1 .1 4-41.;
9‘ ( . ‘ .I ‘ 'f _ _' u ‘1 ' v _. q - . .0 '.—‘- v n r I” ' '0 .
1. -cnwze“ert, ..'~~“ 3-? 113 113?: '1 ~"r1? 31 1n
‘ _ “--o~-¢;o.‘n" W W1” “TI-J. ' 5?” ‘— -“~-‘. ‘1‘ 4
Jana-'1 ’1 av:- .r‘vaﬂ'w'ym- 1 '3. e I.‘. ~ . -‘,- -~ 1.1-. ‘_,.
. m » 1 ,. . L.u a»-., 2 ., w. _-.
w ' w“ upv “MM...- 9.
‘ ‘ .‘l‘f‘l 1' ' $3 '. 4 .' - (~ (~ 1‘ '.--~2 ‘c‘t‘. :— r *-
'_a I- ‘ . ‘ ‘ I.' L (4 I “' . 5‘ '. b . ... . .6 I. .

"J

if ever a monk got to bnaven by r13 mar cry it 33.3

I. All brothers in th monnrt3r3 wfo ﬁncw 33 will

bear me 33$. If I haﬂ kept on any lorg3r, I should
have kill3d tyself with vigils, :rvye33, r313333, 333

Q 2 . Q C . ‘- l
other wara." but all tale did not bring Hunger the

33532333 3 th3t )9 had won a Errcio a $33. lnttcad

were a period of violert interval str:3 13 0°? FPO aund
.Fﬁhtineif 1331 Et ah3ut y his fa1luze *3 min 303'
Pre'RCC.

:he rout of in We? 5 pr3hlem, as he himvelf
laﬁer 613330303 it, was that he thourh thm t he must
"do enourh t3 03:313 3 praciznss 693. " Butkcr had been
t31333 that if a man 3098 all that 39 C°ﬁ Witﬁin his

own natural powers t3 turn tavnr 3 God, Gad will

5

('1

unfailingly re33¢d this a meritorious 333 pour His

0
Cr

17’.

p.

anihm ﬁra e 3 333's soul. Tut t;' 0 rug was this ,

what 313 30133 all thn one could amount t0? Lasher's
teachers in theoloiy at vrfurt were followers of the
"taﬂern" or ﬂoninaliet school. Luther etuﬂied the

works of the 0~irnll33 masters, especially 3111133

"f

33¢;g’ 21x, 1335. Translation taﬁen £333 “31333 g.
“'11:: fan, Y'nnn I '- {-0er fa Vii" " {r1 T

(nag-.WIIIE, I))O). p. 1'20

3?heolo:ically d6f153d as merittn ﬁg c333r33,
conﬁruous marit.

 

 

 

 

a.

3! chsm 333 his stuﬂent Gabriel ?icl. Ttese men

n --- ‘- 1. t‘ . u ’ '~v. ‘I‘o v! _ n "“ ‘ '-
maia extraxahazt c13133 for tte L3:er3 3; Lac J3 an

t. ‘ q; T... ‘ .~. I“, " v.0 ' ~"’ " ‘ " "’ "
‘mlll. ”3 In: t .udllw anil‘l3'}xnmlc be LOIIT?.LJ

The huﬁwn will can 1333 633 bhuxc all thin:3
throuth its own natural powers. T320 Siuﬂir
is also able to renove Lie hinfrauces t3
5r3ce. because he is able to keep Iron
332313; and CDTﬁ°LTLIQ 5:23; 3333, ;ca, to
hate sin 333 to will not to sin. ?y tre
removal of tfe in 33139533813 b; the "sail
steps t3wnr. 31 "333 my his 3"n free will
he can ac 31:3 the nori: i' 33 r -3, the

."

first 5 ace in t““nln5t 23:4 333.-

 

Lutbcr accepted t?is 33 a practical rcquirc onto
refers he Cthﬂ win Gad's grace he had to do "all
that he could," which, accordin5 t3 F131, 333m:
lovinw God abov a all ttlrjs thrwuéh his 3M3 natural
powers 353 at tho 3313 t13e 3111135 not to sin.
.athcr orgccte! ‘hat thr335h ;"rit;31¢313clplinc he
shonld be able t3 acrieve th 3, a conviction vkich
W33 re‘nforccd ty his read 35 of ascetic 'Tltrrs like

rn3*d of Clairvaar, who in his bo3k ﬁg 330 1333 2;

"'1

C39, :3ve a nletailei d’a scrlgstlon 0 how 333 could.

t‘Tou h the effjrts of 313053 will, t333353l3 th

3 viral, cgcictlc love of self int 3 353 pure love or

."Q

God.S

v“..—

*‘uoted in Schwiebert, p. 11).

 

E
“icinrich T‘c>"*“’-“-".r‘, cr‘in *1*"-3r: “33% t3 Tnf3333~
. 3 L ’ '~ ‘V ‘ on ‘\ . r~\
tlﬁh, tr 3r: JO? n 1. Joteretelh Jz THGuque u. u¢g_ert

Z flquelﬁLia. l)~3J. p. 2C. fereafter cited 33

m w

Put, to hia horrar and dismay, Luther always
had to ennfe3r, vpon self-evaainntion, that he hqd

not fulfilled the: 38 r33‘13333333. "r

a

38 E3 mifﬁt,
he could not rid hinself of the caneciousnesa of the
will to sin:

Vhen I 388 a monk, I believed that it 333
311 up with 33 salvation. Tnch ti33 1
engerienced the temptntions of the flesh,
that is to any, a number of evil ﬁesires,
such as an33r, hatred, jealousy, in rexnrd
to a brother, etc., I tried all kin1s of
re3eﬁies. I confesseﬂ daily, but it was of
no avail; the covetousnees 8133; returned.
1319 is tha reason wry I could find no ;.3ce,
but was p3rpet ally in torfcnt, thinking:
"You have con3itted such and such a sin. You
re still the victin of 53310353 331
concupimcence; in vain yaw have 391331 t3?
order. 311 yosr good works are 13310-3.'9

303 coula ﬁuzhnr honestly 33y that re truly loved
God nrave 311 thin38.

in tle msnn3t3r. 30 had enaufh to eat 331 to
ﬁrin‘ ,but the Heart anﬂ conscience enffered
pain and martyrdom, anﬁ t3e sv.fierln of the
soul are the most painful. 1 was oftgn
fri3htened by tve na3e of Chris?, and when I
looked upon ﬁlm and the Croge, H3 333331 to
3a 1133 unto a flash of lirhtninﬁ. h3n Eis
na3e was 333tion d, I 3.315 ratrrr h3v

heard the anvil wentianod, for I beliegoi
that I wouli have to do ﬂood works until
Christ was renﬂered gracious to me through
the3. In the co “3nt T thou ht r3itT3r of
mercy nor of ‘ho we 1th of t’is 3 311 n3? Of
3033n; but 3y heart tre3bled and was a 1tated
*‘33'133 how I 31:3t r3nﬁer n33 f3V3rnile to
it.)

 

.5 ‘ '” ... “w .—
"-.10‘-‘Jed in LC1~3-0u‘t“‘tg 1). 134-50
7 33¢, YTI, 1333-50: trapslatian tm‘en from
.chriobert, p. 154.

therees Luther'. 3031 had been to eckieve
the perfect love of God, he achieved ,Jet the
Opioeite.” ven thou :h I liv el en irreg roocnable
life a mtnk, I found myself a sinner hefnre G01,
had a greatly die quiete1 conscionc o, and c0311 not
o?tein the C3rteinty that T"e was pro]. itieted ty 3y
works of setirfection. I 111 not love the rifhteouo

8 1n the

God 330 punfotee ei nners, yea, i hated Hi3.“
b3sie of his apparent inability to win a gracious God
Luther began to 3:2 pact t“3t pertaye re res not
nu3tered anon? the elect, but 33 at the eternally
do3nod. It 339 3hen re conte3pla‘ed this possibility
that Luther woul1 reach the depths of his despair.9
.111 t. -is attentio-n that 39 have 33 11 to
Tuther'3 spiritual strz~~les ehoulcl not be allowed
to i3plant the iﬁee that Lutter'e gears in tie
manertery were one uninterrupted sic e of bleak
ﬁerpeir. P9 was not allowed time for ttet. Luther'n
eccleci3eticel eup3rior3, reeli in? rot only his
unneual irtelloctunl rifts but also his need for work
to keep tie 3121 occu; led, 111 tleir best t2 keep him

busy. erticulﬁrlj 611 thm" ur"e bin to ett1y the

 

8- pp , *
L U. km. 447.

9Foeh3er-”33tin fatter, p. 10.

7.

Fitla and to continue his theoloTicol stuﬁiee with

a V193 to tokin: his doctorate. rut thouéh subdued,
Luther's old doubts remained, eni were easily
reewokened with full vigor by a chance preeeee in
Scripture or EQﬂG theological work. Yet eventually
it was his study of the Pible that liberated Luther
fron tie doubts and fears, and gave him the certainty
of for iveneee which he so earnestly eouyht.

In April 1511 Luther was trereterred to the
Aurustinian chapter at “ittertorg in order to join
the faculty of tte newly founied Univevsity of

ittenberg. There he towk his doctorate of theology
in fctobrr 1512, e11 immediately began to locture on
the Pible. In ﬁuéuet 1513 Luther began a series of
lectures on the 731113 which continued through
ﬁcfober 1515. Fonetire in the fall of 1514 he was
preparing his cornentery on the coventg-first {sale
when he Came across the long f33ilior words 1&3
jurtitie t“o litere‘gg (Deliver me in thy righteous—
ness.)"10 This both up at and confu ed Luther.
Feliverorce was what his heart dorirod 302:, hut the

15Both the date ani the nuébor of the £831: are

debatable. fince the parse 0 occurs in the thirty-
firet Psalm no well no the seventy-first, it is
porrible t”ot tro date r‘oulﬁ be 3111e1 in tﬁe rjrirﬁ
of 1513. 3t which tine Luther would have been preynring
his notes on the thirty-first Benin. I have here

80¢??t05 tte evidence adduced by rchwiebert for th
later 11te. too Pchwiebert. DE. 227-2-1-

 

r1 hteousresa of God was a concn3t which he hated,
for he pictured the riyhteous Goa only as the judge
who punisres einters. Fe res not eccuptonnd to

899 nociatir~ virFteou nepg vitﬁ ﬁeliv range, ?ut with
punisbneﬁt. rut it 83 h”; cned that 'ut52r was
simultaneo sly engaged in stuﬂgin~ tke epistle of
Paul to t3e “Danna, and t31s 3n: n e Eran the seventy-
first Fsalm cwlled to rig mind ioncns 1:17: "For
therein [1.9. in tha Corpel7 is tre riﬁhteouyneas of
Goa revenleﬁ frﬁn faith t; faith: as it is Written,
The stt shall live by faiw ." It was at this crucial

point that furhor discaveroi what ha latcr de crib d

his

98 "t‘e main poirt of Christ an ﬁoctri...e,” na~ely

"tkqt 'e are Justified b” aith ’n Christ without
- J ‘I

.n11

any works of the law . Eere is .is own descrip-

tion of what took place:

I hﬂd befun o 9 o to lQCtﬁPB on the J.Dl*nr

. o . All the while I was abeorhe‘ Wit t3e
passionate desire t? “at better nczzainted
with the ant.or of Pornrs. Eat tEat I did

not succeed, as I had resolved, in penetrating
rare deeply into the FNVJ“Ct in 3; investifa-
tion but I stuﬁbled over tﬁe worés (chapter
1:175 concerning “the riébteousness of C03
revealed in t3: Gospel." Far t3e concept
"ﬁnd's rijhtcousness" was repulsive to me,

as I wvs accustonqd to irtnr3ret it ace r01n3
to echnlnstic philosophy, nn 0].", as 130
"£03331 or active ” rirhtoourhouh, in which God

 

11*0333 cf "3‘1nT.u'3er, ed. Yen? t7ytstex' Jacobs,
trans. d. J. To in el, A. 1‘. ". ”teinheeur er et 81., 6
vols. (Fhiladelpnia,1,15), V, 15. Ieren: ‘ter cited

95 ‘.’£.

proves hin elf rirhteoue in that He

punishes the eirnrr as an enrichteoua

person . . . Izntil, nftor 5‘38 8 1 mi )ztc

of wrestlinr v th the pro ‘319: G31 f .nally

took rity on n3, so that 1 was able to

conpre?m n‘d t3e inrer connection between the

two e: {tressione, “The rirhteousnese of God

is revealed in the Gospel“ 3: d “The Just

shall live by feﬁt th." "hen i began to

c033 rehend the "ri"hteousness of Cod' throujh

which the ri‘hteoua are saved by God' 8 groce,

nanely, throurh faith; that the "riﬁhteousness

of God" which is revealed throufh the 099361

was to be understood in a passive sense in

which God thronch mercy justifies can [33
Takes man richteouc“ by faith, as it is

written, "T36 juct sasll live by faith." ﬂow

I felt exactl, as thou~h 1 h d been born

arain, chi I beliuvod t3at I had 9. teroi
aredire tnrough wi.ely opened doorsola

.%is central doctrine in Butt er's relig:ion
and theolOﬁ is often desirnoted by the brief Latin
phrase 831g tide, justification by ggiggﬂglggg. And
When Tuther said alone, ‘6 meant it with 1A5 “1016
heart, for he reacted conpletely against 313 former
effortze to win God's grace trmrou ¢3h good v. orke. This
had, after all, been the may of deepair for him. He
even ‘ent so far as to 6-: my that t3e hm an will con
zorit anyt3ing through its own natural peters:

The true way to Christianity is this, that

a can do first ec‘2nowled e ric.elf by the

low, to be a sinner, and ttat it is 13; ossiblo

for hit to do any timovd w3r'u "or t‘m low

saith, "than nrt an evil tr ee, ord tr~301ure
all that thou thickest, rgo"e¢t or dbct, 13

 

 

’5

“”75". 11‘1. 447-443; translation takcn from
[HP 6" "

FC?‘1‘.ﬁ'ieT’:eI‘t, 132' 9 c: flu-(- _.' a).

‘ﬁi“.t God," (Watt. vii. 7). Thou cenet not
t3 orefore deserve grace by t3y works: which
if thou go about to do, thou doutlect tty

offense: for since thou art an evil tree, thou
cenet not but brirv forth evil fruits, that
is to say, tin.. "?or whatsoever is not of

feitt, is sin,” ( o? . xiv. T5}. Therefore
he the t won 1d deserve grace by works going
befire feitl goett about to please God with
sins o, thich is nothinc else but to 333p sin
upon s;€.n, to ﬂock 30%, one to provoke his
vrath.13

Yen cornot epnronch God, but God cone: to ma“. Hence,

says tether, non eust edeit that he can do nothing to

’?
6
”T
‘1‘
9

er hie oun salvation, but can only t3row hineelf
upon tte mercy of God with ioglicit faith in God's

grotire of salvation. "For God hath revealed unto me

{'1‘
{4
tr

‘13 worﬂ, that he will be unto us a merciful father,

and without our deserts (seein: ve can Gaserve nothing)

will freely Give unto us rerierion of sins, richteous-

nose, on“ life everloeting for fhrirt his fon'e coke.
It is irpertent to notice t3et in arrivinr at

this doctrine of ﬁnetificction Mu her eccegted the

a thority of the “1319 over eieinrt the aut3oritg of

the Thurc for tFe Church's position one eeyhnticelly

not cola fioe. Tut3.1r rm 6 read in Tecen the

 

 

that FOpee nd councils could
toriin Lut3er ﬁ “teeter" on Tt.. Peel‘s Twirtle
“a To‘e‘inns

ion

nCo v_ .
-‘~. ”7"“ .9? ca? . ego {1-f- .igatfr'Jn.. Elaine.
anon. \Lon on, ;€5), p. 151.

14E“-"— ‘0’ P0 11:20

 

wivocotle assert

ll.

err an that only Scripture was infallible.
RoWever Qccan elWeys 89W in the ttﬁct‘r o: tro
Church the correct interpretation of Scripture.
Put Luther's bitt :er dim apcoint ment with the Church’s
prescriptions for obtaining grace paved the way for
him to take one step furtter and place the Bihle
above the trad itions of the Church as the sole

authority in matters of doctrine. Kencc hand in

 

3. L‘- . " ..
hen, Wit 2 cola fize goes sole to ipt1re.
W ‘ w .71

 

 

It was ttie new understanding of justifiC3tion
which We 1e it inevitable th at sooner or later fatter
would have to attack the Catholic Hose and ferrulete
a new doctrine. For Luther eventually realized trot
he was in basic dieagreenent with the whole snore ntol

system of the medieval Church. The sac we2erts Were

O Q A - I
the ver reiecn g'etre of the medieval Church, for it

 

 

was taught that the sacraments, properly adninietered
by priests of the Church, are necessary to salve tian,

in as much as through them tr e bexefits of Cr rist's

passion are mediated to mankind.10 But Luther, with

 

e . Lt ;_ Pee nt
(M 22 ##3:3 rtio I910).

 

r
19Heinrich Boehmer, Lut be r in 3
Research, trans. Carl F. I: uth, 7r.
pp. 78-v4.
th We: -q:ir as Sunme TFeelc~ice iii
1. I used the ?nelis H translation 01 t‘
the Zn lish lmo inicha n Lrovince, 5 vol 3.

Pros., Lew Vork,l #1348).

’ :0 61. left.
e lethca rs of
(? enzin er

 

his doct3ine of jugtificntion.by faith alonw, ﬁltered
tﬁis arran30393t 0233123313 in can? t3U3tin3 r-is
theeloiy. In plnce 3f t32 secrnwents 33 inﬂiSpensible
voriclas of 3r3co ﬁW “33 yut tie "33 d of 333." "And
*hernfore 33h is ac counted T1:?t0, PO‘JS by virt‘ze 2f

th in the 1"3'3..7.7«:1."17 It is the $03d throurh which

{‘3

'J.

Fnlvntion is merh atei to MWIn :i3d. tuther'e mature
concept of the sacraments was part 833 333col of his
concept of salvation th rotlth faéth in the 30:3. "In
ordar that there Le a sacrament, the3e is reﬁui3ed
above all thin s a word of 613133 promiﬁo, wrcre y
mh

fa

{JO

('1
th may he trained."1“ This word of prom 129,3
adaeﬁ to a divinely instituted 3121313 812R:
constitutes a true sacrament. Tnthnr felt that only

two of the seven Roman Catholic HC“PT€4t , baptism

 

.
L741T7 313, pp. 12.?—,O. T"e tern "m3:d ofC ad,"
in Lu4her's use of it, is not 331:3 so simple as it
.pyears at fir2t 513.ce. F33 he did not mean simply
the wlitten wozi: of the Bible or the spohe1 turds
of t} e se rmon. Philip iatson exp airs it as 1311335:
"Christ and the T.srd are virtuallg 1nuurc11ubcable
ter3s fcr Luther. Even thourh he ofte2 uses the
term "Kurd of God" as thou h referrinr simply to
Scripture or the words of the Christian pr3ncher,
Luther's 39:231 3 alvavs 53-3 deeper ti an t12t. ":2
him, the Word is 213355 fundamentally Chr13t, even
when he does n3t eX3licitly 333 so . . . :13 c33-t33elJ
w3r32, .HCLL?“ 3ri tten or spoken, a 3 f3? h53 rut cr

 

 

.ﬁ-
J ~' . .. ' -1. 3‘ - o -
the 3211c13 a: n:*1a of Lac UlVlnC, crest 133 orﬂ, by
which Cad ad?res:os E133elf ﬂ1r 01:13 :rd 53:23:2115-
to ms." ’24: (W1 1,. end: 22 3433333131 t" ;
.-_ - -._ - . a .1 . ,_ .' ‘4 _’ A 4 .b \ .. .-
m— can—nun. “ anon-F. Ta —.._ ﬂ
flair‘r‘ lag-1 .x. p-q' (3.:‘1 ’n: .3" _‘. '1' ‘1‘ ‘7‘. .2 1.. {N N __ l"_ l‘i (' i; C 1_ 1 4??) 1 1s m". .
.- 1.....LJ *.4. .3... t.‘ 5.915 1“-..- \Al- * ‘. L«-" //’-v./' ‘r.

     

 

and the lord's Fuoper, fulfilled those rcquirooonts.19
But we have seen tlet the fO‘if ﬂatiors of

Tutber's reforms were alrtooy laid in 131%. There

was a six year loose before he pronounced his doctrine

of tre lord’s Popper. The eiplanoticn is airply that

it took Luther several yonre to pursue all the impli-

cation: of the ooctrine he had stunhlod upon. He had

to 30 step ”3 steg, continuing his study of the Pible,

overcoming and replacing one by one the doctrines to

which he had been thorouchly devoted all his life.

The open break with the Catholic Church boron when

Luther presuood to attac? the sale of indulgencoa

with the posting of the rinety~five .Feses in Octobo

1517. ?rom trio point on Luther found hinzelf under
attack , and in defending himself he was forced to

fully realize and reveal that he was challenging the

whole of medieval Catholicism, root and branch. At

the Leipzig Die putation in July 1519 Jolm <,

defending the papal position, maneuvered Puthor

into declarin* that the papacy was of recent and

human oriein and that p03 as and c :rcile not only

could, but did in:3eed err, and err seriourly.

Over aoainot ttcoe Luther cited the authority of

Scripture and would not be refuted except fron Scripture.

In other voros he declared himself a heretic and

 

II. 231-292.

invited excocﬁun c tion.

"Rut 1753-3, t‘nc ya 11? in which 13131733? publicize
his rajor early wor“c 3n the Rord's f‘:_;:r, no: the
deciciV7 33”? in ‘15 break vith Tore. This was the
gear in which Tuthcr reached full oc'urity as a
reformer, public kin* no less than ten major works
eitlcr c: rectly or in‘irectly ettqn11n* tM teachings

of t e Yomen Catholic Church, rc9lt'.‘.r:=ic”r tzhcr Vitn a

whole new theology founded upon cola fiﬁo cod cola

 

 

goriggcrc. “he most farous of th ece v rt: are the

 

immortal trio in “pan Tcttcr to tie Christian
”0
L.

"Nip

“7-13

gjhility, recdom the Ctr stian Won, and

 

1° 1°
”a *‘5

2-
:he Pchxlcnien Captivity the Church. ’

 

 

Co for we have reviewed rather m98tily the
experiences and theological presuppositions which
underlie Buther'e doctrine of the ﬂord's Fupper. But
since this doctrine was first put forward in the

pro case of attack1n:? the Catholic ductrine of tho Toss,
it is trime that we cone; ider who t tte Catholic position
was. In the Catholic Church the Holy Eucharist is the
chief sacrament and is the focal point of the liturgical

worship of the Church. The chief benefit or grace of

ﬁnal unian with Christ by virtue

 

this sccrancnt is perE

“‘gpia., 1:, 55~~34.
alr:1a., II, 955— 54.

 

'-

:10

f the real presence of tle bod; 3:5 blocd of Christ

'3
in the consecrated elc5entc of broad 525 251.555..“3 Tre

I
5

P3 1‘. .. .. I- c ‘ , .. . ,
L351 .rcoc5cc occarc chro j: a cirecclorz process

‘rw- ’- ‘4 - v. in .. . -'- «- ' 1'- I

.“Ewu a; t n cul:.aut15tion, ..hl::h C‘“ ‘5 effects
”vi;

cal; 53 a duly ordained priﬁct. ’ then the fricst

ﬁreﬁfvncen ov~r t‘e cletcntn the vorﬁg :5 inctitution,
"Ttis is my b55y . . . Thi5 i5 tﬂc chalice i. :3

blood," the subrtenccs of tr535 a 5 wire are tbercupon
cﬁﬁryad into tPe true boéf and Floud of Christ
alt} oujh th5 out5.5rd e“ 55*55ccv, cr accilcntc, 5f

r59.

ec.‘7

(:1
p

brea5 uni 5fue e-e still perceived by thr con
t

Fte55inﬁ lirectly from ttic lit‘ral \elicf in

the 3551 Treecnce, th5 :rnctica crew up, 355 was

coyﬁaticclly fix-5 by the Council of bonstence (1515)

of givinm the laity the sacrencct unicr the syccics of
broad only, in order “to avoid certain dancers enﬁ
.25

scandals, one of which Thence écrirﬁc had described

as the acci5entel spillint of so5e of Christ's blood.37

 

dagegry PGTZlRTFY, mna conncee O’ Patt5lic nqnmq
tr5ns :oy *. Dcferrarw E 33115-14’/,, sect. 5:3.
Hereafter cited 53 Denzin er. section ruwhcrs rather
than pawn numbers are viven. (Thic is a colléctivn of
official Catholic sources nnﬂ beare the " 55rirntur" of
the Archbishop of 55ehir ton.) €55 also Thoiwe A;ainas
$5555 Theologicg iii, a. 73, ﬁrt. H.

C. "§‘ 1". o ‘ ,
-cn51n er, eccte. 425, 450.

25Tbi5

sect 5. “Eu, 63?.

 

.51., 930'; . 6W6.

’Th0555 Aquinas Sumva :hcglcﬁjzg 111, 1, 30'
Art. 1?.

 

 

l3.

Howevar. this was not viewed us any “Girjv’tion

since it was believed tEat tr 0 wh.ole body and blood

:30
.0

of Christ were entire unﬁer each species.
fines the effact 0? V is ca Ctﬂ”‘”t is union

wiﬁh Chriac, n) one who is conscious of “ortal sin

may receive it, for no one who hat an attrchncrt

towcrde mortal sin can be 2Wni ed u:ith “Hrlct.:) If

the obstacle of mortal sin is preceht, it must be

removed in the Facraﬂent of Tenance gricr to receiving

the Vucheriet. item no obstacle is present the grace

or effcct of t‘is tacrcnect, Ii”? inns of all sqcrc‘arts,

is conferreﬂ 9y cporg onnna‘a, that is, the sacrament

 

70
causes trace by its own operation.)‘

But the Eucharist is not only a sacrament, it
is also a sacrifice. At the high point of the ?353 the
priact takes the consecrated elencn ts and offers the
body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice to God, tins
repeating in a mystical may the sacrifice of Calvary.
This sacrifice benefits not only those who participate
direct 3, but it can also be 01 ferei on behalf of 3t.ers,

incluﬁinj tie faithful in Purgatory. $01 is 3530233d

 

ty this aacrifice, arﬁ L e vanic‘ﬁ.nt due to sin is
Ear-3 7‘56“?!" "0" f" .-’ f) ‘
’-...-....A.nf....¢.' ueCt. ' ‘3.
237 O 1 (n1 0 a «
ha 133 Aqtinas Eucmn ;pcclogicq iii, ‘. 79, Art. 4.
T" L - ' ;"'- .
)VT $1.13.. 111. ,-’:. '00, ﬁrto 2; -... 31:32. Lift. 1.

1?.

remitted acc3rdin¢ to t“3 measure af tho devotion

w it is offered.91

U

of those far wk

Fran Lutner'e point of View the Cathalic

- p *3“ A" . , s w v
@Oct?113 3. “Es 'Aknsrist, p3"t'“n1 "1* 133 cartrxne
a v. a. ﬁ ', A s 4. - H " s
on ‘F: ’"*‘Lii\e 1‘ *fx: ‘35., ‘rs ‘3»? o f'a3'*:“'t

outragtions in ?be history nf Christendsn. is turn
naw to canfiéer his attack vpan it and the doctrine

which he put in its place.

 

"9'1 - »
T1733”. ill, A. 7,}. ﬁrt. 5‘ :70

LIV-"WV”V‘fv "w-vw 'N"7 PP“ I'T" “’"fW‘TnI‘w
0“ “ “ 1 _ u

5 .--I. \gx,.’;¢':- ~a 3'. 1.}. J... *3 Li-’ —i\d'.mst 1.»;

Although Luther first putlisﬁcﬁ his matur-e

L)

C"). " n""u I’- n . v
lactllne on tie Lord's tugger in 1323, Be h»d

“N.

C?

already pub11313d an extcnﬂnd treatment of he
sacravent in December 151? entitled ; ¢r33ti¢q

03*cn**‘"~ t“3 "lcsred Fﬁcrnﬁcnt.1 Luther unfertoek

 

 

to Write this treatise, be said, "been be there are
so nary troz1led and d stressed ones . . . who do
not now that th-. holy sacramertc, full of all gr3cc,
are, nor row to ure tﬁcm . . . so completely 3r9 the
hal: sacrnﬁer,s ob: urod 353 withdr3vn fr03 us by

the tanchin: of men."2 This certninl; has an
ominaus rinr, and on th3 b3::1s of it one might

expect to find in t313 Wreat- e a tharauth attack on

hiﬁhly oriiir.3l inter m3: 3*ti33

Catholic 33333 333 a
of t1 3 sacra“13t. But it is t33 early for th at.
nutfer still conr1dnre r1nrnlf t): 13;, 31 a Ca tlolic
to launch a full scale attack, an! his 033 doctrine
of 313 sacrament is still far fron ﬁature.
311 conservative and inwatura than 3 this
tr atice is, we cm: r333 b3t333n th3 lires 3:3 perceive

the 33n3ral directian wrich .uther's than ht will tat»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iTull title: A ""n~.i~n fonc3ﬁnic“ the “139393
Qq unmnnﬁ- f)? 49%.», '1' T rr‘f 1'"??? 3 x :- 7." ("3.1.1 nt— ,, .'
‘ "CJ- J I '~ cc ) 1 .1 (.1 .r‘ 9“. ‘1‘. ).~ ), $11,;
rt ”‘ﬁ . - v ... I.. E n - 1‘ an ’ " '-_-"'_L ”Ti" " "" _""""
\ (7..-.-eL11Ln L, 1 3 J J J k3? )0 l). 1” J . “lo-I.) .

P1 W V—w

‘0

r...

shortly in the Future. Perhaps the mast striking
thing here is that Luther nowhere eention: the
sacrifice of the ﬂeas. ”his can only mean that he
had already abandoned that dogma, or he would
certainly have mentionci it in a work written
especially to exglain the sacrament. This is a
significant commentary on how far Luther has alreaiy
gone toward breekin: with the Bowen Church, for no
writer thoroughly devoted to the Catholic dogma could
possibly have avoided mentioning the most significant
doctrine in the Catholic cocoa of the sacrament.

Tn the other hand, Luther very clearly
emphasizes tie belie: that in thia sacrament "all
depends on faith.“5 thetevcr bleeeings the sacrament
has to offer can be received only in faith; without
faith the sacrament ia nettinﬁ. In his forthcoming
works on the sacrament Luther places the doctrine of
the sacrifice of the Sass in strongest contrast to his
own doctrine of justification by faith alone, re ehtinj
the former because it is inconsistent with the latter.

Hence from the very beginning a principal

point of emphasis in Luther's doctrine of the secrcwcrt

O

t

O

“ .‘
t: it? n

is that of faitt. But the object of that for

a.

!

yet clearly defined. The problem is ttet Eut’er does

 

3Ih1d., II, 25; or. II, a, 19.

PU
( }

not come to the point and build a doctrine of the
secretent based on the scriptural account of the
sacramental institution, ea he does in his later
eorke. Perhaps he was not yet prepared in his own
mind to do so. At any rate, his attention here is
riven over to en cepect of the sacrerent wh‘ch is
certainly important, but when taken in the liﬁht
of his nature doctrine, only secondarily ea.

In this treatise Luther sees the significance

of the sacrament as can an 3; we would say in English

M

 

”communion" or "fellowship." The sacrament establishes
a communion amine Christ and all saints in heaven and
on earth, in Vhich all anxieties, afflictions, and aims
are shared by all in cannon. ?hne the believer is

ten ht to rely on the merits of Ctrirt, to derive
comfort from corcnnion with otter Christians, ard to
let his heert go out in love to his fellows. hence the
benefit of the sacranent is said to be strengthened
faith and mutual love. ire bread and wine of the
Becraccnt symbolize this fellowship. Just as the breed
is composed of many rraine fused into one loaf, and
just as the nary drops of wine lore their form and
become one cup, so should all Christiane be united in

. 4
the church cf Christ.

 

*1b1d., II, 16-17.

h)
H
0

Rather gives another example of tria
symbolism which not only illustrates the above
point, but introiuces a problem of its own. hrist
"gave Hie true natural flesh, in the bread, are His
natural and true blood, in the wine, that he night
give us a really perfect secretart or ainn. For
just as the bread is charged into His true natural
body and the wine into His true natural blood, so
truly are we also ﬂrawn and chanrei into the spiritual
body, that is, into the fellowship of Christ and all
saints . . ."5 So we see that from the very beginning
the real presence of Christ's body and blood is an
integral part of Luther's doctrine of the sacrament.
Luther's statement here that the bread and wine are
"changed" into the body and blood of Christ indicates
that Luther still acknowleigea the doctrine of
tranaubatantiaticn. Two thin 9, however, indicate
that this acknowledgement is only formal. Fir: of
all, he epochs of the bod; and blood as being "in the
broad" and “$3 the wine," which is hardly the proper

way to explain the process of tranaubctantiation.

(D

Seconﬁly, then the questions are raised: lhere do th

V)

bread and vine remain when trey are charosd i'to Cir: t'a

 

flesh? and, How can the whole Christ be coopretendcd in
l'.‘
{laiZ-o II, 19. The term "spiritual holy of Christ"
is enuivalert to "the church."

cuch a small porIian of bread?, Luther answers:

3h to know that it

";hat does it matter? It is on w
is a divine Sign, in which Christ's flesh and blocd
are truly present—«haw and where, we leave t0 Bin."5
80 Luther evidently does not set very much store by
the subtleties involvea in the ﬂeet ring of
transubstantiation. Fig positicn with regard to the
Real Presence and transubstantiation will become
clearer later.

Stranrely enough, it was the least iwportant
part of t“is treatise which caused the *reatesb
concoticn when it was published. butter 8L ugjae ts,
almost in passing, that a general Church courcil
ehnzld res lore conwunion in both kinﬂs to tha laity
in order th:.t thoy mL ht have the sacred sign in ita
entirety.7 It is h*—r for the noﬁern reader to
understan‘ what a scandal this was to erﬂent supporters
of tho papacy unless he bears in mind that communion
in one kinﬂ had been dorwatically f xed by the Council
of Constance,8 avd that appeals to a general council

withnut the pcrriasion of the page had been Egocifically

 

6ILid., II, 20.
7r»14., II 9.
Eenzin,=“er, sect. ¢450

9‘.)
\‘4
o

9

condemned shortly before Father's time. moreover,
the Bohemian heretic John Kus had taught and
practiced communion in both kinds. Co by the
process of guilt ty association, Luther was charged

10 If the papal party had

with being a Hussite.
known what was to come from Luther's pen in loss
than a year they perhaps would have been less
concerned about this point and more concerned about
Luther's attitude toward the sacrifice of the lass

and transubstantiation.

Luther States Bis Fosition
ﬁbers are two treatises invc4ved in Luther's
earliest statement of his nature doctrine of the
sacrarert. The first of these is the Treatise on
£29. 2593; Testament, 3—3.5. lg, 2:2. £111 393?. (August,
1520).11 Tris is a rather quiet and constructive
statement of Luther's newly-found understanding

or the sacrament. Better known, and much more

 

;;g;g., acct. 717.
1chatter of Duke George of Saxony to tto “lector
Frederick, 27 December 1519, MLSS, XIX, 450-451.
ller, I, 287-326. Both in this treatise and in
the thzlogan W Luther uses the term "floss"
meaning a up 9 oo o ration of the Lord's Supper.
Even after they had discarded the Catholic dogma,

the Lutheran Churches kept "mass" for many years
before they gave Up the term.

 

 

’ .4 .' .f I. 1‘ 7"“ ‘l .“» .1 .’ -. - “ . . 1 ' ' I» I‘
( ,r-.1 'f . "1 ,1 [in '3-'.!‘.‘.' 3‘,“ l- ('7': \ :"."‘ "‘ (x.
EJJLG .1. IL .1..- u -.’-- . LE. - ... . w“ ._. . .. ~ ‘ A. . .. . . . ._ .L
. 1‘?
3-‘ ‘1‘ ,-,‘,‘ . “an“. ..., 1r"v,.\_ -"- u' ‘ .. . , Ii. .. j .
4 ’ ' , - '3 ?' t.. l ‘-
7‘ (5-4.1. .1. -_-1 \ LIV uh; «J. . .L .1- \.- I . t .LJ;‘.G VA“... 5.5 L- u' L.- Lance

 

. Q ‘-“~ “‘ggnnr l-I. -- 5-. J ‘ u 9"“ -‘ r (tin " ‘ n 1— 9“- . ﬂ ""’ ‘r‘

’ ' ‘. -. _' '.'"* r‘ ‘ ;- " 2.. ‘ -“'.. _. ‘3". “3 ”'9'
.L out. -- c .. . ., l L ' - «-- '.- .- l“ L ¢Au.L-'- Lola

*- a.“ ”O- v1

It:

 

 

. _|_ '1 '5 ’ Q Q , '. 1" _I‘ -‘ _ _. . __ ’- ‘0 D

. .s n 0‘ 9‘)! , ‘Q .. t o n. 1“. f. . \~ 53,
r530” ~00 (3 u (-,-..l).;$._;,,{?\i big/)3; Ju‘t ;,"‘, , _.__ ..- 3", LL - 1'." 195v,
WW" ”-8-. . ~ -. '~:- l- 4”. *4.- ”W

to b.aL]_~:3w)se our 3 ierduznn to one 13 Her, rznwjjfg

§-P - .‘e as”, 3...! via- -- 9“ ,-' :L I“ 1‘. 1w'~~'~~. ‘- '7-
Uzi-3111 t”? 3.03. 3.31" J31} “.3336 .Lu ECG..C« 2.34...» 3.1 vi) ('3') 800

"‘“ ’“‘"7 3 "“*“‘Vf*7 is a ewefpirs

 

 

 

4.~,. ~ ... ﬂ, .. .;..-.'_ by} - .. ‘w 0.9. .. .13
LI."§J. 0:19,..1 eJJ idu.’ ULJn -..‘-.‘L1 0’: ﬂue 14gb. 2.1.0:] (Xi H e‘v' "33310

c c ._ 1 e l. ’ ..‘ --.~ q, ' 1 ‘V ~~' ‘ m . e ‘ 3‘
Er3€fv3."‘;‘3}17_.??;, f-~ ‘o'S 3'11 L); .’3 ,.iadlevai Lliiurcne 3351:..- 3.33

 

'11 '9 (- ‘e/“la F e‘:. w l‘h' l‘\ g" Q
- d‘- '-- h ‘ ‘ -- «a v I
f'" .. - f , . .-. .. .. . .. . l -
. ' '.- 7 m. I:,_‘D , ‘ae, a. \ '-e a B , . {\e‘, 0' .. .
.- ._.'.‘3L .3 J...) ‘10 lee-.003 ‘ ‘ ’ u-‘UJ ‘Jun Lt..1 'w‘Lfn.) ‘J . 0

should expec: from to a treatise on tzte at her

£:~3.\vri-1‘) 4 AF).- H-ij.‘r‘ 1":t.""f'". ti” :3“.’.(‘

H‘VAI .ALJLKJS bu) I...(‘...’u...L‘ .1
‘-

fugper, and penancg7 until I an to zrht by
“h3t tort I c3n ;r:>'e 3.32 tin; or: ascrucuntso

I reward none of t;*.e otr'er 5 ea 3 sncrenent,
for 3‘333 is no sacranent 3:3ve mi 39 thLC is
a d Irect divine pronis e, exercisinz our faith.
so can heJe no.1nrw- 3-330 with 393 except by
the word of Him proris . , and >3 tLe feit.

of 33H r3ce'vin: tLe v.333rc. .At an -Jther time
you shall hear more about their £35 133 of the
seven seer-.ncnts.14

Tull title: a Prelude on tte Tetrlcrien chtivitv

 

 

 

an “3'? cw r"- 1*”-.:-r=)’"" ‘ "‘ “
‘b’ i. .-' s- \4 ’ .J' *u's, 4” .-. j.

“Jeor: - "19,1“, court chnnlein t3 thn ilecter
'redcrick and int in to friend of Luther.

13 .. . . r
_ - - e. - .v "D f r . ﬂ - ‘ 1')’ )5. ‘— .‘ -.u i A 6
w. .t--‘ . ‘0 it .a..(33 ’ (- 1-); ‘14. or} 3&.(.‘ t,r V r13 J 8.1 'L:1 ' L...

r.

")0

But Luther also had a more immeﬁinte occ2rion for
writin:, at least with recard for th2 section of the
treatise 222112: with the ‘228. Yot only had the

Publication of the “rectice ”2"“2“**** :22 Tlosred

____._.. 2. z: -—-‘ nun-wou- mm

 

Eﬂcramevt caused a furor when publig 222, but it

 

v- 1 ﬂ 3 . . r's' ‘— ‘ 1:»
drew a f3r221 r2212 fr 2 the LatbOILC 9152, xriutea

C3

by the ﬁeipzig tranciscan, Aurust 212212, 2202

fmthnr referred to as "the Leipzig 3222;

Alvelﬂ defended coﬁﬁunion 12 one k?nd only, and

with such viﬁor tlat Luther had t3 reply . "for when

I pu“li M 2 ry treatise on t‘e Wuch2rist £15127,

clung to the common usajc, being in no wise cancerred

with the qucstion of the right or 2r22: of the papacy.

But now, challenged and attacked, may, forcibly

thrust inta the arena, I shall freely speak my mind,

let all the papi eta laugh or weep together. "15
Tmther discusses the "Sacrament of t’2 Bread"

under three heaiings, corresponding to the three

" c2; ﬂvities of th2 sacra2ent in To o2an Catholic 23222:

the withholding of t.e cup fron t‘2 laitv

1,1!

trancuhstantiation; 822 the doctrine 2f 22 2222 as

a good work and a 83 cr ifice.

l

 

 

 

t‘
I’KT”?, X313 ,288; Alvcld's tract was Tr2ctatus
62 co" 221222 Lab “+22322 922218. 822 23L, II. 5’.
IS

C7'Pfrg’ IT . 17C).

Comwunion in Both {inﬂs

In 1519 Dubber had contented himself with

 

1 «surnra #- 3 M -~I *‘ﬂﬁ W "‘ ﬂ"6 ‘ F. H‘I I. \‘W"""‘ A " “‘-
6(1' . '_ {itch-"L ”,J." _ CL-A‘t\ld- “t-v3 .54.. w; ..L -\HJ kaln n b'J'UJ‘L
.I'F‘ .-1H Q‘r‘. 4'5- 1 -. V? I,“ 1" r- VI“ LN "-'~‘\9?~ " *k""'
-4}: 2‘ , _'.r ..' ’3 aitd . L+u‘n he w 'd&-u ‘- -v 3.4. v: -‘ La Ucnv‘U

é ‘ w '~-~ 9‘ 'V "a w ‘ _ —‘ . n *y
125 :, 2:3 t.wt +31; 19 not in tﬁe wove: of unJ

b-
J.

\ * -L 1
ahtcl, TZCh 13:? a: 3:3 papa 3r counc11." uﬁhcr‘s
whole Cage is based on an appeal tn the scriptural

institutian. Tatthcw, Qark, Luke and Paul all

record tﬁet Chri?ﬁ gave bath kinﬁs to all his
éisciples. Thuref0“e, t) 43 otkaé‘ice in this
sacraﬁent is to chant. the institutitn cf ihrist,

an: “if we tfrfit one institutiﬁn a? Christ to be
chahﬁed, We ﬂake all his lava invalid . . . “or a

sin? a exceytion, especially in t}: Ccripturer,
invaliﬂﬁtes thﬁ wkale." Furth§rﬂor?, Christ ceﬂ“n&ded

”Drink yo 9.

I...
H
)
’ a
in).
(.f

.

' '3
O
9‘
H:
53
y...»
H
'3
s...)
Q
C?
1.)
5L
1‘3
fund.
:3
7 "

U

H
C?
H
m

iﬁpiﬁus t3 withﬁalﬂ tbo cwp fr:m theta *?3 desire it.

far the rerisrz>n of sinc.‘ Here we see very plainly

that the blood is Sivan t3 all tho 9 I»: whasc yins

 

27"":«43 T? 733"
1‘.a;\ 4“. a. 1. 1'2".
‘.'--\ - , p‘ \_
:v43., II, 177—1 r.

it was shed. Put mro will dare to say it was not
shed for the 1ait~?"19

iuther no longer hes any ree,cct for the
tradition enﬂ leyislation of the Church linitiug
cor unian to one kinﬁ, because it is obvious to
him that the Church's position has no basis in
Scripture. To he is characteristically iniignant
at the oft repeated charge that those etc insist on

cooﬁuninr in both kinﬂe (such as the Fohcmiers and
O

R)

the *rec: Cotholice) are ech1513tics or heretics.

Come hither then, ye pogish flotterero, one
and all! Fall to and defend yourselves
atainst the charce of godlessnosr, tyranny,
lese-majee 3 against the 038361, on& the
crime of slanﬁerinm your brethren,--*e that
decry es heretics those who will not be
wire after the veporinrs of your own brains
in the face of such patent and :otcnt words
of Scripture. If any are to be called
heretics and achieoatice, it is not the
Bohemians nor the wrecks, for trey take
their stand upon th Gospel; but you Eocene
are the heretics are godless schirvetice,
for you presume upon yjur own fictions and
fly in the face of the clear scriptures of
God. ﬁarry that stroke, if you conidl

But Luther will not recommend that comﬁunion

feel that th r is a rigorous and irrevocable command

‘ _._....4_.. L

1-3 , "5 M
q ni'ﬂo. II. 1’};’-.

See Donzinﬁer, sect. 593.
21i" II 1”u
3'”. --’ -“ 0

9
-

to enamune in an“ or two winis, but L?nt men ShOnlﬁ

be free to choo‘a the manner of tkn oririnal
institutian if they wish. ”hey do not sin wﬁo use
only the one kind, "but thay Bin who forbid the giving

of both kings t6 such an Geriro to ex.rci£é Shir free

P?
will." h -

The ?cal Tresence
The second captivity of the sacraicnt,
transebstantiation, "is less grievous so far as the

canscio ca 15 c>ncerned, yet the v>ry gravest dﬁuwer

2r
threatens the man who would attack it . o ." ’

although transubsfantiatian had been maﬁa the official
d3“mn of th@ Cﬁnﬁch by the F urth Lﬁteran Council in
1?15, Luther siwply denies the power of a cauncil to
make néw d025Viné ard page on tw a description of how
he came ta reject the rover Catholic dqgra.

Years awa, vhon I was Gel n int; :ckalﬁstic
theolovy, the Terdina] of wafhrﬁyﬁ” rave me
food for thourht, ir his caﬁﬁegts an the
fouﬁth beak of the fantences £3? Fetﬂr Doﬂbﬂri7.
rhore he arwuos With 'reat acunen that to

hold fhnt real bread 9rd real wine, anﬁ not
tfvir accidents only, Gr? pren.nt on ti:
alt9r, i? mwch "at? probahla uni roguires
fewar nnnec¢s~ar~ miracles~~if only the

Church had not decreed otherWise. When I
learnea vhﬁt church it was that ¥wd decreed

 

‘5“?‘11 TI 1“ 1‘"
an L‘ ‘- . . -. ’ .4! u)- ~,,z .
23 1" .2 ‘3 ~:- 1- war

Lk‘ “I... . ’ A .8- ’ 1" ) / .
"III I

5*“... I -. \ n 1
$19er .3 15111.11], {319011;10 0.; .CCC'T‘J

thieo-neeely the Church of ho~~°‘zr“eil e ,
i.e., of Arietotie—~I waxed lol’er, era
after fleetinz in a eee n? deutt, at 122*
founﬁ rert fer :3 careciencc in v . . -
view-wnezely, tent it 1" real breeﬂ enﬁ
reel mine. In whi Ch CFTL’L" r“?l . ..
blood are pres ent, nat other" ce an;
lee": really than tT‘ey germs) te be the erase

under treir acciﬂent8.5b

Trensubst~ntiation is merely ae opinieﬂ, enﬂ
need not be believed, because it tn: no cleer rcrree'
in ﬁcripture. Yuther does not go so fer as to
cate3oricelly reject treneu?etartiaticn, but seys: "I

perrit every men to holi eighe r of these views,

as be cheeses. *y one concern at present is to reeuve
all scruplee of conscience, 83 that no one may fear to
becoee 3uiltJ of he —reev if he should believe in the
presence of reel bread and reel wine on the alter, enﬂ
tﬁut QVUryune mey feel at liberty to penﬂer, L013 and

beliCWe ei t‘rr one View or the other, without
9%
enc‘en evir h1:3 calvetien."“

«1.. 1" 3.1.. 0 1 . - , .., .. .
Put ,ntler thlPKS he has send grounﬁu for his

f-‘o

8 this, t’nt "no vielewce 5 t9

.. 4.. ,1.
I 0'r’J‘?”‘--o

4
f...
e
5::
O
O
m
(‘P
H

:3
’3

---l
-. J
«I!

done ta the we de ef God. . .but ttey are to be

Cr

retained in their sieplee meaning wherever peseitle, anﬁ

to be understood in their :raeeeticel ex“ literal sense

 

  

 

 

-eber5, Teyt—KO 2 0f
1'. - .. 7\ ., """"""""-- a . .. \ """'
tee ‘ r*)“n e1 -ectrinée “ens. Charles .. Maj, a
I” I? ." r i") . 1“ ‘ If," _‘ , o ‘- C: 1’ r f) In,
- \ : l‘ﬁﬂd .. f3}..- .21: ’ -lC£‘L 0 ’ 19/2) . I}, ’ 2‘“ D‘f.’ ‘4‘.

 

so

reefter Citﬁt es Seeberg.
“f H w
r“) ”L II. 10 ﬂ_1€9.

12 an absurd 311d 32heard of jumjlinx with 73:65, to
under L3ad 'bread' to 3333 'the farm, 3: accideazs
of bread,‘ 3nd ' ine' to 3:33 't13 ? r2, 0:

3021 3nt2 of winu.'"?7 T‘na tsxt genticns t3 2 bread
and vine, anﬂ flesh ana blood, clearly 13913133 thnt

they are bath t?ere in their cuﬁstnatial realit"

Kore? tne Uri.ci3al objo tion to “232:2t2‘33”13tiﬂr
t

(J

is thak it S'ra'ns tF3 menninw ox t‘ t2yt, while
F"111y's View k3s he advaa*aje {F33 it allows both
bread 33% 3123, psi flesh and b103d to be present in
corfarnarce "itl tbs t3xt
To illustrate hi 3 View Sukkot uses tha rnraus
xanple of fira 3rd iron. "hut 33y could not Shrist
inclu'b Tie. 3,333 in the .:'u?:-t3nc-3 of the 17-17433 Just
as well 38 in t?3 ac01333t2? ? he t 3 : M“3m: s of
fire 37% iron are so 3125131 in the heated iron tfat

r33 and fire. 1}Q‘ could not 330

‘ '3
CT
H
’3'}
H‘
O
‘T
H

3very p3

rather Ch31Fu'8 body he t‘us C3ntain¢d in CV32; gant
3 .9 .- “)"28 "' "

of the 22':t3nco 03 .he bread; 3t 2uth3r also

uses a <_ch 3323 siznificnht. but raver quoted

illustration, C23 n fr03 t“3 b333r 3—6 v12) #33733 3f

 

 

r3

8/T%iﬂ.. II. 133-1?39
’)-.

¢“I¥iﬂ.. II. 191-

51.

Therefare it is w: tn the s3crament even 38

it 1S With 7hr1-wt. in "WJér t‘a Lt: Goihead
-3y dwell in W13, 3 la rot r: ccs 3r; tfat
tue wen yt"t:'L:We ! 1""'"L1‘Ct1llti'3ted and the
1.0d‘=b 33d be contains d unﬁer its acciientsg Wat
both ratuaes are tt3re i: Lknir entirety ,,
and it is trulv said 'T‘

{O *J.

’1
Lnis “an is Cux3,"z1no
"TWis God 13 "an . . ." “V33 33, in orée r
that tWe reL31 hazy 3.33 tWe 33:31 blood of
“WWJWt 33" We .rcscnt in WW3 33cr3333t, it
is not rﬁchW3r" tW3W the bra 3d ani wine be
tnanruostnptia ted FUN? Christm31t 133 cﬂ 1uuhe
their accidents; but 33th 33 313 there
t3 “Him... . g .2)

0

Th 3 31 13 di3cutsi) n prescr1:3 a difficult

fl.

3333133 cf int33333tati03. TWe ‘o'iralist doctrine

to WWiCL Butter W333 awg33ls is ﬁrown as CDLFTthantiatiOno
T3333fore scholars ”itbgut Wu~533 W333 033013 ed WW3
lather's doctrine of WW3 ~{331 :rcsence 18 can ub3tantia-
tion. Put tWi s canc1131>n Eboulﬁ not be 63333.

1? must bnar in mind TutWer's p333333 in
r3j3c%ing tWe dactrire of t3333333t3nt13tian. is he
sees it, ;crigture toncWes that it is real bread and
mine in which WW3 boﬁg 33% bland of LWrist are prerent.
Thus t31vju‘"t33 iation in TutWHW's View is 3 5: W01 sti

)0u.ut108t13u unwarrnntsJ by ﬂcripture, for it 1&31sts
iWaﬁ after the consecration tWé suistances 0: bread and
Wine 30 13333r re3ain. 00133 5 tanti3tian, an the other

hand, arserts tWat boih real bread 33% Wine, and Christ‘s

 

conjeninl dactr139.

Rut aoPrt from this, cons uhst .ntiaticn is
everv hit as abjcptionﬁble a dost? ine as
transubatantiatian. mraan.utqnf1a*ion is an
aﬁfeﬁpt to exnlain "how" the Real Presence takgs
place, foun‘ed upon one set >f PPPumptions about
fatter {Realirt}. Consubctzntiation inevitably
uoiTs ’OPP to the cave thihT, bﬁt 1P basei upon a
different set 0f GPPHmnti abaat PPtter ( 0 in JiP.t).

Eiﬂnn of

L4
fT
f)
4»
o
r:
w
a
m
a
H
P9

:f)

011 t“ hair-splittirP disc

_‘ .qu-

1

tPP nﬁture of substance PPﬂ various 30%88 of presence
t

t0 erpla‘r the WOLﬂPP in which

1'0
A831”; ﬁfties 7'1’769. 1

Cr

13 an Pt

n

r}-

o
.4.

CQnPHPPtPP?

Vut 7;. mt*er iP P0P frfin‘ t3 exilain how the

T931 VrePePce tPPeP Place. We PPS 0330361 in general

‘— IV'. ' - , ‘- , p .. '. “1 ,-. w - .. ‘ ‘- ‘ I.“- q. f“
to all Ptbenpfr u) UBW‘*“3L8 at. to explaLn bbe Pork;n¢s

x x“ .z. 4. -
L'f 11-35! '5". OI N‘T‘Dt“ C9.

'hen one GS”?5, There "93 God be3¢re hawven
Was cre ated? 5t. kuP'stine answrrad: ﬁe
W38 iﬂ Li“ 01f. ”hen n .thar as _}3 me ,19
saPe qﬁesfinn, I said: He wns bu11d1nP

hell for such Lﬂle, pr ecunntu) flattzrinj
8L5 inluiPitiva spirits as you.;

True, we must teach, as P0 'ay, of ﬂad's
inCQPprPhonPihle Pnﬁ hr.3urn*ﬁb13 will; but

 

NU“h who pPon 33 P 4r. A anwnw? 3f RntPPr'P

 

to aim at it perfect com ”Pﬁen ian is
dnnrerous work, wherein Pe stunt 19, fall,
anﬂ break our necxs.32

author's attituﬁe taﬂard the "hUW" 0f the
cal Presence is East the same:

Wy do He not {lit by Pvch idle curiosity,
and clinm eiaply to t} 3 word of Cz‘:rist,
villin* ta retain in ijnjrance if what he?
takes rlnce, nrd C)ntent Pith this, that
tﬁe real bad; of ihrist 13 a1:289:21: by virtue
of tte words? Or is it neceerary t3
COPpreberd the Pnnnar of the divina v Mrzinj
in every dotail?§3

For mv part, if I cannot fathom how the
trcad is the teﬁy of Chri t, I will take

my reason captive to the ot.elionce of Christ
8P3 clinPinz simply to His word, firmly
believe not only that the body of Christ is
in the breaﬁ, but trwt the bread is the baﬁy
of Christ.)4

ED

Dcctrinally, than, all Luther wishe to
mairtnin is the objective fact of the Real rretence.
He often uPes prepositions like "in" and "with" to
eXpresa this, but these must not be interyreted as
indicating a physical explanation of what takeﬁ place.
At Perst such explanations are iﬁpious 9P5 at has t
they are beaide tie point. 30th transutstnntietion
and consuhPtnrtintiwn nra 9939338 to luvwn reason;

they both ara bowed tpOt scholastic c3uce§tinhs of

substance vhich are purely rational and not biblical.

 

7‘ '3

’:3‘iﬂ.

’

p. 970

9
Iii-T“ 3'“ TT 1" 3
.; ...' i. ’ :f .

m

M

The artifacts of human reason simply may not be set
forth as biniing coxoa. Scripture does Fat oofine
the mode of presence, so Eutho“ insists that it must
fornror roooin an Open questi)n. ivoo thoufh

. .4

consubstantiation dooP no violence to the sense of

3 t \~-v.'\,1ra.-’}
) .4 I \J J ,

.93
W

ScriptitP, its finer workings can no noP)
from that soorce tﬁnn can hose of tronsohwtantiation.
“hon an author wishso to doouzznt tho

Bosortion that Butﬁor taufht connubﬁtantloti)n he
usually quota ;'~ tine 12-95:..n-jo in which Luther use.) the
illustration from fire on} iron. It is true that when
this passa‘o is lifted fPoﬂ its contozt t pr33rs to
denote a rather mechanical View or 4:2 Zeal Pro
on Luther's part. But note how tentative is Luther's
concluPion fro: this illustration,
the form of a question: "Thy coulﬁ not Christ's body
he thus contained in every part of tug substoﬂre of
the bread?" The real koy to Luther's ooctrine is the
other illustPotion fr>1 thP dual nature of
Here those is no tentative coPcluPion, but a positive

9

823 unequivocal statement too

«:1'

"it is with the
sacrowort even as it is with Chriot." The two Potures,
have? and ﬂivinv, an? both pPePent in t‘n one p;rmon
Christ. Here it is not a question of "how," hut Pioply

a perception by faith of Phat 305 in his omnipotence

\‘3,’

has done. It is not a philoe-phical formulation,

but a relitious mystery. Ana th3t 13 exactly

TMthCr's attituﬂe taward

+4
Ci’
+3
m

4 n . 'r"
CLe F331 Cregence.

eztrlained by the hum3n inte?13ct. ’5
Thus we see that Luther C33 really only

concc rnel vith 3 lit th3 d3ctrire of convuthrntiatiﬂn,

namely that half Chich Ccclares the reality of the

presence of Christ's body and blood in.tC3 bread and

wine, CCittin: tCat part of the theory a? -iCh exp].ains-

"how If
writer's knowledge.
"conCCthantiation"

of the F331 Presenc

label Eufher's doctrine, it

R331 Iresence.

is nothinw C33 C33 know 0C COCCCC he Cd

“e Law ICSCCCGCt

:0 far we
133398 C‘ith'n tha
of tha sacraﬂent.
i n bi) t’n

kinds Cor

t?13 can take 913ce.

$4.

“2,3 "1
1.373101“. -

have been C19
general area
‘.)i £129:- t}. n.

Cpeculati‘ns

To the best of this

’uthér never once used the term

in a discuse ian of his doctrine

Thnrefore, if one Wishes to

must sin; 1; b3 cxlled the
the ICCt of that Tresenca th33~

1n CCC matter.

.. - q . ‘~ - in 1 r \ - r" r- '
PLEbiHb onld Cacoxuar‘

of :ut‘er's dactrine

iCClCCCCCC “union

0?} C 333‘

 

\N

5

The intinate can-3ction Detvreen :uthe

'5

0011031:w tloCs oi th. nut CC 3f (thrist szi 533 Crture 0f
the ECal Eresence is of recurrin: 11 ~Ct3r33 in .1:
acre ental thoufht. Va Cbnll CeCt it C :in in the

CCCCECP on

Tuthx3r's cnnflict wfth

"#1111” ‘11
urn? m1, .

9'3

\

explain that the 3383 is in its 3: -83 nce. Luther
gives L9 this 3:; lanetion in his Eiscussion o? the

V
a

{o

t

6"
)4
Ho
‘5
L2-
0
it
'C‘
C‘.’
«d
p:
01’
1
O
H)
3:?
f 3‘
.1)
(45
Q9
0
' 1
,‘J
5.3
D
('9‘
cc‘
c
Cu
O
Q
C F
' 5
l J.
:3
d)
(‘1'

the 1335 is a 7333 war? an3 a 533:1Mi c vhic? Lu “3r

first u linds waat he thirks is t?3 énly pusrihle
dcctriho 0; tin 3333, 3:3 than @033 on t3 ﬂenarg “4-3t3
that the Catholic dactrine is utterly at odds with

this doctrin3. 33 we shall soon see. L tner'a
expositibn of his doctrine of tie '333 is rerlly
nothing else than an essav 0n justificati3n by faith,
put forwerﬂ in a 3p3cial and linit3d th.31331331
cantext.

20: But h3r, t .e ‘1 3y t3 th3 pr"p3r un3erst3ndln:
of tha Kass i3 tie prop r unierrtauﬁin; of t“3 33:33

0; whiﬁn it was instituted. To Imr yerly unﬁ r'tn"a

the .3: we vast firft put aside all outward thin s,
"V32t333t3, ornﬁvcnts, c¥3nts, 3‘3: OPS, or :3ﬂ 5.
Canﬁles,“ and "turn oar eyes anﬁ hearts $33313 to tPe
ins titatian of Christ ani to this 31013, and 338 neu ht

~3f~re us but t?3 V333 worﬂ of Christ, by wiich he

(

in¢+itut33 t?ia sacrqwent, 3313 it perfect, anﬁ COﬂTittéd

 

 

 

 

 

-.'I k '9' la ‘ l L I '."a‘ .4 3‘. q "' w-‘
it to us. 3r 3, Ant ori, 33. :3 ..3 >333 ~33 e,
u.-. ~— ._ a.“ an... m -—-—
rﬂﬁ‘io‘a") "“11 ?\’\"‘ﬁ7’ . 3"!" “AG-‘1‘:- ‘3 ”9‘ ‘ V‘v s 1.4 \s ‘1,« (it n.’ €--a ('9

 

W”

0.43.13, 1:, 13¢.

-.. r-

,.'4

a.
('1
A

”hese var

L- .

" a

7
.6 4.1“.“ ”ﬁr.” ")7

('1

 

9 2'6 c-

"mu
J

1...

‘v-
12

(3

'\
_t 4.

'0

tirt

21

I
v

tiff

(5
s.

FR‘

"(3 L

sheﬂ far

rr
‘1

d"

I
q

‘
I

tn

WI
.A-

)0

Y“!
.
L” A.

c u
0.,3

.1. 1.3.:

L' .191? f

U

«L

the bazic re

‘
rs
HQ

1‘

n
-‘ .

I .
.01.];

v 3“”.

931 v

‘I

at

Q
th

I.
L:

aacranent

S
9. +

w of t7

‘
5h
4.

Ci'

0 ...

:;usiticn,--t?e

' Q

FT”’
>

8"

"fl "‘_"‘i. V
.. I gulf.-

1’!
v

‘-1lib1

r
J.

I
l

;r 1r

8280

I.’
n .U
6...“
1.
m/
5:
‘m
5.
W...“ Q.
m.... A...”
O.
r).

lies

ita
tt

‘f'.’
2’

C

’

 

1
i

Q. 9.
o O
3.... _ 3.-
II .
.1. .ﬁ .
m ..
\F.
.vll.

(o
O

J.‘ A I
ALLD word '
‘1.{3'.!'t3.f'i<:?¢1.uc€: 111 !.-h'-.l‘:.{3I"S urzun

I
f ‘D.\ g ._ o ‘
~ ‘I 1 'H‘n-~ t 1

(9
0-“
H
\a
H
I
v
f»
a:

the death of “he testntgr. I

t2

{'1

wad couli

-1 i a“ ,.;.y ..'
«E3 ScuﬁzéauLJA anal L

’
\Jv‘ .‘ - mt -.
J; '3 .LL 1 if;

'LtEPUf

rs): <3 IUTI‘hS Eie 140

‘7‘

£‘-
0:1 all 0.".

on; word

0 in in“t itvtin3 tiLS

»‘ ‘- . I» .O. .,' 01". .
tu'pamcnu an] :h 3 care his
.‘wg ‘17,") ‘A‘ ‘34,. \.' ...’«o
on). I..L\..o‘.l .L'odu vAi',Lb.
‘
“at tfen is t is ,u

bequentned us th? rain

3 ;r:32, eternal as‘ﬁ nus”e 3:3“1
ma 31y tie foraiver ass of all
words plainly atate, ”This 15

new eternal t3sta39nt
sPed far you and
of sin." 59
in 31258 words I
forwivggess of all thy
11 fa . umbr-

. .0,
.3“CO 8 :1 LIA-2.

Ci1“"2tfz

a. )P Edit-l. L13.

T of: 4‘ a r 1.3
, 3‘ 4.3-»
').L {.1 :OU.
‘ . '\
3111 w;
" r' I] :1
L’r J Lac

Lhrist are

ta:n g), at;

by

in “X blo

31:21 be
{tin «at?!

. n
‘ t‘ x “x
S 4 l.: . J. .L g

one 110 is

L).

5- ('1 v ' .‘

U \4‘,‘A.L. 1; u t .1 iame
. ' ""‘

at is
: For$0Jth,

C." . a
£3 b‘-’-3db»lre’
° . 6
IRS . 8 the

”5.5.3 Cw» (J: a

at is

run-“Tetrj‘ -

In. -

11‘} J “a J Lulu.
..., . .,
wenola, MQH,

\ - -
1-....‘.,

1;;6' UQ‘J"-

“ti? [“3].

ritv 3: ELS fcva:;tu tagic, j ﬁtiiiﬁgtLEn by TaitL.
If LPG H393 is a ;>ro”' ﬁe an P63 Lea: 5315,
t 13 t0 t“c: ap raacred, nzt with any wark
or PAPH‘h or merit, but “igh faith 81339.
for? Mini? ‘0 1:13.63 if: @126. V6713 .-t.‘ ”:3": 1‘) EFT-6.9
t.‘:3 *1‘6064'69, the: '8 “~11 5 ha: 1:3 r3 frtit‘. of tit-3
2am v.0 t: :92: it. In is‘ 71133111, tt‘» ‘rrfn‘e,

 

glvkaa TI 1.?
-..' ...-' .-,‘.

J

39.

that the first step in our salvation is
faith, which clinvs t3 t“e ward of the
prov1°e ﬁQJQ by Goa, ‘ha mithJU t a"y effort
on our part, in free awd unnerited mercy
*akes a terinninﬁ and o fers us the ward of
His proni:o.45

To nearly all of his pronises 20d th s adaoi
a sién "as a mark or memorial of £19 promise," to
reﬁihd we of it nrﬂ ﬁore forcibly to hold LS to it.
Soak had 119 rﬁinbov 2vﬂ Abraham "as g1ven the clgn

of circuﬁcieiﬁn. van worldly tarts er» 3 1%“ $2213

and notwries May‘s to 22-n thnﬁ 221m ntic.*4w "Tkns

O '

also t3 the ﬁnsr, t1at crown of all Tie Mfr) 19, Lo
adds His body arﬂ bljod in the bread and wine, as a

M I“? ' I . n -. ‘ .‘F rt -_ '. V I o T - {7" -
LQ;3P18L 51,3 of t‘le ,reat ,roazae; as we ends, '1hls

47 w .
do in PBTGTJFRFCG of me.'" 2 :3 "it 18 necessary and

profitable for us to reme bar Vim; whyreby we are

strcnjtkened in fﬁit“, canfirweﬁ in hope arﬂ WTGG

{:3

arﬂ~nt in love." ‘ n as often we we are these signs

>
P

51‘
J

we rameﬁher 201's laréess 9r; laJe, a»? praise nrd give

. 3 4
thah 5 f3? then. 7

r ’I‘ ‘ . I" a "' ‘ f '. g'
uuh.r's ova wg?us, L e ;nru3

“o sum1arize in
a? t‘c sacraﬁent are as fall 1-3w9:

, th? testator v10 wates the tert950?t,
.t.focon1, tr2 heir: t2 whom the

 

a):~::., II, 137-11%.
I
1-47‘15-3-3 II, 995. I, 2131.

.. ' .. “,9
...'-‘,li., 11. L -aJ.

 

testament 18 bequeathed, me Christians.
Thirﬂ, the testament itrelf, the $3rda of
Chris? 0 . . Vourth, tfa seal or toke',
the sacrament, breed anﬂ wine, 3rd under
tram Via true body and blood . . . F ftb,
tha heQﬁenthnd blessing which th> words
siﬁnify, nqﬁely, t19 r3*1ssion of sin and
eternal life. Fixth, tre 0b11‘1tion,
remembrance . . . which ve Shauld onr.crve
for Christ, tn wit, that "e preach this
H13 love ahd Frans, hear ar1 me1itnte upon
it, h" it .9 incited and {rage vei unto
love and hape 1n111n . o ."*3

Since the “969 is a .esta ent in which the
forfivnnees of sins is promised nn1 sea aled with a
sinn, it necessarily follows what is the best
pTGpnration for it. " 1th wt 6 uht, it is given to
tkcv that need and desire it. Put whs needs
forgiveness of sins and God's vrace wore than Just
tyone poor wiserable consci9nces that are driven and
tarmented 1y their sins, are afraid of svﬂ's ar;*r
,5, cf death ané hell, 9rd 9u3-d 1:9 :lad to
beva n wracious 33d ard desire notiinﬁ wore greatly?
These are truly théy who are well-prefareﬁ far #358."&9

The receiving crvan far tPi? forgivener: is
faith. Theta is a direct lina betwean t13 Ironise of

and the faith 0f thé in“¢vldhul. This idea, as

I
s
U
:1.

Luthar points out herw, Eas dsfinit? implic-tio"s for

Catholic confession:

I": :1 :A
r‘nido. I, :301"?3‘1¢.

'3 - IVA:
q #1131." Q . I’ 3(f 4'.

' Q ,. . .q
‘ 15 t 13.51111: i328

1",

.L.
L".

36

'1' e ‘3‘} it.
-n.~ . _ 1
Lot oni

rates

5 does he

4-1:
t. ,. .

if you wonld

brim:
rely th

For this ree

depends upon tlm

which are the words of (ﬁri‘t
v:rily SF sould set in pure Fold

eon,

F receive this secram
testament worthily, see to it that
for erd these living
ereon with a stronj faith,
whet Christ has therein nronised y13.:
it 1"ill be given
are well prepared 0

tn~
.>’:)

30”!

I have so
10rd 8 3f

stones, en} keep n():}inj

before the eyes

exerciseﬂ tFer~Fv

F0 to confee

T883 and
the some,

111/310" 8 n3
bufore y); the

8302?.

the promise of

«1.. n.)

om t
In the mega, t},p
testament, 811d
EuCICKCXt.
in the m
('11:!

believe save
I can h017 mes:
for I can set

51

{ifﬂi V'i.;1‘

I
h.

4

 

 

JKIIRF i; Q ' I. 5:31;.
:1 . w -
I .P’Um.‘ I. 1305.
’5
L "'1. 3 3" . ' II . :(“1u:r:1‘

 

between F

;;.In“

tieir relative

1 {11'}
1 (1:1

:18

tht‘:
then re:
often 88 I cooJF

0.f tne Le
Let a

550:, prepare hi
the secre.ent as
but know
self deception,

that i

wr,~ of t

:33

yquself to believe 8&1

It is importer t to notice t3:

‘ “
.¢

1..
5-. L

0rd 82%

J
U

P.

Cod and

i: h be

85"

‘JI‘J 0

a
1'0

e r f
tF b d
e. t

6
e re
a lo
in 1m}?
t}:- e
a men

(1‘.
.- d‘
i
U

tee

7317

H
\J V ’

I i T.’ -,

..

.ord of
1rerge.n;,
1vords c
‘1‘“... c: kl a “J'—

i .1.-

CL;

can hevo
”ent, apart
"Peli

h T- .
E ;_.' ‘ S t 0‘.)
L

—'U

41.

(D

9‘4

words of

n 3"311 1; an QHJIot-fly

5.,j , (11210“: ‘“‘-~ in”?
tzis raora'ert,
1.. ‘ l‘
,’ 6351‘ .- 11.16-; "G
‘ -
and prCCIDuS
nu 5‘. ' 4 3‘. . ‘- v
.}.§.‘3 3.1 -L __ '73 -1 2. 13’

r z. m - “p ’ L‘
alt, ijll‘ {J i'g‘Ltls‘l t'e
r_ 1-} n vxnnw-z- 4‘an
‘40»; Alwr i.-L-a-‘, , gt.

Welf for the
1" Fe
Fe will. 3 tUJJ

t in pure £5910 5-
If you (3') 110?." Set
"6 te‘~'t'e"r~r"-t' on

(QQF'gv-se 51

riv~~4

theﬁ.

:31“
U

A

nu clearly

r:
‘.

1’21

(’1

Q'
.1.

O
153

(3

S

r“;

lulu

exter 1 Sign.

eon the, but he

geortarzce 0

.‘IS
(4’)

a
l
'1

.L.

"l
M

r‘
k'

1‘

1,311 ‘n-‘J

.th :3 01:0
mknﬂ

s.
b

.’

SLIDE?
r.

L
.LAL

.9. 1
1 .'.! '
"I.'k.tu

prooive?
U"(::']’ CVOIJ’
FF st lefire

\Ju
tFerytﬁ:o ‘3‘

r')
.j...

4.

:x

f

K.‘
h.

D an T "' A f.
. a .
’ (- L . -~ ’ l' "m.' (a: .

To understand why Luttsr sexes this

assertion it must be re2e2tered that be was writing

at a time “Fen he daily exgected t; to are m unicvtEd

fr02 the Church. Fe tFus cequrts himself by saying

that the fruits of the ﬁnes will not be denied him

even thauﬁh he is denied access to the signs in the

liturgical: minis- tretion of t‘e sec; enert. Put also
it is a 2d polemicsl argument, e2 hasizing tbat it

is faith in the ward of God which uekcs the sec: 0

that it is° it is of no benefit t1 virtue of its
’ 1.:

nt

ob?ect7ve sﬁminirtretion, that is, g3 overs cgersto.

But this assertion that faith alone suffice
raises a serious question, and Luthsr anticipates i

"Itet need is there then to observe mess in the c‘

I answer: It is true, such faith is ere"éh, and tr:

eccaeplishes everything, but how coulﬁ you think of
tiis fait“ . o . eacrawent and teetane"t if it mere
not visibly administered in certain desicneted plea
and chchF s . . . Eore2ver, since God has so order
t‘is sacrament, we eust not despise it, but receive
it 2th rrc2 t reverence, Frais and gratituﬂe." Th-
is 8123 the edvsnts e that when the *22hers 3f the

cvnfreﬁﬂtien come t"etn2r and outmnril* hold the

CT.
/

. M a. .. - m . .. -,-
seereeent the; encourage ans an 2? e 3 2329 one
3
t J

_\ I 3
{altﬂo

 

3

to

. in ".I
L-LrChe S .

an

83

ed

“8

h7s

outwvrﬁlg 3L

one an 63 ‘lthahu . . " Jut3er 131
e; 7cific7 11 t3 the functi3n I t
\7rt of 113 grLachinW of b- 03:

"m7 a H

1618 do

in I Cor. 11:23: "as

1):?

drink t3 3

In
how

t: 688 (3852‘

‘| l"
Lhc mace

ﬁne 5
“5:3

ir

He co:e.'

ach a:

4

K4

. ; 9"
’J J.

”I .
£7053

A

‘ ‘1') 1e , but Lat}: 1.61“

‘kief reason for

, 71.1331

{bAr&IL'.,

£34.. {a
f" .. . .
L . .Qul 90:8

praise Christ, to glorify 315

al.11313 grace and
moved to love 113 , h3p3
and t‘us,
receive
s7cr3~ert,
,rovidcl
and 17 n5, 38y hL
sufferinr, death and
that is a ninst us.

out ard £1 n,

‘3
5h

stron

t0 t7@ (Era L5
a

n
H

'q‘) {POSS-1’

that We

'1Lt3'Cr COntinu
;rtithted t3 pre

I9 P1
{71.13.

bread ard

73311 sea
::3 and
arin“s

<73

9

and
he

J-

and believe in Him,

.:

‘ .-

in adiiti7n t3 thiL

Lt

r V‘Y‘

«AA

Lard

K1

1

by divine
'7in8t
3.611 an] eVL7‘L in
Jknr: by Lt £31?

or "37'279

=, the

_"ith,
V? 01”.; 8
all Sin,

1 - 1"-
3:3 grrm 7317~

Of the Aid 31¢) 1!." wild FUV3”'(LI” } 3V6 1.3335351. L‘thle‘l
the #739. He is mare C"CC“F‘3 aus"“ 3&7 7rd
tman ahﬂuﬁ the C153). .01 {1“ preauiinj uujhb
to Fe rethin" but an 3317-7317n 7f :30 77713
of C3rist WTQn He inst1tnins t*c 78$ aha wigs:
"T?:is is ’y boﬂy, 7113 3? :7 L1H) 3, etc."

3hut is {L7 whole CGSLC Emu nn ezglaratiun of
this tvrt739ntT C3”i:t Y L cozpréhcnd 7% the
33313 ”3:931 in a ahort rum-33g 3323 L33 v 332
of ttim L33L379r* 7r ifuuwwmm t. For fhe Whale
Susycl is rathir but a proclr7uh;3n cf vaﬁ's
72:79 823 t33 Iar ivenecs of all :13: 3*:nt33
“r thvau:% 3333*“1Lfnr1v s QI'LEJTM;* . o . T318
eaue Llin: t3: vords of til: test» crt cur’eir
7s ve 3aV3 seen.?'

 

\J'
O

41+.

It in far this FCOFJH Lhat thy treatise fruﬁ w?ich

 

 

 

I 'n ‘ a1 1 - - m .1... _, c. ' .-n r ‘- .
rewrit: Jn 2 1:y 8*“, h .7, Be .31
~ —~-_ .~ __ —- -‘ c..— __ ——AJ—-
l W" —'.5'- '. I ‘ ’ w
":9. .3? n nut-3" * Piri 'uc * 3 hie e,uatea.

7;:
‘1-
6
ﬂ
H
.3
E3
0
he!
5
L‘:
* I
C.)
C?
b
0
O
.3
HV‘
)
’14
v
’3
. r
3
Ho
“3
s)
. .2
f.)
L f
c?
Pa"
0

*5
t"
C
(3)
.

ti
:1!
k1
\ J
{'3
('7’
H
{'1

~ L’. r 0-. A 4‘ r-o-o‘u - a -- ‘, ,‘ 4-. 1 ‘ 9- I. i I 1 r
"* ‘.‘ ﬁr'. .‘u‘. f‘ A , I" 3 V 1 ’5 " » ‘ " “54" “V.“
55.1.3151 “.~ JV . #33:...3... 3:4(4 L yLS‘UO 'E'V‘o. -Jl. (.3 .1LJ v-Ip’ .

it fellows "ttat when *2 use, 302?, a: re: tfe iass

(u

(

withﬁut t7? "TP‘S or ta—taﬁent, a‘ﬁ 133E onlJ to the

O
‘ ‘

sacrn'ert 993 5*;2, we d) not even half keep the

-. ..‘ .,... - ~ \-:. .1 .‘ AA. .3. H~.-...Q
vies. .or szcraleat msthoat taste eLL ma keeyLng

the case "lzbrr? the Jewel, quite an axe gal

‘0

(If
sgnaratinn qnﬂ civis On."/) {Ut t?lS. DUCLCY charves,

&

is precisely vkat the “swan Cﬁtholic thcglo Lass have

 

'.|_
C: 3.71:? .
o . .. , . ‘ . . n ~ “‘ I f“ - .
inqt vkncn is tk' prime hgl n;d c’i;f tLin ,
rw“ely, ‘Ha testnﬁeﬁ sr‘ vvri NF jr3"ire,
3 mat trLBFQQ by ‘nc 1‘ a}:1 Lkn sifclic
t*0313*19rﬁ7; tVi" fkeV ?“ve O'litﬂrﬁtéﬂ
Tait? 3:? 5?? vh31= ND u: f ‘59 mass. Cut
the cecwnﬁ rovt 0f aha ﬁnsS,--tbo 51*n, Gr
sacra-ent,~—this alone do thv: dincuss, “ct
.n such a ﬁnnnoﬂ ‘ha. ‘evu t»o th¢" t't h
ﬁﬁt felt“ but t“0ir Urejnrn'lorr an‘ éﬁh?"
cw r?§a, particitatibn: nil fruiFa, 95 t2,uﬁh
{mesa vet? tr? ﬁnss, uhtil t“:; haw? fallhn
:JT/‘T'; .; q 'rﬁ

to bobblin; of traneubotnntietion an&
endless other metaphysical iuibhles, ard
have dostroyei the pr032r unicrotanﬂinj of
both sacraoont or? testament, altogether
abolished faith, and cauogi Christ's pooplo
to forvot their God . . .2”

There are strong words and perha33 unfair, but Buthor
feels vcry strongly about the isn‘e of faith and
or‘m .

It follows of necessity, where faith and
the lord or promise of goo decline or are
neglected, that there arise in their p ace
works and a false, presumptuous trust in
then. For where there is no promise of
God thcro is no faith. 'here there is no
faith, there everyone presumptuously unear-
takea to better himself by means of works,
and to coho himself V611-p18881nﬁ to Sod.
When this happens, false security and
presumption arise therefrom, as though man
were well—cleaning to God because of his
own work8.§

Co the Catholic theologians, because they do
not heed the Word of God regarding the sacrament,
have mode of it a meritorious work, whorcly nan does
honor to God. But, says Luther, if it is true ”that
the mess is nothin: else than a testament and sacrament,
in which God pledges Rimeelf to us and gives us grace
and mercy, I think it is not fitting thrt we should
make a food work or merit out of it. For a testament
is not bgnegigigg gsggytuo, §3g_gg§33; 8
‘—~5§;g;g,, II, 204.

57;gid.. 1. 507.303.

'1..., not a benefit accepted by 601, but one
conferred by him.

\,'1

it does not

 

derive bepefit from us, but brin~s u: benefit.

has ever heard that he who receives an inheritance

\ . ‘~.,-‘- “‘0‘ ‘- : -.~ ‘ ‘N (H. ‘(. .
does a 370')“. I?"~.JJ_.‘.\0 . g o Lil-189741.80 LG L; U ”“323 V8

9-. I!)

viva Christ nothinv, but only t~ke from Llw . . .

Insepsrablj bound un vith tﬁie is Luther's

A-

..
"‘2'?
1 flux—‘0

atfack on the sacrifice of tie ?ut here we

must distinjuish oetween what Lutbér says in the

Treatica on Tie

,9,‘ _ . -.-- Hnwu"...
753:1??1"; 7;.‘blV

1
refects the doctrire of the unhlooﬁy repetition of

Christ's sacrifice on the fraund that it 13 in

. L . a -2. ‘.-. .‘ O.
the arue nGuUIB o; tge :dbﬁ, Lnau

contraiictivn to
1

‘4‘ .u P . t. ' \ ‘ ~‘ M . n .-
2 siﬂn and 89% 0f god's tectaneat of furwlvcuenz.

r 1-1.. -
431 n‘ 43.1?

T‘ Li 1; 11' G 72' (3

a valiant attqmn to make the traditional

a

acceptablq by reﬂefining it. b0 Father cwn

that the idea at Sacrifica is not irrale“ant

lass if it in use? prope”1y.
That sacrifices “hen are we to offer?
ﬁurselvas, nwd all that we have, with
can$tnnt praye”, as we "T“; Will be
done on nurﬁh as in heaven." ” ,
are to gield ﬂurseives t3 tBe Will a: 8:3,
that ﬁe WAY d") with 123 W111“. l
accarﬁing to {is own glans: “
we are to affer yin praise ,
Win? ﬂux whole heart, f»? 315 -‘
sweet frace and “Grey, w%1ch heﬂhnn
nvd C1VP“ us in this sacrwwert ”

var- .
)riﬁf:

.,
'_J

'T T
"417 d'!

I
‘0
-* ~ .- r '2' 7
1 ' I'I I .
3‘ 4-, yl).

Vho

a?nws his essential concavvatism in

Geclare

in thu-

' ‘1'“ - ""I‘I 2‘ "
1‘4”; -'-, $1.: ~_\‘n,; 1J3 ’

3

is,

fcvﬁinaloqy

, P
I 1,; .

4-7.

But we do not present this sacrifice of ourselves,
our prayers ahﬂ praise "before god in our own person,
but we are to lay it on Christ and let H’m present
it," for he 13 our rcdiqtcr and intercessor in
Heaven. Thus ”we learn that re do not offer Christ
as a sacrifice, but ﬁhat Christ offers us. Ani in

this ray it is permissible, yoa, cvcn profitable, to

call fhe mass a sacrifice .“31

Purrulnﬁ this idea further Luther brings in
a statccent of his doctrine of the priesthood of
all beliQVcrc:

For all those who have the faith trqt Christ
is priest for flaw in hcnvcn rcfcrc Toﬂ,
and who lay on Him their prayers nnd ;raise.
trair nned and their whole eelvcg, nrd
present tron thraumb Him, not daubtinﬁ trat
he done trig very thin“, ard offers Hiﬁrelf
for thec,. . . these take tr? sacraccrt and
testamert . . . as a sicn of all this, arc
60 not dcuht *Tat all sin L3 trercby
forciven, that God has heccre treir Pracionn
Father and that everlastinﬁ life is yrcﬁared
f5“ them.

ill ruch, tkcn, Wherever t’c; r15 be, are
true priests, obrcrvc tTQ case ariﬁht 8rd
also 0*t812 by it what thcg desire. Wcr
faith curt do cvcrythin*. 3t clan: is the
true priestly affice ani permits n3 ORG
else to take its 319cc. ‘Pcrgforc all

)

Christians are pri ctr . . .va

?ut t3 the time he writes 2:3 Pcbglcriqg

 

qurfvlrv Luﬂrcr has lcst his villin near to reirtcryrct

”Mo-0.“-.-J“

'1

ml _ , . .
Th1 ‘0. I. 313' O

f
I L". 1--
.“iﬁ . . I ‘ 31‘3.

 

*—

the word "sacrifice" and demenis its cowglcte
exclusian free the doctrine of the L988. "for unless
we hold fast to the truth, that the "are is the
precire or testament of Christ, we the words clearly
say, we shall lc:e the whole Scepel and all our
comfort. Let us permit nothin~ to peevail axeinet
these "orde, even thOUTh an anrel free heaven ahauld

teach otherwise. For there is nothing said in than

3

W

of a werk or a eacrifice."3

Since the Mass is not a wnrk or a sacrifice
offered to God, but 633's promise received in faith,
Luther cells it a

manifest and wicted error to offer or apply
wastes for sins, for satisfactiane, for the
dead, cr for any necessity wha socvsr of
ene's wwn er of others . . . "0 can
receive or 09313, in behalf of another, the
premise of God, which do ﬁnds tin percyral
faith of every individual? . . . Where
there is a divine precise every one meet
stand upon hie own feet, every one'e persanal
faith is ﬂenanﬁeﬁ, every ore vill five an
account for bicselr and till beer his own
b‘."‘ﬁen. o o 0),“

{lthgr pas nvw stated iie own position on
the “use an& also maﬁa Tie Case a misﬁt the Catholic

.3;
ﬁ

1 ancntstian ?he

(I)

*“3

doctrine. Thrcurhout the wh

O

dotincnt themes have been justificition by faith

alone awe doﬁ”eﬂ opposition t9 {*3 riﬁbteeurnccs of
———-—— '1' * ‘
a.) "' - "
Jrazc.. t. 91?.
6'
34tﬁf= T* ccc_20?; cf. I 3”? 317'

1", AL, L- -’

43.

worke. 30 we would be re ther eurp,c iee d if in The

Egtzlgrie; Cegtﬁvitl Luther did not cancla.e vith

a reiteration of his basic position:

This testament of Christ is trze 012 mmeiy
a~cirrt sins, pest, present erd f: wt.re, if
you. lut Cline to it vith unwavering ieit h

and b3 liexe that that the Words of the
teetement declare is freely fretted to you.
Hut if yen do not believe t is, yin will
n ver, nowhere, and by n) or?9 or efforts
of year urn, find peace of cenecience. ier
faith alone sets the conscience at zeece,
8rd urtelief alone keeps the cenrcierce
tron led.

This is essentially the doctrine vhich Luther
adhered to throudheut his life. 4e Know, of egurse,
that this doctrire was vigorously attacked,
particularly bv otler re far ere. Rut sure ef iather‘s
greatest works were written in its defe<6e, are he
lever retreated a? cozprsn ieed on a sin 1e in;3r‘ent
point. Fe was, however, forceﬂ to were fully expliin
him elf on many woirts e: d inevitably 1m further
deve10ped ari dee ned some at his caneetts.

"Bis is 6399013113 trne in tTe rafter of tﬁe
“eel {resence. The weakest pert 45 int‘ c'e doctrine
as of 1920 is the role he eesiﬁre t3 the 1-31 “rcecnce.
Tmt‘ns,r clearly dietin uiebee tetween w3rd and eijn in
the secrecent. ”he power of the secra'evt resides in
the promise of 303, expressed in the wards. The

81“nu, the breed erﬂ wine. toxﬁther With tie true iﬁﬁy

 

iJD'ﬁq A 1'? '3 e
- ‘21.. 4...]... (11..

5C0

0 a
n n
a") Lit-‘4.

H.
D

and blend of Chriet, are inysrtent onl
as they cignlf or cell to mind the troeine and move

thﬁ! I‘CCip' .C.xt t") iuit flful '30

C)

3§tence of it. True,
tte presence 3? Christ's boﬂg an“ bl33d deﬁes tile

8 eivine SE“D but ttev ece ircfuled then Tutker

without. ﬁhe evifeﬁt Cinclnsion fret this is tfnt
a: 29 tufts? bee found no eirnificence ?or the Real

ireeence per 9e. It has not yet occured to him that

t '.

theta mi kt to e c1359: relationship between the

0rd 3f God erd the present Chrivt th-n that of
promiee to sifn. devil‘vatl‘n of the vettere is
“eccee upon Euther by his attackers. ~e {hell
presen tly e"3eine these attacks enﬂ the ens ere 'hich

mithe r ﬁmxﬂ.

51.

It “33 a 833 f”ct for Tuﬁkﬂv tkﬁt 3%: ﬁbst
potent Opporiti3n t3 Fin doc’rire of t? 3 3335's
Tu333r 08*8 not fr33 tbe Catholics, but fr33 wighin
tPe 333‘s of the refor era the Silver. *33 first
attﬁcF 3333 fr3n uthzr's own former co1133fuc,
Andreas Carlsbadt, in 13?“. *3t3r tko fwifﬁ
r3f0r33r, Ulrich 7wintli, took "9 tka attnck, and
what Imfher had described as n sacrawent of love
and fello3shi? becawe tk3 object of a titanic hnd
bit for feud, continu n3 urabnted nut 11 the ”ﬁrhurf
Collaguy of 15?‘

In the earli3 3t 33:8 of tie T3forﬁation and
beforo, Tu“3 at and Warlstedt wer3 c13;31* 333'313t3 m}.

Carlstadt was Lutuer'. serior C31133313 at tf3

')

Universﬁty of ”ittenb3rﬁ and he presiﬂed at the
ceremon1e3 in which Kathe? was frantcﬂ his ﬂuctorato
in th331033. Carlstadt was early won ovwf t3 Tuttnr'a

lo}

reform movenert, 833 was Luth3r's D-rtrer at 330

‘-

Teipzir Pirputation. ?3t be swan pravad t; be a far

"5
p-v‘
3 I
C)
H-
g“)
C

more radical Sgirit than Luthsr over rea~aﬁ 3

and event'ally b33313 Euther’s bitt3r 3:3:; as 3 result

{-1
in
C1”
‘J
(J
v t
0
I)

of Wi

The trouble becan in 1€fl while Rafter was
in hiﬁﬁnv at the ﬁartbucf (”ay 1371- arch 1522}.
Cﬁrin: Fufhcr's absence Ccrlstact M cu.rd tVC
leaaarsnip of LP: rcfcrn covcccrt in Jittenbcr: and
beycn to incite can cchc. 9 t“? pcc;1? 73th Eer3lﬁ8
in whick kc decried clerical celibacy, trc 'asn, and
the use cf ritwal and inares. 1n the mcitc? nf tnc
Kass Le vent :3 Far as t3 ccclarc tiaﬁ "via Lurtcmcs
only of t?“ bread, sins."1 En Cyris 6%? Iva 1321,
C.arls tndt officiatad at Holy 3% chﬂ-Lht r4113L
pricstly vcct~~rt , an! encouru:ed t!) laitg t3 cone
to Hm altar or”! help thwmelvcg: ""it‘ei?ctl;.¢ 2:) {3310
bread awd wina. It rhould be rc~c itcrcd t“a: these
thin n were Eﬁid ard done bcfcrc pﬁnﬁlﬁ Who were
still 'M~cr9 3 in Car tholic ferns ari ﬁnctriu s, and
ho nicﬁt thcrcforc take scrinus offense. Lorccvcr,
the peeplc were not yet well ennuih ircfructcd in
the Fefcrﬁaﬂion thwolnﬁy ta yucc3 the“ a WiDSh the
possible conclusion that the Eﬁfarcafian Ca): :3 icted
wnly in dcsccratinf every ritval anﬂ dcfﬁn ever
959 ciqfnd with thn ﬁcnan Church.

vhen author learned of tPc rcnncal rcﬁicalisn
of Cnrlstadt's reform measures he 32c1363 to rctgrn

to “itﬁcnbccc, ﬂoin: so in agitc of FF: flector

 

It c rrr'

uotcd 1n cchwiebcrt, p. ;:3.

t‘ v)
\JQ

Crcﬁcricm‘s 0333? 33 ﬁre c~r,rnr7. Upon arcivn

' P ' ' ¥ 9"! ‘ ‘ “ “'l -‘ . ﬂ ‘1
Eu he: in._3l3'cly QPBQCLGd a serics “f 01 ht

‘ I I ' '.' f r 1 '“
uu‘l°“ H‘u13 230 stood f~c r33 *0 30:3 1r3rcnt.
n . A I V n". r ‘ Q . L A - a - ‘ ‘r v w ‘
a“ 31 ‘>1,L 1- ~r" 33 dcc41c" 3L "Fﬁ fclicf

that 3%: laity chsulﬁ have access t3 hath tﬁa bread

9 Y“ '3 ‘ " ‘1 ~:' J L— . .av! > - .
8:1’L t- e 1" 4.1:" 2’ if ton-£4.63", (36:-Pgd i 30. $«Q Ci? ., ta 13:1..- led

o fcM in: CDrcer ative ccnzcience3 9tz turni3t tuen

n m
u -

f ‘I
("P
1
(5.3
rs
o
'1

& gins: tFe VE- 1 ‘3-t13n tu”‘13"”. Unisr

Q}

Luther's ﬁirccticn the 2523 was cctc ed t3 its
cri'lncl 13-33, Vitk the EXCCjtian that th? #1333; as
refirrin" t3 th sacrifice )f the 3393 Vere Oﬁitted.
$335 in 20?”. 333 in bath hint; was "ntrcduccd 3313
'r ﬁnally, cvsf a réricd cf gcnrs.5

33331:: reaa cion f3 recs Ca:lctcﬁt 39 leave
”itLC”cc erg. Kc Vava up 315 poulticn :2 the Yxivcrritv,
to: k a {.330 ore c in the pececrt villa c 93 Clraqu3de,
anﬂ 507?? to publiﬁh his views an reliii r. Carlﬁfsﬁt'e

2'gf‘r ,E'"

I T .‘ ,‘I n r!
.p .u.n_.‘, .J. ’ I}Q “1m,” .

 

For a discussivn of lit r 1c 1 ch:3c“cm in th3
Euthcran weforvatizn, see Schwirlcrt, pp. 945~bkuo

writinre on the Lord's Supper, which appeared in
1524, are anythinq but models or cogent reasoning
and religious profundity, yet the arguments adduced
were sufficiently convincing on the surface to force
Luther to reply.4

Like Luther, Carletadt constructed hie
doctrine of the sacrament in harmony with the b elc
premises of his religion. Central in Carletadt'a
religious thought was the idea that ”spiritual
growth . . . meant growing in likeness unto Christ
through denial and reflection. ﬂan would have to
becone thoroufhly permeated with God's will before
he could obtain the 'heavenly composure,' the
Christian's ultimate virtue.'5 In the matter of
Justification Carletadt wrote: ”To acknowledge
Christ’s obedience, or to understand the will of
Christ . . . is our Justification, and purifies the
heart and forgives guilt . . ."6 Thus Carlstadt makes

of the Lord's Supper a menorial meal in which man

IThe works of Carlctadt under consideration here
are: Dialo an odor Gee rachbuchlein‘von do
ul 05 n ahgb§g§ecﬁen HIazEr 5 ace—Ho wurd
a ramen%a can a (Fugue% or "Eﬁtedﬁer IBéﬁin
“555, TE, 23l2-235”; and Yon em iderchriatlichen
elcﬁ Z5cpten5er IEZh),

 

“is: rauch dee Herrn Prod“ und

.., ., 922170 .

sfchwiebcrt, p. 5&9.

641.559. :':‘:. Inn.

        

.2 .1. -

acknow. le
hiS

intists

3:33 331 renembqrs the fan that Christ
bad; 331 blend on the crass. ﬁat Carlgtaut

that t113 r3331tr3nce is 3333 than a were

c3111. w—to- ind:

amoun t to a 6?; rect attac;{ on Father’s ﬁ1ctrin3 of t»

This remen‘t rance is an 3r ant and 10V133

way of acknawledjin: the boﬂya and blood

of Shrist. E0 033 can reneﬁber ﬁhut which
he 333 not acrnomleé ed . . . This

ack 3313dqzent of tné e rrenderei boﬂg of
Chris 331 his shed b1001 1: tie chief
reason which should @333 one t3 tare the

Lorﬂ's Euppm Bit th9r9 you must tnxe
clq r3 t33t you1o n3 mzpe were flesh out

Christ's bod" 331 bloarl, which is at no
pr roiit. You must hold he? are yaur e,'yes and
un.erstand in the depttc of 3:3r he 3t tbe
great invisible love, the va3er33 r1nnt
obedi3rce, tha perf3ct iﬂﬁ06?n03 of fr“ ,,
and the 1133. Then you are justified and
set free from sins . . . But of the
acknaw101j333t 3? Chris grows the
re e3‘r 1 3 of Christ, which is nvt a cruﬁe,
cold 3? d deca"ir3 r3ne3br3uv but a fresh,
pascianate and p3werf.1 re 93% 33*33, mulch
with 333 est133s ani 1151 y treasures the
surrcmdered body of Christ, wives than a
for it, 331 is ash 331 of all that which is
arainst Christ . . . Ther3f3re we 530311
meditate on tha Lord, and in tFe 33't3s of
our h33.t re3e3lzer and un‘3rstcn1 t 3
"ave 113 taiy into death 3:3 shei his
ir303crtl out 3f great lave 333 1303133r3313
3b31i33ce.

The races; 3ry corolla: is 3f tiis doctrine

93cr33rnt. Carlstadt veh3333tly denies that forgiv3~

mess of
teach t

foalish

sins 3 t3 139 soumht int the sacrawent. To

hat tEe sncr33ent forgives sins 13 just as

as the C3t¥olic dact r::e tE3t shrigt 13 ﬁgily

 

71315.,

11, 37~99.

\31
01
o

offer:d for sine in the sacrifice of the mass.
Scripture teaches that Christ died on the are e to
earn man's foriiveneee once one for all. It nowhere
says that Christ forfives sine in the sacrament. For
if it were possible that Christ could forgive aims

in the sacrament, it would necessarily foLlow, avg 05
Carlstedt, the Hie death on the cross was not
sufficient for men's redemption. The Lord' Zupyer
is a “eeoeiel contemplation of the poet sacrifice,
not a repetition of it. "Christ says: ﬂy blood is
shed for the forgiveness of sins. ToW'I ask [Edge
CarletodEFR Is the blood shed in the sacrament, or
on the cross?"8

Yith equal emphasis Carletadt denies the

Peel Freeence. First of all, it is impossible for

(7

hriet'e natural body, as it hunj on the cross, to
be contained in such n small piece of bread.9 The
Reel Presence is also impossible because Christ

ascended bodily into heaven, and has rot proﬁieed to

O i
COTQ down to be in the sacrament.1 gurthormore,

Christ taught that "the flesh profitoth nettinf,"11

 

*T%i%.. YE, loo-101.
I

10 _ “a _ A
T.“ 1’3 0 . a”. . ’ £33316...

3!

k0

 

 

V1
‘3
0

so we should not e\poct Him to give 3 nothing
the sacrament eh ch 3 of no profit.

This assertion netu;sl1y roguires Carlstedt

to ex'lcin tee words "this is my boJJ' in some
manner wh'lcz .ill rul: out a literal inte rnrctatian
that tie bread is Christ's body:

Tor a lone tine I have not been able to
discover how it could to presible for the
bread to becoee the body of Christ. I have
always corsidered it in tbis way, that Thrist
pointei to his body and then E'ii: This is
”v bo1 , v1ic h is sivcn for 3w) For Christ
did not point to the breal; mar did he Speak
:1uc: This bread is my body, vhich is risen
for you. But those who say that the bread
is the body speak to suit thowselves and lie
. . f. Listen: Jesus took the bread, gave
the :s t) God, trots it, "1v it to his
disciple s, and said that they should eat it
in reeeibrsrc e of him. ii'e placed in the
midst of his words the basis and manner of
this reoe: :br:ance, nn~ely ttat in such a
manner hi sdisciples s Hould renecber that he
«"juvo his 00d:' 1')? 15119731)

In other words, the words "ttic is my bodg"
cove added to define tBo owject of t1e rewenbrnnce,
not to i icete thet the breed is the b3ﬂ3.

Carletodt further er uos, on the hesis of the
Creek text, thﬂt t‘ce vuoris cs nnot seen "t1is breed is
my body." He claiec t at in the moral of institution,
the Greek word for "this" (toutoaGercen iii)! since
it is neuter, csnnot refer to the word for "bread,"

which is nee uline, but only to the seed for "body,"

 

:’ r «-
L-u'JAS. (X. 2352
14

11..., XY, 2 «:25.

 

1"

t'.

, g . J— 5..!. , ,.
thick is also neuter. In otuer Iords, Carlutedt

' ' . . - , !
013130 {13? The: Cnriot said, "Thi~ is my body,‘

Q
. . '- vsﬂ-‘o-Hﬁn r" ~'
Cree“ r.«g.mI r:

‘-
.5

..- .. LL 0. . . . I . -. ..2 .
It WI one“ Le was referzing, njt

to the broad, but to himrolf, as he oat 3t the tablv.
dGRCG the itcral :.eanin: of tLe words of institution,

’arlstadt believes, dirproves tLe x

LutLer ﬁef3233 the teal Presence

anther was disappointed and ewbittered at the
defection of I13 former colleagfne. "Dr. :Hnireeo
Carletedt has fallen av.r3y from us, and moreover
become our worst enery . . . He ,Iete ’3 re wants to
purify the sacraoent, but has an entir ely different
thin: in min;;, namely, to destroy the entire teeching
of the Gospel . . . by cunring manipulati3n of
Fcriyture."15 Indeed, Lut her is co nvirced that
Carlstedt hes become rottint less than an instrument
of Satan for this purpose.15 Inther's réply to

Carletadt'e attac ‘: appeared in Jenwerg 1325 unﬂer tho

 

 

 

 

title: Aceirrt the Heaven11,E rootcte, PTFCDTTTﬂQ»EFG
I
1*Tr13 II, 2332-2335.
“M ' '
'1
x 1‘. 1' .. .0
.- ..1.-:.. I. 1' O
1:1,,14‘“ 1‘,er 4‘.
_)’4 .‘b.

Pp. {D‘AIWan‘L 17 ”’0 2,“,19‘

’ ‘. o ,3 'i
U u. 1'3”: ”.3 {wrh‘n‘ n" t“;," ‘70.?3:

4M“... \4 ',1 OJ

no 4“ man" ‘45, Vﬁ‘ﬁ" Ah
$31., a ‘l .' ha n.-a..

9. , , 85L“: \.
*¢J u ’“ll‘d ‘U \“-‘.k ’ ~G‘f Vdv‘

"mgnﬁ‘. " "f‘Jfa'i'
17 .a-ét ‘Ju-h '.‘--\o~-.-Lo‘

I“
f
z

’3

r-

(r

f

C)

r;

n

31
fl

3. "-‘ . A. I - | ’O - ..' o .- ‘
the ,3313 die; ,3 hctvecn E1339 3 3 5 twfber CV3?

.‘L. " _ .
the sorﬂ's Punﬁor.

Carlctadt: the 7331 Presence, 3:5 tﬁﬁ dnctrinu that

.. .. t. ' - O- .
the 63cr3‘333 13 tge new tesu3ﬁcnt. ahcrgaa in his

(-

ritinés 3“-i“:t *h3 Catualic $333 13““3: “3i i“ 1"
expl3ir35 his 33ctr123 thut $53 ”333 i: the n33
tactaﬁerﬁ, 335 ??3??d it to F1: Own cstisfaétion from
ycripture, be in: rat felt C31103 3333 to 33053 the
3331 Prescncc, since neither he mar his oppone3ts

r33 cexscrcz 323236
vargy in: explanatisns of the R331 Pr3scnce. But now
the 5)ctr133 it331f is u“ﬂer atfack, and in this

treatise Tnfh33 13 farceﬂ to devgte a dig,gq,qrt1nnnte

amount of space to a deﬁance of tkau d5c+rine on the

 

‘5
9-. TtTO in 77738 likL‘I’ 15/037, “5.4.19 ‘vti r1533 It

till erercirirf p9r33n31 lCﬂdﬁrC“ip over the

:3v3'3nt in “itt33ber", a :Pﬁbg of 3311 ions

r3diC3ls £33“ the tﬁwn of 7Wi0'33 arrive5 in “fttC'herC.

' f thou 0131395 t3 h3m. h.d familiar CCrrcraationn

31th ﬁaﬁ. ? 09 t3? r313 ""enver L Erop‘cts.“ L331 ta 5t'3

LCS hC5 ﬁurt enouﬁh in can 53 wiﬁh tknre of the

"335“33t3" tkat 53tPC? 313353d hi? 33035 tken *3 the

J.--

 

11'1& Rio bi-wm1390hnn Upon!“ 3fnn’ vn.1 Fnhﬁq~nrf,
o .--
L .

600

basis of his understaliin. ot the e propriate texts.

vroxn ed in ob co to the authorit" of scripture,
which for him exporce eles any rational eonelierations
of possibility. Co at the outset he states his

"v

has c principle of biblical inter pro tion: herever

Holy Cori ‘.ure establishes somethinj to be believed,

One should not stray from the meaning of the words
as they read, nor from the order in which they etand,
unless an express 81 ticle of faith forces a difrerent
meonin; or ordering of the words." To Luther's mind
time e is no article of faith to contradict the
literal implication of the words of institution that
the bread is the body of Christ, hence man is bound
to believe it.18
Luther quite frankly adnits that from the
point of View of reason alone it would be much easier
not to believe in the Real Tresence, but will not

1?

allow reason to oetertine the moaning of Scripture.

D;

In 1524 Luther he written:
I freely confess that if Carlstedt or any
other could have convinced me five years
ego that tiere was nothinm in the sacrament
save bread and vine, he would have done me
a great serv ce. I was sorely tempted on
this point, and wrestled with myself and
strove to believe that it was so, for 1 saw

 

13ibid., xx, 213-214.

lgIbiﬂ., RX, 909.

that I could theret y Nive tr
to the poonc". I read tre m1t « ‘
who did not so torture the ord 0; God in
(sheir ov.n ion? gination.'3 but
caztnot believe as they do; the
powerful and Will not let it ?
fron the plain sense by ar1giae
For Luther, then, the clccr and obvious
weenie” :af the vorﬁs "this is cq'tody” in their
cont xt ie "this breed 13 my holy." Luther ha: only
contempt and scorn for Carlstedt's aseertion to the
cortrarg on the basis of towto. Be sarcasticelly
deriies Cerlstodt for 89511 rently not Lnorrinf either
Greek or German creator. Luther points out tbat

toeto in Greel, liLe ﬁgs in Screen, is coo only used

as an ineefinite pronoun to indicate eﬂjﬁcts

is not inflected lire Greer and Gerwen, 1e shell

hove to leave Luther' s Gernan illustration ns untranslated

in the followinf possess a)

In the German tonsue it is the normal custom
of the language, when we indicate an object
which is before us, to indicate it and cell
it a gig, even thou h the ﬁhinﬁ itself is a
£33 :r a gig. Just the sane as vhen I 5833

 

(\J . ‘1. .. ., . ,‘ v ‘ .I_.
It 1? not C? twin to "“11 ‘15..~ "o‘~ "1 refers.
*e do know the? late is 1‘3“? Tuit=r read a treatise by

the Lutehron, Cornelius Haniue, n 1‘51ch Lh‘ words of
in;t ti.ta-,io n we re interpreted 93”:bo licolly and tbe Real
Presence denie

217u‘I-1nan to {~le Ch“‘§¢"igﬁg I}? T‘nnﬂtﬂann, ”gcoﬁjjer
1?, l‘?#, “reserved "mith eni Charles I. Jacobs trans.

1'1"}: 6’1 yﬂ“~n~-'g (A‘V‘ﬁﬁl‘hﬂha'wv‘nﬂ 31-1/3 -"' 11h ['"w‘h’n’nrr‘Wrtnr'w
‘ \J.‘ o n .,- . . ,“a .'.,\n

«0-

)

ﬂ-w... ...-.~ -—- ~ aﬂoat-1r.- "-_ ““ I -‘
r L. ' . T -
«ct -1rs, a vole.11tilutel,111, l l ,, 1:, r
Enrea“t3r cited "3 £mitb~Wrreef-1r‘1oce

v." n -1 -—n.-

 

 

----

T93 let Ger man . . 0 ﬂag igt die Frau
. . . W? e S;22”s the can on 92" in Germmrw
The Greek lan9u39e does the 9399 21th its

,o2t a, £3 tz19t it .pcaLs of the breaﬂ,
It Iu2icates it 99¢ 9“"8: 3T9 '58 main
T9ib his is my bcd'7, 99““?"iu "iven
you; 2893 I 0211 to Eitness all t‘sae

n.
. . ‘ A
knew Greeg.a¢

21:299r939e Lut922 2313‘s 2ut, arrist, in
referrinr to t99 winﬂ, used this self39we t2992 and

gain: ”Chi» -2 n29 tast9ﬂent in 9“ 1215M

u
o
d

'5
H‘
m

 

roaribly refzr t) Ckrist 919 elf as he sat at tbs

T,.2 mt an 9293 even further 322 iPTiStS that
if Chriet hnﬁ not bean spénkinf 9f the breed, the
text would be CO2gletely ﬁenselees:

Tor b.33ure Chri12 t M ‘r23 trna bread in his
hanrﬁs, givas than 9, bra ks it, xives it to
his 618619129 and ea;s: ' 2: ani e317,
and immediately tr nreaft r rays , wit out

nnythinf intan2vin9, "'Wi9 i“ 9; haig,"
th-. style 293 natural 0 dnr 2f 29 words
require that he be 5999219: 2f tne tr1rul
Wﬁich he took in his banﬁs, I’JLPLB tn! and
0212anﬁed to be eaten. 993999236 the
di sciples whs hanrd hLm weal? not have

nﬂprztoiﬂ him, for tLeir 9;09 wast have
been on his hand? as he t2:“ 9&9 bread,
12.12.3213 11:22:23 2211559" it: 51122 16%; (and 2:320:11?

.299 wvnt ahnré h92rﬂ t?» 95rﬁ2 T2ticﬁ he
spoke during the dist.ribat159. t he «aid
no other 92995 639199 tun 5’999139t5'n tnan

2’ r

these: “This 19 my body," etc.4*

22 3:3, 12, 221.
2'3;

1313 o ' 1'11.-. 2&2.

"m
-‘ "P'- :>‘ wn-w f"‘r)r
L‘. Li]. ’ A13. (.63.).

O}
\24
o

If Christ were referrinj to his own body, "he would
have to say: take, eat, for I say to you that here
sits my body, which is given for you . . ." tut
this makes Just about as much sense "as if a porSJn
more to offer anothar a drink and soy: Toke and
drink, here I sit, Jack with the red ponts."25 ihy
should Christ hand out bread and wine and comaonﬂ to
eat and drink, if He is only telling that Eis body
will soon be given into ﬁeath? If Csrlstodt's

version is truo, the bread and vine are not only

4‘»-
unnecessary, hut also distractingoaa

In his attack on the Real Erasenco Carlstodt
had also bris”ly usod two arguments which Luther
asswers with corre pending brevitg. Eosovsr, we
should note them well bocsoze tie issues involved
will assuo major importance in tho coming struﬁgle
with fwinfli. The first one is tka; Carlstsdt {311
’hot Christ asccnis boﬁily into hcqun and does ﬂit
can: ﬂoon to to boﬁily in the sacraﬂent. Luther
thought this a childish argument:

For we do not say that he cones darn from

hoaven or leaves his sboﬁo eoptv. If this

were so, this genius [Christsét would also
have to say that God's {on had also left

heaven stem to beca e "on in his mother's
body 0 . o This foolish genius is going

arounﬂ

tr"vols ul
unierstonj

tke Chilﬁish n>tion that cvrirt
and {3071'} . . . Ha. 1 DC”;
tux-2t he 1.1.1.731»? .—

T"ith

3'".-

flaw,

. . . . £1113 all

plocos, ani, as Paul 933:: "f’llss l‘é ph.
1:23 ." It is not civon to 15 to io'3s 1:3te

how it

ﬁgsris‘o's b3(1:}.
says it;

‘1‘“:
". .LCh

it.?

s that our booed boo ﬁns and is
£033 of God i

trot mo cling ori

E7 ripper.

"“nn
m . 4 ‘1

to

I‘-
- 1

*‘hm Hf.)
§I - . 1.“. V,

believe

The othor point is that Corlstsdt argued that
the paseare 'tho flash profitcth nothinj' proves
fhat the ‘osl Tr3scnco of Christ's flesh soul! be
3. no benefit. {uthor replies that bore Christ is
n3t to l irj ”5 7t tis ovn float, but about :1:_f1osh.
He did not say: "L1 flesh profitoth nothiné," but

"mt? flesh prof

flo o are

?3t

‘0

undorstsn"1n

death. . "2)

"'flosh' her? wonns
: 0*4

'To be carnslly

iteth not tin*. ” Flash onﬁ Christ's
tva airforent thinns. Concoonini His awn
"3'

is that inﬂoed.

corral intellect will,
self-conceit, as ?au1 rays in Eon.

inﬂeﬂ /?l~icohlio:‘:?sinrst7

"flesh" is c=rtsinly of

 

no profit, but it is blosthMDU? *7 say this of
Christ’s fist” for "he is everywkeso profit blo,
'0
vhorevor is is . ."5
Put it is not sufficient for author to
raj v—v
C Vr-I- I‘!
’14-bid.‘- It)... 2 )
2? r
JHIO}n ..§.'h:55.
29 :7- -r~ ° 'r qr?) ’3'?"
_ -.-..p. .a._ s). J;n ’ (.- )c‘. .'..'-¢ a.
)Oﬁ_s :3 -.'~-, Arr:
.11 .1.’ 1‘“, {.-\)J.

de3olich Car13t33t's doctrin3. £3 3u3t cs refu 11"
6331313 fhe rraunxs cyan which his own dcctrino
339;. 313 3393333 are exegetical, derivrd frsm
his unierstaniing a? four 33 i_or t:::ts vtich are
concernfﬂ with the secranent.

¢ha first text is t¥3t part of tha 33:.
institutiDn which pertain to tr? 3133, as rccaried

by {mks 33d P331: "This cup 1; t3: 393 test3393t in
1

\h‘

my blood, which is shed for you."

this verse of Luke and Paul is triihte
than the “33 and mightier than thunﬁer.
?ﬂr3t of all no 033 C33 dc3y that '3
47: 13:7 s:33:s of the 33, bccmum he OWJQ
”his 13 L33 cup. {ec03ﬁly, it 3 001313
3iﬁhtlly that he calls the cup "thw new
tastateut." Put it is not I'D ‘31“13 that
t¥e cup should he a new terta.e:t ty 3?? ms
of, an? far the sake of, 3033 nine. Feloved,
whnt else ‘3 "333 t33t33nrt" than
sins 3rd life anrlnstlnw,
enrrﬁ ‘ f3: us by Christ“ . . If tle cup
is to be a 393 test " ,
9333ttin¢ in and vith t 3*103 has the 333.
3133 as tke rtm t9» .. _ . . A
"Eris t's 1H103d, as he SSTS, ”in my bloaﬁ,"
tall 33 that it is then.9£

Tris cup is a no? testa3ort . . . knee; 6 of
t‘n fact that . - ' {il-‘ri'r'SJ 131995 is tho-"3’3

o . o Whoever. there 030 r3331vcs t5? up

333 there receives t?“ bload 3f C33133, shed
far 33, receives the rev testament, tlat is, ,7
tht for31333033 of 3:“: 3rd life ~vnr135tin*.3)

e”3 licltlv t3“c.3 a real 33633Lce a? tin leCJ in the

 

’ nuke 2?:23; I or. 11:95.
7'3
)a. ,.-»-n V V ’5- ‘)
Ark;- s}. 1‘, (.7).
33 I. ‘ dun-v- rt
TAI\5.'1.. ‘\ " 2 .J‘ ‘.

wine, it must also be assumed that the mores ”this
is my body,” though they are less explicit, refer
to the bread and indicate a similar real presence
of the body in the bread. ”What do I care about
Carlstndt'e dreams, mockeriee or slendore? I 699
here clear, plain. powerful woras of God, e“ich
force me to confess that Christ'e body and blood
are in the sacrament. . . . Now Christ is brought
into the sacrament . . . I do not know; but I know
full well that the word of God cannot lie, which
here says that Ctrist's body anﬂ blood are in the

Z4 ,
’ To Carlsteét, and to all other wno

sacraﬁont."
doubt that the Real Presence is possible, Bother
again offers his illustrations from fire and iron,

Q A 55
ans the anal nature of ohrist.

The other three texts are also from Paul.
who first of these Luther thinks is absolute proof
of his position:

"“he cup of blessiné w‘ich we bless, is it

not the coeeunion of the blood of Christ?

The bread wtict we brePF, is it HQE the

communion of the body of Christ?"9o This

verse is really, I think, a thunder-ax

upon the heads of Dr. Corlstadt end all his
mob. This verse has also been the life-

 

;5—4 *a w-q! '3
’ I‘ﬁattj. AA. (“34.

a . .
B’Ttié.._?x. 255“956'

561 Cor“. 10 : 16‘

givin3 reﬂeoine f my hon
0‘40: t." is “acnqunl ’ an}
verses th-n this,

 

ctren:-t”en all con:;L nceL vith t,
powerfully refute all op 08 ti‘ﬁ .
Do you Leer, rv eeor twr t'er? The t
thich is broken, or distritutod in 1
pie: 9, it 1., it -L, if is, (he 2:;
C“ 3:13: o?*t*o ttzv 0‘ TTPitt. Eh
_.__ .. n P‘ "-3—: for Our—‘- WW 3
1": 7L: ”‘1 u.) .'.L.-’ 1.0!; 0.3. H‘s" Law..- uv. Ch?l
can to nothii* elfe then thot 311 t?
tr”e t“oir ir‘ividval niece of ‘roa
, 3. 3
the to:y L” m3rist in two g3te.'°

Luther r1333 further proof in

" hoooever stall eat ttis tread, erd
of t“??? L ord,

unvorthily, 5 hell be guilty

blood u? the Lord."39 ”The

meter: orﬂ
lerruafe," says Lathe ,"require that each

eats one orthily is guilty of t‘et 3% mi h b

m

If one eats the bread

and is thereby guilty of the bed;

T03s. it £0110": that the boﬁy and 31993

4
the tread ahﬁ wine. 0

T*e fir al Vere '3 which Lutfer

that eateth and drink th urw'rthily, eeteth

q 0

ﬁrinketh dermation to not Circe“

Lord‘s boéy."41 Here
5::3fr, XX, :35.
5:Ibid.. )7. 237.
3“9: Cor. 11:27.

40'. f1- '_" r- -"1.' '3 "A
_ h ‘_ . )a .a'} ’ C.- ‘I‘CJ .

“11 Cor. 11:29.

himself,

Luther interprets

 

ve cools stil. to

and blood of

~21 3 r3 5‘
' u .1.» 'J

67.

 

;pt2tion
; o“3r
ficiortly
arﬁi
.37
end
63313331
) ft“
=ELL
t? It
re ”30

of the body

ate."

and drinks tte wine unwortlily

the
be in

ﬁﬁDﬁeS is: "K
and

Pin; the

l

Foul's

meenin: as follows: "He who eats and drinks
unworthily Justly deserves judgment or punictoert,
for with his tomortty eotino and drinking Le cone
not . . . discern the body of Christ, an proceeds
and trcate with the lord's bread eni wine on thoofx
it were more breed and wine, even thooﬁh it 'e the
no

lord's body eni Llood."*”

But Carlotadt haﬁ not ionored these :nernjee
Tron “eel. Ye rod interpreted then in accordance
vith his emphasis on reoeobrence. He said:
"Sonﬁunion consists in this, that no one should
drink the Lord's cup, excert bin who understands why
Cbrirt has shed his blood; and out of great love and
thankfulneeo and ardent remembrance he should drink
of the Lord's cup, Which is not drum“ on a blessin'
without the can union of the Iord."a§ noreover,
unworthy eatiig, Cerlstaﬁt said, consisted in eating
without the renembronce of Christ.44 ind finolly,
"not discerning" tie lord‘s body, becore "not prooerly
acknowledging" the Lord's body.“3

In other words, Corletedt node everything

connectei with the Lord's SULper interval and spiritual.

 

 

'— , ﬂ
LI'K, '0 ‘
JUJL ’ :A-il . 2:45-2 ' 4.
4 ..
31313., Lg, 2353.
no,

inio., :x, 105,
45:515., FT, 103-103.

 

r- *5
"0 o

be
M)“
O

Loving achnorlcd3went anﬂ vooci~o te re'eitrnnce

are th=inx which take place within thu cw.rit of

:n t.‘ -. . 9. Q "5 . . 7-. 1. \
can. .uokor 13 tern eczenﬁo t? .o xocl iroocnco as
1.! , .. “2.6.9:... in... ., z .-
on objective, corporal realit3, cot 1.; two Etirlt
' “'3 " 'I‘ “a ,. h ' ' a 1- "?3‘1‘ ‘-'
of Duh. a2118t3dt is our, he cage, -40 3ﬁ_es

evcrvthir: inward c d soirituel whicﬁ 135 fiwod es

Lo't13n rays:

"“hc treeﬁ which we break is the coﬁﬂunion
of the toﬂy of Christ . . ." tor the
breakinj of the breed is certainly an
outward, corporal thing; so one con eon;
thﬁ* o . . Vow can the ou*1nri brea“in
arc cotin: of broad be a spiritual can “'29?
as Pr. Carlstadt says? tote tket also too
unworthy an ed the un3odl3, li‘o Indos
Ieceriot and several Corintti no (1 Cor.
11), porzoreed this bre““lr: and eatir; of
bread. Theée persons rave the cocrnnion
of the hoﬁy of Chriet, and partalze of it
. . . To here the unavoiﬁoble conclveion
is that Paul ﬂees not here aﬁcof of the
spiritual contunion, which the godly alone
have . o . but rather of a corporal
co1‘urioe, wt icﬁ, iuet li“e the breaking
of the bread, is rhareii by hot i the 3oi13

,ﬂd the 1m 3&1ng

In other words, this coeeunion is coryorel, because
Paul so strongly emphasizes that theta who have no
Spirit 1al CO”“U oion with Chr lot at all, the unworthy,
not only re oive the boiy enﬁ bloc-i of C““ib n the
sacrorert, but 'ncnr guilt and juijtont thereby.

431» 00*-
k‘d. .' .1» a, ’ C: “37.

,.
”than, 230,.
m. ’ -’

A..l". ‘

 

For Luther, the assertion that this is a
corporal connunian is in n3 way cont: :1.jct3 M by the
3 or ith r

fact that l1t tn’c3e place inv sibl

‘ﬂ‘ﬁ ~::
‘31 uLul"! O

0

t 1
I

‘ 3

3.»

h s verse of Paul's now 3t321s 11“: a r30:
r: 33?? rts 31th force th31;¢111 thoze :10

g

.311!

break $113 brnad, 33h it and receive it,
r333iv vs 8133 t1e b31y of Christ 323 gartato
of it. n3 :that canﬁat is 3piri unl, as is
said, r3 it zst be corp0““1 . . 0 fat on

t 3 ona hand t1is Ceroral can~union c3nhot
b3 visiule or perceptih12; othervice :3
bread vould remain. Tn the other hand, it
cnnrat b3 mere bread; oth3r1133 it 33116

not be a corporal commurion 3f tha body of
Christ, but of the bread only. Th3r3f3re
Wherever tha bro“~n br3ad 19th3r"u3t
8190 th3 b31y of Chris]: BhQ “rn'1nt C)? 33‘11",
3V3n than h invi: ibIVJ

All this stress on the C3rpovality of the
1713-11 rescue 3 3:3 simply Tat}: car's qH—mwt t3
counteract Ta?13tadt's"Spiritualizihg," which

ipgtq‘eﬂ demial of 133 ?331 Freserc3 alt333th3r.

Rutv 35 shortly Twinjli will read tiese p3 es with
their 33nh3313 on the C3rp3rality of the 0131 1ren ence,

take up his pen in protest, and f3rco Luthar grain to

defend, anﬁ further to explain his y3sit13n.

Luther Defends the ﬂew Testanent
Over against Carlsbadt's 3331 of remembrance
Luther has t3 defend his doctrine of the racra eat

as Gad's tasbnacrt of fortivere pas. Y3r3 the bﬁsic

O .. .I' v 1'": l!
I‘U‘ia}. , .r.- , eff-Tr}.

0‘?
Q

71.

. a. 0 .2 '-
22 betvecn “he r9112-ous 0:12 tatlJDS of

223 322222 3ut most clearly. “or Lnrlst2ﬂt

"t 225 Van's 2 r?ect 2222212 or pr3tntv2e.

Justific2tion car 2512224 in For fectly unécrrtanﬁing

I 1* nn‘
3;:rmln‘ to xnri at

n""J‘ml Du5F82'f View

0
6”

3f Chris2, as 22 3x; 1 1:222 it in a let 2r to the

clergy of Ftrassburr, Wﬁﬁ rnEically diff2rent:

‘1)
{.1

O
“a
H

I b2: ;2ur preachers, dear bret2ren, 22
122ve Tuthﬂr and C3 .rlgtﬁﬁﬁ. Qnﬂ 331“50533
to Ch 122, and nab as Carls2ad2 5222,00n1}

r
to t“2 v02? of C2ris2, 321 2&2 0322312 of

* «.341 0}" mﬁs the lﬂryct “qr: (3f 5:.3
m2r”, in "2102 22 is 12 2e 0‘??? 921222. Eut
to Ch: 52 as t2a rift of G -; 02 2s Fcul
says, tEe strezﬁ‘c h of G32, wisdux a i
ri¢kteousqewr 8“d 28222211222122 and
reﬁeﬂptian given unto us . . .49

In fact, t22 18226 in di.9:u ta is r2311; that
ficati2n by £9122 versws the ri-hteau9nerg

PP. "r18215t'2 th~21022 /712223 Eu22or7
amount: to “othi.n: more tnan t2 2223h F22

w. should follow aft. r Chr irt, anE mn“cS

of Christ only an exaw“1eard 032~an3°r,
from whom nothin2 is lntrr2w =2Vcept “2:18.
119 wither knows nor ta ME 3:2 Christ :23 am:
tr2asure n.d God's :jift, out 2f stich r23: 28
fait2,TE:1ch is the bi‘h222 thin2; 222
r2n2"1n to e2hellish anti to ob:.C”"-2 all this
with 22239 vowds: "ardent ac= 20"124"2cnt
pansionete remcﬁbra:ce," 222 tin 11:-. an“
t¥ere.222 V233 nic 213 $2112 once afﬁin fron

faith to mo 29 . . ,2

 

,' iit:1_|n‘Jt-vwerj:‘nn_49rlcg.:\ II, 2:1‘3.

7:3, 2:, 237.

q

u)
N’
.

Carlgtndt "ﬂake: 0f TRrivt'a woris a clear cow 02d

aha 1°”, "nick 3399 pafLir ﬂute thnr cnm~sq3 ﬁfu
hit! us 13:) ram ”r252? an". 3:33.213“ Mia's b}. “a. find in

r . . 1-.II - "‘ ‘¢ 'l' ‘ r“v-'l V ‘ -: ﬁt. a“: - ‘-_
adlltlan Caz}. bhis QC.L3W101,¢8ﬂt natnLn; 4393 twan
C.
a wwrrv¢wch rm nor?w"1. . ."'
" ‘71 . _v , t. " - ~ V ‘ A n
. er.?i.‘.:m.., Ruth-:3? cascade-c, if I,
q , J 5.. ,\ 5. ,3 , .2 .. . .4 .
nc‘orJLrg be ,rluba his: JoctSLKE, pr: L23
‘~ - .a o¢~ .- ' A». ~ f. u x- . ‘1“ ‘I‘ . o ﬂ
reﬁrv‘hrm'CJ hr»? ”Ciﬂnnlz‘d ”Wart O; uh -J‘t “its: Educ};

aria? an} POV?titg, t?mt T event blobi 5W? bghfef t;

a crism ?v“r it, it vauld all r9 nothin" :23 a

COWplbte wasta. Var ﬁber? woulﬂ re merely cs“-qnd-
wont anﬂ vﬁrk, but no rift 3r God's .orﬂ . ."’“

Temswbrawce is inﬂeed a“ irtc"ra1 3art 9f the

r?

=“Cr”‘”’ . 8‘38 ﬂuthmr. but it is not fctlstaﬁt's
1UW§rﬂ r3%cqbrﬂncg’ but an 04t=ar3 DEG. 59?? y. 3h;
preachinﬁ r23 vroclaininv 33 Chrlzt's ﬁauth of vhich
Faul 899333. " e “hawlﬁ graach 0;
tﬁq swaraanﬁt‘ Q95 ﬁPOCIEiW t’e qn:.ul 12 arﬂar to
stren than faith, th 33$: git rnd dull? Wit thouﬁhts
in thw heﬁﬁt 3&5 “3&9 a TOOj VDFK Auk M; such re emﬂrﬁnce.
['7
RS tr”. ij‘lust21th (wry? -‘_~-,S.“/./

Carlstaﬂt rad insi:t,d tﬁzt Lb? fvct that

. a .. .. 1... A..‘ ‘, .- " . ' _. -‘l . .
CLrisL'a deat on the chLD was Lu1f1c1ent J): ﬁan's

 

I f. .‘ I " ' '— "
.151.“ f , ’M.
;V...‘“
A‘ W
“‘1-3".;’? ' A.’ ,
Q .... .Q. l ’ r ) '.
m.

”an

(do

alvntian ruléﬁ out Butler's dwctrine !“13

(1

m

o

’3
'5

*‘(3

iii.
{.3

. , . xx... m.
.or- of bins was C1VG; in .“3 sacrament, and

1}
7A
Q:

r V ‘v I; , L ‘ . .V ,
as an A as callet Eu.kér a ,aﬁis. bCC5 -e o.

> a
.«J
m

V“.

V‘ ﬁ.t: 7‘ .‘E'Jv' a”.f‘ a 1"! (‘ Y‘",11 I I" "\""' Y.“'
i’ﬁlou 1 'd.’).L... I .‘J -.. 0 «KC .1 ‘J r J ‘A‘L" u ¢_ r: I .w ‘ .".o_l ' . . , . .‘

3.!

 

c139 slam an elogueﬁt restaten nt 293 "“pgificnfiéh
of the “actrive already put f rwnrﬁ in the “rcﬁtigg
03 th? T6? ”“751ﬁ9rﬁanﬂ “V9 ““‘"11V*”ﬁ "“"V*"it".
4-,, m... .h,‘ “-.--.....-,..,... -,_, “-mé . q... m....,_,", “-
2U* ‘urb {“3 preVﬁ tation is adagtei t3 3 different

itiﬁn. “gt a*ninst CVrlstadt Ru?her finiv it

L

ru '. 1 ‘.-\ i" «v. " A, ' \ ~
-re ant. Recasée t.n VM'J and .103. of Ch:

\..1

J

necessary t3 thana who still have $153 to be fir i'en,
it is forever true tkat he is hiven far them. Sir
althoxﬁh tV.is event has alreadv hawpznaﬂ, 63 lang as
it is not distriauted to we, it is j
if it never kwppenod is? 73 . . ."54

my; foDC ti?

0

*s tVe ‘nrﬂ of ‘MR. "70"

t“ ._a., A

‘-

link tetveen :34 2:3: sacrifice
and the prczcmt necessi ;

even though Crrist were given and crucified far us

 

 

a thousand times

v'.

0rd of God

upon me, an?

have it for

‘5

\a

placeﬂ th

secraﬁent,

pover anﬂ mi ht
tVnt

g

.t wrulﬂ all be

did not come,

This shall
"55

‘ "I
1' ,.
I.’ '-I

say:

1 A m 0|
tnlne own. -hc

Of 1‘2

C2

r3.

9
\ ”a."
{I .A- -‘ . ‘

'3"? "11"“.H:

that very place, according to the

 

- .0 “L
.L. 3-1.). .3 ’

vanv1~
A.‘4s.l

74.

in vain i; the

It. bGStOW it

thine, take it and

N ," L.

4..

“(5

ln-c‘

.
n -= ‘9
‘. 4.6g1t

-~ {*3 «hr‘w .
l~' 5b).!»

:3n in the

~ Tfﬂ £123 it in
ﬁeclqrat13n 3f th

words, ‘this is my b143, given far 39a for the
f'f‘

r? mi 91“ﬁ of sins . . .'"J°
”huL TuV‘or'" Loctr‘ne tFVL 530 E? fﬁ“ﬁnt 13

tre r~w t?staﬁent is predicate“ upwn a 335tir~tion

tétwm‘n tTQ earrinf of fargivenese in rcnoral, and

the d’stritutjﬁn of tVVﬁ f'rjiverws: to individuals:
Te treat of the formiv::ess of 5193 in two
ways. First 3f all, in wfat manrer it is
obtafnod and oarreﬁ; seconfly, in "Vb:
ranner it in éiSLributed and histoweﬂ. It
is true, Thriét earn 5 it an the erase, but
he did not distribute -r rive it on t“e
cross. I: the Torﬁ's “uvpcr or aucrawent
h? did n3t ear“ it; bu he 13: distriguted
rmﬂ giv-‘n it i, 193‘: vary place thzwrth the
3or“ as n ‘3.3 Cosgel, vierc it is grcecheﬂ
. . . 11f I wish to T7ve my sins
;urrL\ .r, ”I must not rtn :3 L17 crOLE, for
tbnhe I v-Qulﬂ find f rrjve nnoss not get
distrLbuth . . . bLt Iﬂt: r I mutt 39 to
the rncraVent or tV9 Coran, “Vera I firﬂ
the Kari whi.ch 3-8 :ibLiC“, bcztows. offqr ,
aWd Vivcs ha 10 the fur LVVncnﬁ To ﬁn t"?
“1"";‘. ’."j crviﬂ-r? ?.‘;‘..=.t‘.33.:3r ”fig? 12'3“. taught
”TF”QCtIy tVnt ‘ dbﬁnv~V L-c a Cissciwrce
tﬁaVVleﬂ 13 “En :hvv]3 PH 1:“ 3V9 ‘a,r°1n“t
9.5 seek caﬁfart, r0“ Trot tVa 1:;LJ and
riﬂe, :3: ;.rom tun b.:;q and Lluod of Timri t,

5:; ,2 r?“ min
3:13;... ("\A.‘ C.’ .
r,

V ‘“ ",1 ‘1
A". .’ (“7L0

75-

but rather from the tord which in the
sacrament offers, testvws eni givee the
body and blood 0: Christ, as it was Iiven
and shed for us.?

All of this is simply a reaeeertion the
God's lord is "tVe power, the nature, and the whole

53 To find also that

'21
cf
0

, .. T! '
Sibetoncc of tn” 9 cecre e-

(Ll:

eni S

La}.

the distinction bEtTQOﬂ "or ﬁn is still
maintained, only the 0rd beinﬁ of unc-erit ljﬂal

ieoorteece. "For if only breed er mine were there,
as they eLy, but still the words 1 ere there: 'teke,

this is my body given for you [7 . . for the

redission of sine?‘ etc., by virtue of these soae
words the forfiveness of Sins would be in the

G9

s:crament."’ To Luther still wishes it to be
understood that the central elemert in lie doctrine

of the secrewert is not the Teal Presence, but th

(D

lestowal of the forzivenese of sir e throth the lord

But in this treetiee Euther hes aded to his
earlier declaration that the Wore bestows the

mile: declarati3n that the

H-

forﬁiveness of sins the 8
"0rd 8180 "offers, bestows and wives tVe body and

blood of Christ, as it was miven and shed fyr us."

57Ib1d., xx, 275.

Safee shave p. 57, note 57.
591-1"? 1"! 27-f- C).

I " -XAL’

7'5.

+hat then is tha relationship batveen the bestawal
of the forgiveness of sins and the bentJval 03 the
body aha blond of Christ? 70 yécall ﬂirt Ln his
éisauss‘3A cf the rorﬂs "this cup LS t*c Lﬂ”
testaﬂert in my Llooﬂ,” Tutbcv apparertly Bif7t28
the two: "wanvnr . . . recechs *Lu cup, anﬁ

-: , ‘- up I ' 0’ -: ~. .._ ‘I' An. «I
thnrc recolvo: LLU blan of Chrlsv, lel uf LS,

~ 0 g -
?””CL‘BQ flu row tésﬁv er , t‘nf :7, .Te ffrr‘von033
G“
o g ' u .g . s "t\’ r“ , b . 'ﬁ 0" V
Cu. : 1.:3 (rm “.9 (VII‘La. tn J. I" s 15: act-areal;

-. . A“ . .- '5 .2 ,* .1‘l‘ -_ ‘ ' .“- ~. .‘ 0‘
sore tnan a ranslni thgurat, Lu one ‘Llch scald

. ~ .‘z :l -. .
cuelopal aha cy>uxaud. .e are
. ° - -. .9 f'.’ ,." . — -' ‘ . .... t‘, >'\ ‘ . ‘.
Faps 31;.5..t3....1e~: in congectlu‘ir'; ;.t in 1.210 tam:

ﬂ -. av. a; ~ ‘ r ‘~o' - . a! -p - 0‘ ‘ «l r" N r~ ~-
ol 1m:- rtlm". -.n.1t}—-:r is 5.083? Ana-j fur u. ilxmulu L]

n
‘

.’~' ‘ ~ . -§' 1 ’ -o : I‘D. N 1‘. .p. _
v!;cx re crn cr~v inc clazillcrrwo m: -e Lucru ant

.‘ , “- my. ( _ ‘ _ . x.- . W! W _ ,3 1.. .._ ,
ﬂﬁu few T-al .49.CLCC in the sacra_ a? lnt) Lode

‘rlr; 04" 4‘ W's-Arum? 4H(-(3v o. -a-‘,-.
.g ..-'.s .1. .-‘ L-'--. ., ..-,.‘_’ .5) .5. . t’C-‘X Chi'

.‘ a ' 5. , ' ‘ . .. .
LP ClﬁbFI‘fJfﬂi r9 rvlati.rx}-:g LU“ all; IJZLCQStOGQ
"' \ ‘ ~-v". . a '0! ‘. , ‘ '. to -.-‘ I .0 '.’ a T" 4
1,43 ‘1" em .71 5.. Th.) .;1.I- (P. Ltd L ~f: SJ.‘ I" scul. .1 I m.» L} 691‘

can BCCO“pliLE thin kc vill rnturall”

.‘n '3
:~'€. ‘ 8

P3

,.S ' -1. . J. v ' ' -
LBS c720 aacmnav the attsl.s 3' ’13 uptore

 

Prar““t2 did rat settlc an‘thinf. Actu¢lld, 99 we

{I

 

shall “50, Ruhrer van not pearly so succ-ss?ul in

 

.i'

r;"
“”559 above, p, ‘3‘), note 3%.

7.

7

in
1.1.0
1

fig
xi ..,..
n J ...
W. .
V?"
.1 O n
1.: .. _ D
l‘ .
. .. ‘
.3. . ..
7. ‘3. ‘ .
"iv 7 ‘ . R
.2). .. .
L... I, . ,- V .(
, ,l. .
. a J
a y l .
‘ ‘7.
. .l
. a .W x
.. ... u . _
.
:3 2
.1 r “3.
_ t! .I
S a]. w
, .. u. .
. i
m‘ . l
. . 3.... 9
I.“ . 0‘. \J
O C Qm .v t .. x
lo 0 ,
N.-. l:- 1.4 .u, .
Oil“ w
.. I. n u \J V
.1... 9 I r L
. 1

(_
I
5’
‘i

.. ‘
U at...” a a"
\II. .4
s mum
\J 1 U
o". 99.! n... ‘uaw
\ ‘ . r
O rt 0. r
i. \f
1 u . .
~a ‘ D.§
_. I
. .x ~

5
on
t

d J- l. s. C
n ....... .1 n. ,H
M". 3.... ~ .\ . .\I.

A.

u;
¢..
U
c

I
new an
3
t

t”)

s 01“.? wax
,, .1. U I..-.L J

xv
V!

O

A
‘4- L-

‘ l-
‘ L: -4‘-.‘

 

'!

(.3
0

F51 u ,‘Q.'~.','7' ‘T ‘Iv 'V -‘ H. 3.1 r-) ,.‘ .'.’.“ v
‘ .. .L ,4» nun a- ~JL.J.

f'arlstadt's Vi.{,."-"8 ’3'"- ll‘w’? 1")!“52’2-3 LLu'l". SI“ )‘?‘:L

:u' ~ I 0 ~. A . v . 1 +— .. ', I . a4. -" no ‘ ’
03.;ru L‘) -;re arulx 1: a“ 3, x3 1; JolJ L_e 9a 0

Rafa" "t ion in “Witzérlaxd. Upen reading one 0f
(

. ,- ~ ~ .. 'r, '.._. ,3: -
Carlztaat'e war 9 on the maxd's .wygar leu 11

._ ' t' "'n -. p. 'v‘ ' ‘ . (. ‘N. _. ﬂ...‘ . . .
ﬁrstl: Larlzt _.it' :eanlhg 3063 L3; diwy33Lge

, -13 -... . . ‘3 .' 313 C . V 13.3.14... . -A... ..' . ‘ t
1 v ‘ .~ . w 0', 1—3, . ; r; "I . 3‘“ I"? . V) , ﬁx
an IN .A4L ‘. (If-w “’IQULLH .UUJ.‘.1-J ’k~. LS {JutU LI ‘~.)LI Li. .LRL. ‘ ;;‘«c.

tuaﬁ t) ﬁgfuzd ‘30 game general View 83¢ to place

0 c- r-
n " "1- 4_ I"? ~_ Pf-"o ,‘f;“"'j ." . ‘- ' v'ae‘" ' "'l’ «d
It (J: (A ‘-E J" C? 5:: K: 3.1;?!) J M‘z&l1‘.-‘".A U .‘JR . 4“") .i.. an}. H U B 'uﬁl t};

nx . 4"!“- n - iO ~~ ‘ 3 ‘1". P l 5" . H “ . . T J" t
his usuuze cactllua ol tao SQCI:M.JLU 1n :13 3% 37:

 

 

 

 

 

 

*'- .- 3,. ﬂ ' '. . .. ’- . .’ 3 ,- . -5 .. :.
a wL‘rud fl 3”, obtmnslbly d 1' Biﬂul 13°“?! to
m “cw“
I _.,, H.’ .- . m ,.. n“ .
a”, 1'1 111‘ 1515. 01.“, T1: .11 had rid...) L'~Jr1’:t?ﬂt's
" ~ q - 'I': . ,' f. - ~ .. - '. ,-‘. 0.4 .‘,‘ |‘ r\ . ‘ “.- -"‘~ "n I "
1.21.1 1 °- “8314‘ ‘1 ..,-.-" V ‘ 5.. "' 1.5-: 1-. 3):}.
-5” ‘ ‘ ‘F—r .-~:.“‘h-';J’ --m f“~‘*.‘ - m "‘ :I- ‘. :.
3:1“); .- ViJl.?_-:’ C1155 1811c“ ' s.u.,\.JIJD-JIL'A¢L“ tin C JlLt‘a-d-Uh. ’31- ‘Uil‘a
“-1 a ; ---I .. (w -.-";"‘.’1r" 1- m ~ - I“ m , '2 mm ~~-.€3-';-.
-‘ “'- . M “-“Q 4- ._'_ -‘ v v I: 'r
I13 b0 ’1 .
5: T3 1 I JYY'Y " ’1 'N _ " I“ ‘-'_ M! ‘ ‘f
4::“10, }\V$L’ 1,1, “'2 ,3. Date'; 13 M;)V'e,‘-‘=(3T 1;“ 4
wig—Din... u. . A a ‘i: ‘ . .‘
puKT ~,1 i 1‘.. 1*;5. Th e ltioc hbcu were L
a Geraal truzslation of the ori~inal Latin text.

a Lutheran pnstor, but which was widely circulated

and eventually published. Re restated thw same views

U4

ﬁrm“ nwﬂ W'1_<n “n1_7~3 w

‘10“ “m 0.1-. out 1......

in his C3““”"tw r

:13

F

 

 

puEliGhed two non tEB after the epynarunce 9f Luther's

Anninrt the Heavenlglfrﬁmhéfﬁo ﬁlthou*h L he? is

 

J

not mentioned b? mat; in eiﬁher worﬁ, ~ﬁnch of ﬁwinjli's
argument is obviously directed against Luther's
doctrine of the Lord's Eupzer.

it is not surprising that these two Eeforners
favnﬂ thnTnGIVQs in fundamental diuagraemonh on major
CHQGIOjic 1 is ﬁnes, for thny cmﬁe frnﬁ cntiraly
éifferent t;ckgrounﬂs. Zwinjli, althoumh a priest,
;ns never a mowk nor a doctor of th001035. His
eiuc.tion was predominantly humanistic, rrounﬁed

“snly in the clasgics rather ﬁhan in scholasticisn.

Thus he w.ws 8]TQ:{'3 more of a rationalist and less of

..ystic tnai Luther. He was :evnr the CatE Mlic'c

1:)

atholic that tha young Luther was, and c n39.1uently
he generally depﬁvted farther tron Catholic doctrine
and practice in his refarm than did the essentially

conservative Bafﬂer. And while each rﬁforﬁer

recoznizeﬁ hhe Eiblo as tHe sole authﬁrity in

 

‘W _ .._._ “a...

7
;)r'o ‘ _
\. JL- 3

Phi.) , {iﬁv‘ﬁv‘.l-V* an ’..""_“’na\

1): )j’ VUl. .L.i...i.. IL'ULC
o a p I “_ I

?ri7;nal Enfin néitinn prliinei

Y”--. 1'?
mac -Mfiin cl
1'

  

religion, their interpretations diverged on important
issues because their presuppositians were different,
as we stall soon see.

Be that as it nay, the fundamental theological
differences between Luther and twineli are fer more
subtle than the differences between Luther and
Carlstadt, or between Luther and the 3 man Church.
Twingli's doctrine of Justification was also
justification by faith alone. ﬁt the ﬁerburg
Colloquy (1329) Luther and Zwingli declared their
complete agreement, in fornula, on this and twelve
other major doctrinal point8.4 Cnly on the Lord's
Sniper did they fail of complete accord. Put the
disagreement was sincere, and founded upon real and
fundenentel differences, which under the circuwstencee
proved incapable of compronise or reconciliation.

We shall now examine these d fferences.

Veingli's attitude toward the Real Presence
is at the root of his whole interpretation of the
Terd's SUpper. He ins sts that the Peel Presence
is contradicted by reason, experience, erd faith
itself. He does not hesitate to 95:: "How can it
be that you she Id be ce-pelled to believe that which
you cannot see to be possible?"5 The evidence of

4a .pn - «n
ice the “nrburs Articles, '.6L, eJII, 13i3-43.

‘0-

c:
’Ccnncntegg, p. 21:.

 

J

81.

R

our own sen .es tells us that the F-el :resence
not be. 7Wiﬂjli regects tronsubstentietion as
follows:

If he «mlr is prof-"t literallv and
es:ent ;Lelly n tie fIJSh, then in the
fl:sh tze is torn spo.t and perceptibly
re: ticeted . . . It is eviient, then, that
the flesh is not ,here literally and

cor: oro113'. For if it rare, its mass and
substance vould be perceived, er? would be
pressed vith the teeth . . . in! since we
do not experience or perceive any such
pre--ence, it follows that the words of
Chrlit cezxzot refer to ph‘s‘c l fle.: h and

‘Jh.‘.l

So for ﬁringli Shrist's body is either present
porceptibly or not at all. There is no middle
ground. Tterefore be will not allow Butter to take

the ward "Ls" literally but yet denv tronsutrt tietion.

‘3

"If we take the tord 'is' literally . . . then

{D

necessarily the .ubstence of breed hos to be changed
completely into that of flesh. tut that means that
the broad is no longer ttere. Therefore it is

irgossitle to reintein that the broad remains, but

that in or under the breed the fle: i: is eaten. Lotice

r
v I I C.)
how utterly unreasonable tris gosition is."
“Len maf eTFingli thinks it is a co plate

contradiction in terns to make the ﬁeel iresence an

 

 

 

 

Go 1i~o Bromil.e?, ed. aﬁd tr?:80, ”“injll Uni
Puiiineer, vol. )1“IJ of one nibrqw- of irriﬁtiﬁu

.1“- ‘ _‘ A ‘
Clos*i. LCS (Tendon, 13oz) 1 tto T?“T'? H ““2
3’; PT}. 1 "1"1310‘ ' :eI‘L'fcil L113“ Cit '78
J11 “541.113 inver.

 

article of faith:

Tet us see now ’Fe writes? bow finely

these thin“s fit totether: E3 faith we
believe that rte bodilg a”: senrible flesh
of Christ is Tere 'resert. ”y faith

thinos quite remote from sense are believed.
Put all bodily thines are so entirely tiings
of senee that unless ttey are perceived b;
sense they are not bodily. Wherefore, to
believe and to rerceive by sense are
essentially di.ferert. ”be rve, therefore,
what a *onstrosity of speech this is: I
believe that I eat the sensible and bodily
flesh. Wor if it is bodily, there is no
neee of faith, for it is perceived by sense
. . . 3n the other hand, if y.ur eating is
a mester of belief, the thing you believe
cannot be sensible or b03113 . . . In
short, faith does not compel seree to confess
that it perceives what it does not perceive,
but it Frees Us to the irvisible and fixes
all our hepes on that A?bb. llzl7. For it
dwelleth not amidst the sensible and

boiily, and bath nothing in common tbererith.

All this of course denies the essuMption underlying

both the Catholic eel Tntheren doctrinee of the

seal Presence, namely, that outwerd sensible forme,

such as bread and wine, can be media of the Divine.
”oreover, on the basis of the above srﬁeeents,

Zeingli leaves hinrelf only two possible alternatives

in interpreting the text, "This is my body." First,

it cen be taken literally, which, as ﬁwinﬁli sees

it, means asserting trensubstantietion in the cruﬂest

possible fore. "For if the 'is' is to be taken

literally, then re oust eat the body of Ctrist with

 

‘T

vommente_y, pp. 215~J14.

(J)
\N
O

198 flask, bones, vc'ns, D‘PVEE, .n r»? Prd uthnr
agrkzrs which I “ill firbeﬁr t3 mention: for 833
cannot lia."” TEL: i: :zt only Pﬂpu:f?ﬁt to

r93? 3, bat is incotuatiLle with fwit“, t‘e e¢rextiul
elezert in reliﬁian. .r, the text can he intérrre ed
2:;:‘r‘3.'.>1icr:113,', is; an CX:;‘CCE‘Si".~"2 of puff-21‘s" ’Ekit7itllz'JI,
Lon-Waterial txutre. T“inﬁli cannot cansistertly
allow Luthcr's ﬁiﬁila of the rind pucitiKN. It ﬁust

" "\ J ' '- ‘2' . - “N ,5 o " v“ "
I :rnu? a? LL? 3t”)? 0; tge eatre 85.

° ‘— a --. ~ ~. .....-. ° n .2 . --...,- -: .o
anus tna gsieu e 91 the bv'bnllc 1 Lnt3;,cctﬁt¢on s;

‘

'3
"r‘ '3 ‘3. 1‘ *J' I'm-“"3“” " 2"“: .\-1'. 9:) “Cn r. . 4"! r\ f i‘"s r',t --: u -
a“: dLu U\le.|sv.. O “-1.13 , 1. .1 -Cmuws L1... \.£va..&«1~)n OH

" .. 1.. - L. . 9‘- -' , '9 __ ,“~ ._ ~ ‘ a .--n‘
124n?:n3>d T3L?Q"JTLCJ1LJ. cor exﬁ.;:o: " '1 ssven
0‘ ‘ . .-.. - I u ~.*~ r I f‘ .‘ rt, \ .' i! '. "g"
3 3);: “15.28 5:1“) 5 {3 g."- ,f «NETS ymn. 4136: 3,1; I 2,. ’9 L299

vine, ye are tFQ hranches (John 15:;);" "fFe seed
is the «353 of SOL (ﬂuke 7:11)." In all there CPSCS
the maaﬁinw is Ohvmuu:1% not literal, says ”fin“li,
but the word "if" or its relateﬂ 333:8 {houL3 b“

- o.

+- ,1 . n 4----.~.‘ .r: \.- H .~ ;-:_.,-.-_ (4.1-. .
int?rr?9=e» ﬂ: 2; h1ALer. tn ll LL;=,s LJlL 13

 

8Zwingli and Bullinger, p. 199.
9MLss, XVII, 1521—22.

also the real meaning of the words "this is my

body:" "'Take and set, this signifies r" body,

which is given fwr you.’ Theref re this is certainly

the meenins: 'Take and eat, for this, which I now

commend you to do, will signify to you, or he a

connenorstion of, my body, which is now given for

you; for he innediately thereafter eddeo: 'this do

in renenbrence of me.”10
Thus, like Carlstadt, Zwinzli makes of the

Lord's Supper sinply a memorial ceremony, stripping

from it its traditional role as a means of grace.

He thinks that the clear intention of Christ in

instituting the sacraments was simply to leave

11

behind a ceremony in memory of his death. This
ceremony can in no way be said to dispense the
forgiveness of sins, either in the Catholic or
Lutheran definition or the process. For this is the
property only of the death of Christ, which is
eternally sufficient for the sins of the faithful.
The sacrament merely symbolizes or calls to mind that

9
1- In fact, for Zwingli, the reel

hist ric sacrifice.
purpose of the sacrament is not to grnnt soee boon to

the individual, but to serve as a corporate ceremony

 

Ibid. ’ XVII. 1522-23.

m

111bid., XVII, 1527.
12Ibid., XVII, 1527; XX, 441, note 2; Concertegg,

w
p. 25?.

85.

of thanksgiving and confession of faith:

Since this meal of the Lord . . . has been
instituted in oroer that we rim Ml reﬁetber
Christ's death, which he soffcrcd for us, it
is clear that it is e 21 n whereby tho:

who trust in Christ’s death and llood
witness before their brethren that they

have such faithol

then in the thanksgiving, in coilin) with

the congreration, you part3se )i t 3 two

elements of bread and wine, all thvt you

so is to confess publicly that sou believe

in the Lord Jes us Chris t.4

The chief cornerstone of Zwingli's defense
of his ssmo olical interpretation of the words of
institution is the passage: "It is the s;.irit that

uickeneth the flesh rofiteth nothiné John 6:65)."
9 P -

0)

Like Carlstadt, Ye interprets t‘ is passage 3

to

referring to Christ's flash. This entithesi
between "flesh" and "spirit" in Z ingli's mind is
but a more specific corollary of his assertion of the
incompatability of thine: of sense with watts s of
faith. The exact origin of Zningli's rationalistic
objections to the Real Presence is not certain, but
it scans only res? onaole to assume that tie Ciu'e
lies somewhere in his humanistic training. One
commentator suggests that "perh:ps the revival in

humanism of the classical duality of 8 ul ard to ﬂy,

 

bracts, XVII, 1523.
147mincli and Pullinaer, p. 197; Conconteny,
W M

”in,

 

derivin: froa Orphisn, led Ewingli to his
"15 w _ . ,

gosition. At any rate, hWinﬁll gives a ratner
thorough exposition of his interpretation of the

text "the fle ch profiteth nothinf," alon; tith

the contest in vhich it occurs (Jo? n3:32-35),
developing the lirhly sL nificant arozlort that
participation in the substance or the body and
blood of Christ is totally irrelevant to the
Christian faith. Here, briefly, is that interpreta-
tion:

The crowd which had witnessed Christ's

Mes hire of the five thousand came seeking his '
after he had departed from them. Perceivinﬁ that
they sought him because their bellies had been
filled, Christ took tie Opportunity to teach that

of spiritual food and Spiritual eating: "I on the
bread of life: 1e that core th to so shall never
hunger; and lo thst belleveth on me shall never
thirst. (John 6:33)." By this, ea
Christ meant that those who come to Christ, or trust
in him, will never again suffer tie "hunger of
despair . . . for all those who trust in His are
already certain that they are Go1's chil‘re n . . 0

because they have t~‘.-it’rl'in themselves t3; 3e plerizje, the

15Cyril C. Richa 3rdson, ?win‘li 2L5 Cr: 3~or 33
the "Chorist (tvenston, IiI., I rt ), p. 1C.

 

S7.

. a ., a . --. 0-. '- rs v w
Spirlt, through whic“ they 1 an t13t thus have beea
reconciled 1tt God through 836 . . . Christ
clearly infic-t3d in that rannnr be is the £303

of the soul whcr he said: "Ycr-l; vorilv I :33

unts 303, he that believeth on me hath QV33133tin3

fab

life. (John G:£7}. I am the 1 vim: “read which

0333 down from heaven. If any '3n eat of this

q

bread, he shall live forever: an: the tread ttat

"ill five is my flesh, which I 3111 give for tha
life or th3 world (John 6:51;" Here Zrinxli
parqg‘ set Christ's words as follows:

":33 tread 0.? 3h: ch I no" preach is nothing
:3 {3 :33 that my flesh, which you 91:3113re
prerent, will to giyen for the life of the
world . . . In that I an sacrificeﬁ fvr the
world I Shall be the fond of tt3 3331,
through which you obtain your h313 a 3d
b30333 certain of the N330: 3f 63d . . .
$3 the bread, that is, the fond of the
soul, which I have proniead, is my flesh;
net, as you thin?, 33 it lives 33d
a3sociat33 with 333, but in so far 33 it is
Sacrificed for tie Flife of th3 world . . ."
7303 th.33 words F5. A7, 517 we clearly
learn t? at Christ+e ilesh is the faod and
nope of the human $011 on y in 33 far as
it is slain for us.

Therefore, says Swingli, tho pastrge: "?xcept
yo eat the flesh of the Son of man, and érink his
blood, ye have no life in yom (John 6:55)" is a
metaphorical 3335333 in which Christ eguates "eating"

with "oellevlng."

rﬁ"
‘JU.

For thouz2 vl-o eat hose do not eat in a
pt.ysical manner, and that which is eaten

3 :01. (JUL? bOu‘: V3102": 6:”: n1: “LS t.) £163
senses . . That vhich man perceive
t e senee- belongs to the orjeno of sea-
Put since one‘s members (or orgens of
F328 12ct1: ing; ta')L-IOC1'U38 here, :11: ratio
evervtb in3 occurs invardlg, “hat is tie
nece Siitb.o Of (1.)“ nil-1.33.1"; an Lt a bi'q; I; Lu. u
subetenée in so far a:-2 it is a S2Letance?
or CPrLS' is not t.'1e Load of tL2 U1 Lu
such a ~annsr . . . but rat 2: in “or as
12 has Leon slain acc orc;L,3 £2 1

to 9

~- \

C! f3 I

L) L.‘

[U ”n"

nature . . . 1hoever, thar fore, truzts in

C'risat v10 oied ior him, is already iLterdly

strenctim .ned by Czrist' s boﬂy and b122d. Roi
:L

‘
5.3.x)

J

4 P o

1- re 1 not tiuat In Ct‘152': death, what
rter1 ter €201 than the nourish. art of the
Low; 2021 A result fron tie ”noistegce upon
entinz Christ corporallv? 3 r it remains
forever true that t1 at Unis I; is; born; '21" the.
flesh is flesh,” and fur tLer, "that vhiet

is born of the Spirit is Spirit éJoLn 3:;7."
Therefore Christ inten.s here a apiritual
eating . . o If we do not believe that he
has died onﬂ she d his blood for us me ekall
have no Li“e.321t1er, if we eat hie flash,
that i:-, telieve t}? at h. diei for we, enﬂ
diink hi.rs tlood, that is, firmly Eeli‘ve
that fie blood was ehec f2r us, than ”hoist
is in re an? *9 er in him Joln 6:5;7. “ut
is Chrizt corporal presen' in eoyone? 3?

e
1:3

course not. G‘hen vtv do 1e urez 112 so about

t eatirg of the t ? lor one eats 41$

bony ‘h2n one bolaev es that .e Cieé f

'2.
l' _

F4.

w r_li thinks that if 1t c0215 be maintained

that there ves any Spiritual benefit in the cor oral

a.
a
O
J
J

prrﬂi ciim tiin in Christ's bocy, it also have

to be mainteineﬁ that there are two veto of salvation,

body, which is absurd. Furtheroare, ¢hrist said:

"For the bread of God is he which coneth down from

('3.
.‘4‘ Q

heaven, and giveth life unto the world. [30km 3:327."
"But Christ's body did not cowe down from heaven,
b ;t vaﬁ s born in the body of the Vir in . . . Christ

vlvos life to the world in so for as He in Cod and

the You or Col, not as flesh."

Put, TWintli concludes, tho Je 8 4&0 heard
Christ cistakcnly took Clm ist‘s v0 rﬁs literally, and
W re horrified and offended because they supposed him
to Fe comﬁandin: the litefol eatin; of his flesh. To
correct this mistaken impression Christ 333‘:

"It is L1e spirit that quicl< reth, the £1983
profitoth nothinn: the worms tha I speak
unto you, they are Spirit, and they are
life . . ." that could have been acre
ecphaticolly stated in orcor to overthrow
all the fables about the corporal and
essential boﬂy of Christ in trc “nor'pent
ﬁhun thie: "the flesh froj'itoth nothi 3"?
But shall we now say that Christ gave
somo;hinj :hich is of no profit: Far from
*: IO? 49 will hold beforc them

Khat kind of flezh?hat2:1nd of
cod? Eot that which has bodllg hu umors,
nor that vhich has 4 ei'-let, but that v Hich
we ac :nomled4~:e in our foart to be a p1c4mo
of our salvation, because of the loot 4hat
1t has been slain upon the croos for us.
If we believe these words and rarbor then
in our heart, they bring as etc rnc. l llfe.
For we are Justified by faith alone.lb

i4 . . .

é§.c., Lutbc£7 this word as a shield and
can: Canoe from this your carnal misdom,
for 'tlrc fol .3h. profiteth roar-in, ' Boat
is profit ﬁblc then Anc‘or: t:hat vhj. ch
follows: ”the words which I Speak unto
you, the; are spirit an4 t?:y are life."
that words: "‘l4oso eotcthr 3 flec h ard
Grin oth my blood hath “rpil life 43orn
6:5'27."

bl

 

1¢:7T:‘E. XVII. 1515-151?0

To make hi? case even more canvincing,
7wincli, li?:e Carlstadt , asserts the iwpasnibility

of the Ron] Presence on tfﬂ bﬂBIS of Christ's

be 113' ascension irto heaven. 59rk 15:1“ reads:

{3-1

"He was recvived up into heaven, and sat down at tne
right Fara of Gad." IroniCPIIV, Erin"li the
champion of netaphar in Scripture, inriets tnﬂt the
meaninj Hi this pasaane was absolutely literal. ﬁtt
it harmonired r611 v1,h Ewinyli's g*¢nera 91 View to
confine Christ's body to a local pr enerce in heaven.
Therefore, he srys, since it is not the Iroperty of
a body ts ba more than one place at once, the

corr oralr presence of Chris t in the sacrament is

1?

impossible.

have seen that ?win~7i raised the same
issues anﬂ used spHrorimately the same arﬁuncnts as
Carlsbadt. But we have also STQn that he Gaveleped

his case in .3? tr ate: detail, avd vitﬁ greater

0

lwgical and exeretical skill. Equally as immortant
as Twingli's case against the pocsibility of the Ecal
Preserce was his case afainei its desirability. He
defended the preposition that the E931 Presence is

entirely beside the goint in the Christian relL 3132.

 

1/“win“li 53% Ejllinger, pp. 21?~?13.

91.

more than that, it is absolutely Opposed by
Zwinxli's understanding of the doctrine of
Justification by faith alone. Luther has not had
to face such a challenge before, for his Catholic
opnononts shared his belief in tto Peal Ereaenco,
and Carletadt'a attack had concentrated on other
issues. If Zwinali's arzuneits cannot be refuted,
Luther's doctrine will fall. This is indeed a
serious challenge.
Luther's Reply
There was a lapse of more than a year and a
half between the publication of Zwinmli'a Connentagz
and the appearance of Luther's first reply. However,
the interim was not a time of quiet. Theologians
in Germany and Switzerland were taking sides in the
dispute and soon a veritable theological war was in
progress. For example, in ?eptemror 1525, Johannes
Oecolampadiua of Basel, a close associate and
supporter of Zringli, published a tract entitled
'ghig lg Eszod ,' heping to win the Lutheran clergy
of Swobia over to the Zwinglian View of the sacrament.
thereupon a group of Fwabian pastors, under the

leadership of lohannoa Brena, replied with a tract

called the Swebien Syngranoa, in which they

vigorously defended Luther's View. Fo it went,

with each side bombarding the other with tracts

erd let tor 5, until it became apparent that the

secroﬁent which both sides acknowledged to he a

symbol of Christian unity was the source of a

bitter cleavage in the rents of the reformers.
meanwhile both sides were awaiting a

definitive statement from Luther himself. Luther's

delay was due in part to the fact that he was en

ertrooely busy nor, involved in ti.e task of founding

a new church. Rut more important, he was restud3i.3

the Scriptural evidence on the sacraient end

re-er shinin" his whole doctrine in tie lijht of

Zeinnli's attack. Fnerqilﬁ from this ctu€3 more

convinced than ever of the correctness of his own

doctrine, Letter defended it in ttree treatises:

Fer non "oncerninr tte Fecreoent of tte Podu eoi Flood
. ”I. m

w m

of W nri."t, Awoinrt the Fsrsti eel :pirits Well of

 

 

1523);13 That Those Words of Christ: 'This is 7v
WWW-mm c.- do

Bodz' etc., Ftill Steed Fire seeinst the w+t5c.l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93o

Sgirits (April 1527);19 and Concerning Egg Lord's
Sggger, §,Confession (ﬁarch 1528).20

Luther did not take Zwingli's attack on his
doctrine gracefully. In fact, in some passages it
is obvious that his volatile temper not the better
or him. Tot only does he rage against Ewingli and
his followers as servants of the devil and heratlcs,21
but even resorts to personal abuse, accusing Zwingli.
for example, of theologizing "like a filthy old

sow.'22

Repreheneible as such acrimony may be,
Luther was not without provocation. It was naturally
a gelling and embittering experience for him to have
the doctrine he regarded as the hard-won truth from
the Word of God openly attacked, not by Romanists,
which would have been understandable, but by other
reformers. The air of condescending superiority
which Zwinqli tended to assume in his writings did

not soothe matters any. Furthermore Luther was

ﬁves: ﬂdgeee% ist : 'desk in Leib'
ﬁﬁ§.,% noo ee 9e e tencw er #619 c w rgggieﬁer.s
‘ winghn a rep was use
Worte: teem iet 9main Lei Mam, ewi lich r. e
g n fen2 an“ on we en une 15575,m ,XI,
20V0:.Abendm mgi C ist , Bekenntnisz, WLSS, XX,
894-lm w ng '3 re pf? was Antvort auf Luthere

Eggiggt §%§§‘vom Abeﬁdmahl ChrisEiZKu ust IS
____2iv

mars , xx, 762-770.
22Ibid., xx, 925.

 

 

9%.

1.1

outreped by ﬁecolanpadius' 33c Tying assertien twat
the Lutherans worshipped a "baked bread Sad," and
were "carniverous devom were 3f Sed's flesh" and

:32
"swillers of Ted's bleed."“) Put uur rain interest

‘

here is not Y mther'e riled te yer , but the substance

Of his reply to “Wing—3.311.

The Word and the Real Presence
Luther's case for the
solely upon his lit e."al interpretati3n of th3 words
of institution. In the last chapter we examined in
some detail Luth r's exegetice l ar3u3ents for that
literal inter retetio“ The title of his trca

t
Of It}? 7 "3134: 3""889 'CwDT‘dS Of Christ 0 o 0 Still

 

 

Stand . . . indicates that his ground remains the

same in his conflict with Zeingli, as indeed it

Here new stands the verse ATTtis is my
body' etcg7 and reads clearly and
distinctly that Christ gives *is body to
eat when he distributes tiue bxs ad. Lpon
that we take our stand, and 3183 believe
and teach trat one eats Chris t's body

ruly and cores ally in tie L3rd '5 Larger.
But L33 this takes place, or in a at manner

is is in th3 bread, we do not know, nor are
we 8‘pposed to know in ﬁl“ believe the
or. of Go:l, and fot prescrilc li3its or

methods or him.

.J‘. 1"-
“’"den {ebrddenen und erbac”onu3 Gatt . . .
Cottea’leiectfrcsser und Cittesblutsﬂufer from

‘?

decolam m3adius‘ ntvort exf T.urhere xnvrune 7:33

   

 

or ‘2'9Wn mm!) A 1“."1C13 .2 .. lJ’ . . 4‘- A- ‘ LIL—(u) I
DJ-o-o-fw- «In. "Io—~— u-u—q-wn— "

I

‘”Ttid., XX. 777: of. 755.

\Q
\Q‘l

Actually it is entirely returel for Luther
to accept the literal 3e3ning of the text as proef
because doing so harmonizes c 3gletely with his
doctrine of tbe "Ford of God." For 1W er, the

Word is much me re tt an si 391" the Bible, it is the

active 3:111 of” -3ﬂ. Tnss the Torn not trig iccleres
tm 2:3 ;rosence, but also can: e3“ it. This he:
been inflicit in ﬁuther's tt3njﬁt "znce is first
st3tel his doctrine of the L3ro's Tugper, 13t in
tteze later works it i: s3r3 clerrl: 63*“97331. To

illustrate wﬁst he means ”3*‘93 refers to the

doctrine of the virgin birth:

l 0

H33 does ﬁery, his mother, beco e "r332r3
the knomsno ear, ens }9er t3dy is
inviolate; yet a true, petersl child 31th
:Cles} 333 blood is conceived in her bony
. . . ”om does this come 3&33. ? Tre
esﬁel Gacriel brin3s the Word: "Hehold,
thou shalt cor .ceive in tZy 3313, set E in;
i‘orth a son" etc .‘éjukel :3l/ . Here
no one can eeny ttet the pover ca«
the iord. And just as one cease“
She is made ;r*"“‘nt t9“3“3ﬁ t5“

1.;

no ene_hnors how it 33313;;, i ..c
rere Afn tee Lord's ﬂiyczn. ?or 3? on as
Christ 5 eye: "this is 2:3 fair.“ Flu L063 13
trnre t‘r3333 the ”3rd 33“ tie 33rer of the
31 213': :31P1t5 i3:3-T—31.‘.i 33 “5 AW‘CI.‘ 1"1"" r'I—WKQ nd

3
it see done17. If A
it is mere freed; hut ii the or33 ere A
to it, theyrbrine 3 th thee t: t t3 31:.i3h
they refer.d5

In the institutien of the c oreeeet Christ

f‘ .\

co3eenﬁed: "tl 1is do in r03331r3nce of 3e." 9 ether

*A“

0‘!-

“7Ibi°., xx, 741-742; cf. xx, 3 -331.

:8

argues that Christ referred not only to the
ceremony of eating and drinking, but also to the
consecration of the breed and wine, thus binding

him elf to be present wherever Christiane celebrate

,-
the aacranent.2°

Therefore, "he is truly there
whenever we speak the words [5? institutio§7 over
the bread . . ."27 To Zeingli'e objection that
this is nothin? but a resurrection of the Ronieh
priesthood,28 Luther replies that this is not so
because groper consecration depends solely upon the
power of the Tord and is not dependent in any way
upon the eacerdotal character of the ninietrnnt.29
For Luther's own conscience no more proof
is necessary, nor is any more convincing proof
possible. But his whole position is seriously
challenged by Zwingli'e argueent that the true meaning
of the words of institution is not literal, but
metaphorical. If this is true, then Luther's
doctrine cannot stand, because it would necessarily
follow thet the words "this is my body" were not
intended to indicate a real presence, and God's Word

does not accomplish that which it does not intend.

 

281b1d., xx, 920.ﬁ

273.49... xx. 741.

28Ibid., xx, 1121.

29Ib14., xx, 918.

97.

Therefore, Truther'c principal term in t? .30 three
tre atir es must be to refute ?winnli'e eryuccnte for
the octeptoricnl interpretation, and marshal all the

evioence poessi tle in eupjort of tfe literal

~e Elaueicilitv of the Fee-l Iree once
To beﬁin rith, Luther ie not inrreeced by

ZMinﬁli'e obeervation that "is" often W?ﬁh$

,
. ,r - .- . " . .‘ 1. - « ~\ .‘5 os-‘r ~ I19- -I‘ s e - :20
"Signifiee in Leiipierc. " Verdoooy known L}nt."
It cu"t to orovei beyond any doubt the; the nerds
”t‘iv in my toxy" e also a retoohor and corrot
“" M

be taken literally.51 Butter thi.otn t at "Winrli
hoe failed to do this, and to .ill rot nifit tLe
metaphorical interpretati3n lccouse Fe thinks fret
the prePicee Upon rhioh it rents are felne.

"ningli hcd cited Christ's ascension into
heaven to sit at the right bend of God es proaf
that the corr oral presence of Christ's body and
blood in the en renent in irpon::i:1e. The underlying
aneurption is that since it is not the rr.;trt; of a
body to be in were then one place at a tine, Christ's

boﬂy Cﬁnﬁﬁt he Ci ultenecusly in tcnvcn are in the

73:3 ..
” nuther to G-rerory Cncel, 5

.r ‘ f” .3 fl
cmi to-.cr“c"nor err: 1&8.

X

_m 1—.

 

7
:1 1 ‘ ' r f' f- 1"! r 1:) :
.‘--.‘."‘ --‘- .Atd'". . t.-. ’a .

_.'.'

_u-‘k

HAL;

infinite nu

eecraient is bcin*

this argument as nothing

religious 'vtery to the

‘.v
\

we

a“

L 9

"ﬂow can we or tel“,

‘ur

er of places on earth

celeb:

an
JUO

ated.

‘- ‘-Q

t a cheay reduction of

l.) g_;

6?
limits of human roasox."
to eels, " hot it is not

possible for a body to h.e simultareouslg in F‘even
or: if t‘e Lori's Supper three 2 tie n- 23? of C.G,
since God's gave: 333 neither "ear”:e ‘9: limit,
awd Ann" ttinoe Which reason cannot c: “re: eni, but
rust sirplg he bolfevcd”" After all, "with God

n”
“r03 this point
is both irrelevant 3rd

for doubt

shall be i*o35”ib]
of View Zwingli'e
inpious.

t.:nt Cod ctn ca.

(TJU‘ECG 1:171."
objection

There is to room

a the simulta esus

pretence of Christ in he Wen anﬁ in the sucroeent.
Put rein” a matter polemicist Luther realizee that
to make r1: ca 83 veeriucion to must somehow danonstrete

la“81o litv of o‘ch

by tnrninw the toblen on

a pared 'lcal oce.rnnce.

”Tingli

and arguinf tint the feet thﬁt CVrirt 5133 wt the
ri*ht 1711:?1 of God in Fenven eupforts rzther ‘tﬁn
op?ones tte literal méﬁﬂlﬁﬁ f tie wares of jeet‘tution.

Tv1n¢li'3 error

has unis the rijht hand 0

 

9"“15. 2:2: 7:38.
-- ‘ . .

45r~4a,. Y), 7.4-735.

4.. —. .‘
Utah

7.)"

Luther Chnwmom

ur;vn3

, is t e

f God a portic ‘ler place or

location, to which Christ's body is confined. This
seems childish to Luther: "If we were to eek thew

I}e. the Veinglinns7 wﬁet they coll tﬁe ri Lt Land

f\

of God there Christ site, I susoect tho; wok J asaon
Up a stor; like the one we are accuttooei to

telling to chilﬂren, about a mete-believe Ecnven
with o T0159“ ttrone, end Christ sitting next to the
Vntheo in a go! on creme, erectly e9 the artists:

" “"6.
‘I‘- n?’4

pain t. Luiher ac ertc to tie contrary that

Q

{T

".3

5-3.

1??? bond cf Cad is

0

P 9*Vre tcechea as that tﬁe

H

I

f!

ot o porticwlar place where e bgdy can or ehould

\b

be, 1139 a falﬂcn throne, but rather it .5 too
omnipotence of God," mtich is not ccnfineble to a

porticzlnr place, but is Cﬂniﬁresont that i?

4'?

-_ i .. .n . ‘ . .5 H _, J .2 ...,
otnlly fretout in all {laces at a“; $029 ,ime,

o”cn in the scollcet leaf on a tree, as t»

C}
C
"4
C‘
H
€34
Ho
:‘1
ca

3rd animatin7 force of the universe. ﬁnwx> Inthor's

proofs froﬂ Scripture are tte following: "?or 311
there thin-s hath mite hand maﬁa (Isaiah 23:93:”

””hitier 91811 I r9 from thy mpi3it? . . . If I
taFﬁ thﬁ Win78 “f the morrinﬁ or? Small in the
utterﬁost parts of the sea, even there shall tfy

hand lead m and thy r1 ht hand hold me (Eeelm 13'

K;

N 7' ‘ w .P. L i F f. 1 (N P '
7—19); "Le 1Q Lot far irom every one 01 ha: ior

 

Pu’)
\Ik .

in 1313 vc live, and cove, and have our being
(Acts 17:27-23);" and "An I not a God at hand,
saith the ford, and not a God far off 0 . . *0 I
no - '5‘. A J‘! “55
not 1111 heaven aha earth? (Jer. dp:d5-M4)
Considering this much established, Butter

proceeds to turn Twingli's own evilenca amainct hi3:

L.

They [3:30 the Zwin3113r: aﬁnit thﬁt Christ
Es at th.c ri rt ha- d of 303, an] thank they
thereby establis= bed that he is not in the
lord's Supper. Tbi. is inﬂeci the ﬁrcuﬁful
sword of the giant Goliath which they are
tr33 icii3j. But vh3t if we were t3 t3rc
from you?” this ver sword, with VTich you
wish to prove that Christ c.13.nnot be in ttc
Tara's Supper, cut off your hcaCs, and prove
with that doctrine f.hnt his bOT" C3n be
tbnre? ﬁculd van not core idcr this a dc ed
worthy of David:‘ .911 M] n, lis ten to this.
Thrist's body is at the ri ht band of Gad,
th3t is admitteé. Put thw ri ht hand of
603 is everywhere, as vou must adnit from
our previous de33r.tr3tion. Therefore it
is certainlJ in tie bread and wine on tha
tﬂble as well. ﬂow tha body 333 blooﬁ of
Christ must be presert wherever the rijht
hand of Gad is . . . That fallaws fral
ttis? It follars that if Christ h33 ngvcr
said nor established the words "This is my
b3dy" in the t3rd's Cup: or, the wards”
nrist sits at the ri ht h3nd 3f “ T "351d
nevertheless prave tbﬁt it is yo-.1t13 far
kis 39359 mm! blood to be there . . .«

ﬂ...

0

Tow3v:r, this 3hole ar3u33rt is ha 593 an the
assurptién, irharent in Luther's£ st31=3 3, that

Christ's body is 9303pt fr03 limitatisn in 533cc,

 

l

J 3131*" 3.2-7, 33.507.
-3r9 Tut53r a ruptly chnrr 3 t3 ﬂircct ea recs
3 033333rt3

'1 '- 0-" 1.". rs a! n :f-jll
\ ' -- .. 1‘4)-
. _ .. ’ J . A. J k.’ .

'\

f

~-

‘3
\N
“Q” £3?“ U?

‘01

101.

‘_

and is able to be oanJresent like the ri ht a 3nd of

v-
s
4.

God. Cne of the cardinal tenets of Juthor's theoloﬁy

13 tv3t two distinct natures, r3333 336 ﬂivine, ere
united in the one person J3eus Christ. These two
oat mes in Christ are so closcly united in the one
person that the" are inseparable. "Tho huﬁan nature
18 more closely joinei with uOd than our 521“ 31th
our flesh, yea, no: 3 C10? 313 th'n bod? anﬁcnul."
Thus Christ, thouﬁh truly man, is also truly God:
It is our belief, Luther e,tateg7, es the
Scriptures teach us, th3t our Lo; d Jesus
Christ is genuinely, truly, and essentially
God, and that God dwells in him totally and
orporally, as St. Paul says in Col. 2:9
'12 him dwelleth the ullnees of the Godhead
odilyz7; and therefore that apart from
Christ ther3 is ehsolutely no God or 5ivinity.
As he himself says in John 14:9-102 "Fhilip,
he that hath seen me bath 8333 t‘e Father .
. . Believest thou not th3t I am in the
athe r, and the -3t*er in me. '59
Therefore, Luther argues, since tho two
natures are ins ep3rably uni ed in Chriot, thorevor
one rot.3re 13 present, the other r3t3ro r‘3t also

proeent:

 

\H

)‘T‘.

“Ibid., 33, 352.

39Ibia. 31:, 333. Here the Christocentrisn of
Luth3r's tb3olowv ir~clear15v in eviience. H5.e bnric

mition 13 that there is 30 pro or ruom13333 of 53d
apart from the man Christ, 333 t 3t God is not to
to £0335 except in the hunanity of Christ. ?or an
excellent tr33t333t of this issu3 tee Eateon, Lat
Cod £3,931, chaps. 3 and 3.

 

r‘ ’3
J L'- .

Wherever you can say: Here is God there
you must also say: Christ the man is ale
here. And if you were to point out a place
there God is, nnﬂ not the men, then the
person would already be diviﬁcd, because I
could then say with trnth: Here is Geﬂ,
who is not men, and never was man. But
mare of that God for me: . . . 10, n3 dear
fellow, wherever you place God before me,
there you nest also place tie auﬁnnity of
Christ; since they have become one perecn,
they cannot be separated or diviﬂed from
one another . . . ‘

@hue, since God is omnipresent, the hunarity of
Christ is also omnipresent. "We believe,” Luther
declares, "that Jesus Christ is placed over all
creatures according to his humanity . . . and fills
all things . . . He has everything in his ban: and
is everywh re present."41 Since Christ's bedy is
peculiar in that it is supernaturelly Joined with

God, and since there is no God apart from the nan

Jesus Christ, the ordinary, finite limitations of

 

EB Mme, XX. 951.
4.11111"?! . , , 7,22 .

I”)
”C.

a body cannot hinﬂer this omnipres once.
If Luther's arguments for the omnipresence

of Curiet are accepted, he 2m 3 proved trot Cbri-t

[‘1

p

can be in many pieces at once and thorcfore tie

if

.3

the Real Presence is possible. However, eve.
one eccegted all of -uthcr's argueonts hjrc w thout
fat is yrov:d is a kind of

“niprecence of Christ in 811 pic es:

5J0
3—4
H
1
3
’40
’3
{D
C'-
0

stone, fire, water, bread, wine or what have you.
‘

.0 this type of presence Luther attacnco no 5pc ‘.31

sec raoer tel ei3nificoncc For the sacramertal

p

presence somethin additional is regiirei, namely,
the iord. "It is one thin: if God is there, and
another thin: if he is there for you. For he is

do his T323 tiercto, bin

‘2‘:

there fw; vou when lo a

 

#C‘Tt3e., ‘;X, “51. In other contexts Luther

expressSE tiie sate position re oroin the gore on

of Christ in tor3c of the ancient (fi"th. cohort ,
Bee iceberg, I, 251 ff.) ooctrine of tie cc ~nn-e t
iiio33t32, ih3t 1?, ,ho cooouriciti n 3? the
attributes of each nature in CI: rict in the other. Ly
this norms it is arfued, for GXInple, tn.; tne

euffcrin3s 8rd deo th of the human nature are conounicotod
to toe @3313.e nature. And Rutter argues, on tte cone
basis, that tte onnipresence of the divine nature is
comnunicatcd t3 the huoon nature. Fee TY? , XIII,
235-2 0. It is also worth moth n: tlrt LuE- er's
Cbrietolocy'wes not developed as a recalt of his
spec31°tign on the Ieel Ires once, but that his

ooeition on the Ieel rres once rec taken because of
hi.a Lhriotolorv, which was a scynrete and earlier
deve1333ent, see Schwicbert, p. 702.

*JI

0

‘—
_‘_——

 

104.

himself by it and says: Here thou shalt find me.
If you have this Word, then you can certainly grasp
him and have him . . ." It is the Lord's Supper

which Chri;

C?

has appointed as the scans of
continuously revealing himself to mankind, as he
promised in the words "this is my body . . . this
is my blood."43
Thus, where Zwingli emphasized th~
remoteness of Christ‘s humanity from human affairs
by virtue of his ascension into heaven, Luther
enphasizes the innanence of Christ and his continued
personal presence and comnunion with the faithful bi
means of the sacrament. This is a vastly comforting
thought for Luther, and he is not willing to have
Zeingli rationalize it away.44
Ewingli had also argued that Christ's body
and blood are not truly present in the sacroeent
because n) such presence is erceived by the senses.
Here the underlying assumption is that there is
only one possible way for Christ's body to be
present, namely, in e perceptib e, comprehensible
manner. Once again Luther charges Ewingli with

setting limits to God's omnipotence, and feels

 

3|

44'Ibid., XX, 743, 817; cf. Luther's reearks on
the ascension in his sermon for Ascension Day, 1523,
1‘bid., XI, 940-941.

 

 

 

called upon to demonstrate that Christ's presence
need not necessarily be perceptible.
Derivinc bis argueent from Cccem and Eie1,47
Luther distinguishes three possible types of
presence: circuescriptive or lgpnl, definitive,
and gerletive. Circumscriptive preserce refers to
a local, coeprehersi?:le, qu sntitetive, purely
spatial relationship, such as wine in a flask. This
mode of presence is attributed to Christ's body
during his earthly life. Repletive presence refers
to a superraturel, incorprebensible 3resence in all
places, otherwise known as omnipresence. This sods
is attributed to Chris thy virtue of tie divini.ty
But it is the definitive eoﬁe stick pertains to tie
pre ence in th . ebrcaa
A this: is ;:resent definitive, incomprehensiblg,
if the thin: or bsdy is rot present
compretensibly, erﬁ is rot measured according
to the space of the pls ce wtere it is, but
can occupy a yrest deal 0: .3ece 53 only
little trace. In this way, hey Ai.e. Ocean
and Piel? say, angels and spirits are present
at various places; for in ttis sey an excel
or a devil can be in an entire house cr city;
wereover he can be in a room, a tcx or a pot,
yes, even in a nutshell . . . Tris is rtnt I
call incomprehensible presence; for we cennot
cosrrehsnd or ﬂeasure it, as we venture
bodies, but it is nevertheless fresent.
In this may Christ is seiﬁ to have cone forth out

of tte sealed tomb end pne.ei fhre: b closed ﬂoors

 

[Lg—3"
2‘0 ee teeter? 11 P91- 3933 333’ ”Ote 1'

:3

106.

t3 the disciples, leaving the stone as wood

unchanged althouﬁh being truly present in them.

It is in ttis se we incarprﬁreaei 1e vay, .mtler

asserts, ttet Christ is present in the Tara's

8 up 136 r o [4-6
This discussion does not attain the sees

level as Luther's speculations on the person of

‘C

C rist and the ritht henl of God, yet lt serves sell
to clarify Hut; her 's attitude towers the nature of
the Eeel Presence. He is especiall; anxious not

to have any notion of a local, quantitative presence
or limitation of Christ in .te bread associated with
his doctrine. It is necessary for his to esplain
this carefully since his one frequently used
expression "in the bread" can easily be interpreted
to seen such a local, quantitative presence, like
straw in a sack or bread in a basket. Luther
01801‘1ﬂo a , such View, insisting that by using 'h
word "in" he enly inte see to confess his belief that

4
Christ is present in the sacrament. 7 The

presence
itself is éefinitive, ttst is ireemw"“hﬁ'slnle,
non-quantitative, unscesureble, not limiteﬁ by the

place in which the presence occurs. Christ's body

 

I!” ~
‘1'“ m .

9.2m 1’1“, :31, sew-M.
a ,

7.;.')1”‘.. )I‘. 311, 8?“. 933.

107.

should not be thought of as present in the save we'
that breed is in a basket or straw in a sack, but

similar to the say that a eingl: voi e3 is totally

*"9

{D

(j

present in tt e each

“a“
-8 0

h 4
ti)
k4
x.)
:3
H.
g.-
7"
r:
b
{J
".3
21
P
I
he
OJ
(3
1‘
L-
O

or a scenic landscape is entirely tresent in the

49

eyes of each belolccr.
Closely relate? to the above erotica is
ﬁwinjli's er uqert that Luther cannot take the
word "is" literally and stiil maintain that bread
rensins. Wither Christ's bony is {resent or the
brand is present, they cannot be together in the
save place at he sane time. Luther might sell
answer this by re-enphasisinf tent if a this" is
pres at definitively it does not effect tie status

of

C

he place in which it is pres ent, er rhea the

*Jo

stone as“ the wood remained unchanfed when Ch: st
peered tnrouwh then. Put instead he treats the
pro? ”13“ record“, 3, 9rd with a “q‘her sore orig ir‘a 1

argun3nt.

Luther fully realizes t’e éifficm 1 involved

:vd
.i

in his belief tzst both breaﬂ enﬁ the boﬁy of Christ

are present in the sacrament:

 

 

gilt.) O 11"! ‘1’ ""
Ibl J g ' 1p: ’ 7),), :35“.
4 . r it u
9Tn4 57. 9500

 

It is in eed true, and no one c33 cesy ttat
two «isti3ct essenceSSO cannvt t:e one 6380306.
For exanple, ts 3t woich is an as cannot be

as ex; that which is a man cannot be stone

or 137301 0 o . :0?! if 1‘0 00.18 t") tYG TiOfd'S
:uooer "its such an unierstohiint our reason
is offended; for here it our ”3:037 finds
ttat bread and b015, t3) oistinct essences,
are spo“3n of so one thinf or essence in
these v:oi ds : "This is 33 body." tore reason
shakes its baa 33d says: Indeed! it is
neitt3r “ossi ble nor 6031r1313 t13t bread
should be a b we g if it is bread it is brea d,
if it is a so}; it is s ro‘\, one or the
other, whichever you wish.

In the face of this di1e3aa, Luther observes,
two positions have comeonly been taken. tee 30333
Catholic theologians assume that since the to 33 of
Christ is rresent the substance of breed cancot be,
and take reflga in the sophisticat sac of the

doctrine of tronsubstantiation. 03 the other hard

9.

reformers like ?wingli assune that since bread is
obvio sly present the body of Christ c3nnat be, 33 -d,
in defiance of tte 0rd of God, throw out the
doctrine of the ?eal Presence altogether. *ach of
these positions is in its own way sore rational than
Luther's, in that each one circumvents the logical

impasse of treating two essences as one.

’ The German word here is d3s to-
number of possible translations: es
entity, exis terce, or szbsta 33cc. I e
the context toat Iu’her means siopLy 03
which ha 3 an in1epende3t exis tencc. He
withi the philosophical cat “ffOI‘iﬁE—E of 35:53 «2-3 of 51’s-
star so such as thcv are £0 and in scholar «c “liloco,hJ
(e.? a, in the doctri :e of transul t33‘i3;ion,.

 

which has a

, being,

'9 clesr from
thin3 or 1m in:
s at daoling

 

1'39 .

But Luther is not one to be intimidated by
a paradox if he thinks the ’ord of God requires it.
He holds with the one party that Christ's boij is
truly present, and with the other part; that the
are e is also present. "And therefore," 18 declares,
"I hold, against all reason and acute logic, that
two distinct essences may indeed be one essence and
be referred to as such . . ." But Luther insists
that the truth of his position can be denonetreted
from the articles of faith and the Bible:

The lofty article of faith concerning the

Holy Trinity teaches us to believe and to

speck of the Father, ton, and the Poly Ghost

as three distinct persons; navertheleso,
each one is the sole God . . . If, here,

the unity of nature and essence can cause

distinct persons nevertheless to be spoken

of as one and the sane thing or one essence,
then it most certainly not be contrary to

”cripture or ary article of faith that two

distinct thin 3, like breed and holy, be

spoken of as one end the 3110 thin;, or

one essence.

This unity Luther calls natural unity because the
three persons are all one nature.

Luther also offers the by now familiar
example of the person of Christ: "I point to the
men Christ and say: This is the Con of God, or this
man is the Son of God. Here it is not necessary
that the huoanity disappear or be destroycﬂ in oreer
that the word 'this' refer to God anJ not the men,

as the sephists imagine concornine the bread in the

110.

sacrament; nevertheless ten and God are much more
different, more widely separated, and more contrary
to one another than breed and body . o . ibis
unity Luther calls personal unity because the two
natures are one person.

Luther offers yet another example which he
thinks comes even closer to illustrating his
conception of the Real Presence. "The evangelists
write that the Holy Ghost came UPDn Christ in the
river Jorﬁsn in tte fort of a dove zgohn 1:337} ?e
say . . . that if one points to the dove he can
riﬂhtly and properly say: This is the Holy Ghost;
for the reason that the two distinct essences,
Spirit and dove, are in some fashion one snﬂ the
same essence . . ." This unity Lut;er cells fornel
unity because the Holy Ghost chose to reveal himself
in this particular form.

Luther concludes that in the liﬁht of all
this evid~nce it is perfectly proper to sneak of a
"sacranental unity" between the breed and the boﬁy
of Christ, similar to the unity between the dove and
the Holy Ghost. ”For it is no longer crﬂiner: breed
in the oven, but flesh-bread or bosy-breed, that in,
bread which has becone one thine, one sacramental

essence with the boﬂy of Christ. The same is also

111.

true of the wine in the chalica . . . for it is no
longer more wine from the cellar, but bloodowine,
that is, wine which has become one sacramental
essence with the blood of Christ."51

With reference to this concept Luther can
solve the probler of whether or not the body of
Christ is actually chewed by the teeth.

Therefore it is by all means proper for one
to point to the bread and say: This is
Christ's body; and whoever sees the bread
sees the body of Christ; the some as then
John soy: that he saw the Holy Ghost when

he saw the dove, as we have heard. therefore
it is also correct to say that whoever
handles this bread handles the body of
Christ, whoever eats ttie bread eats the
body of Christ, and whoever presses this
bread with his teeth or tongue presses the
body of Christ with his teeth or tongue;

and yet it renains forever true that no one
sees, handles, cats or chews the body of
Christ in the 3919 way that one visibly sees
and chews other flesh. But whatever is done
to the bread is preperly attributed to the
boii o Christ by virtue of the sacramental
un- .70

The New Testament and the Real Presence
The question still remains: what is the
benefit of the Real Presence for the recipient? This
question must be answered in terms of Luther's
concept of the blessing of the sacrarent itself. In

2M.. XX. 1027-550

5 id.. XX, 1052. Note the similarity of this
last a a snout to the concéption of the connonicntio

igégai§3§,in the person of Christ. See above, p.“l03,
no a .

 

112.

the midst of all this theologizing on the Real
Presence one almost forests that the central theme

of Ruther's sacramental doctrine is ttat the lord's
Eupper is the new testanent of the forgiveness of
sins. Ewinﬁli attacked this concept on identically
the same grounds as did Csrlstadt, claiqin: that the
death of Christ alone is the means of man's
redenption, not the sacrament as well. Luther's

reply is identically the same as that directed against

Cerlstadt, though somewhat more acrimonious:
The blind and revinf senius does not know
that ne‘itun Christi /5hrist's nori§7 and
distributio rariti‘Zthe distribution of the
merit/arehteo different thin s, but mixes
then together like a filthy 01d sow. Christ
merited and rained the forgiveness of sins
for us once and for all on the cross; but
he distributes this wherever he is, at all
times and in all places, as ﬂuke writes in
chapter 24:46-47: "This it is written, and
thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to
rise free the dead the third day (which is
his merit), and that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in
his mane (which is the distribution of his
merit)"; therefore we say that the forfiveness
of sins is in the Lord's Supper . . . not
because Christ merits or gains the forgivenes
of sins there, but because of the Ford,
throueh which he distributes anon: usrthe
forgiveness of sins already won . . .23

 

 

1'

for we are once again faced with tne question:

what exactly is the relationship between the benefit
of the sacrnnert, the forgiveness of sins, and the

 

'1'}. err (‘ .
/ .L.;1d. ‘ “3's ’ }25.

115.

eel Presence? Tma her '5 orifinal arswer t3 tlic
question was that the body and blood of Christ
are a seal or Sign of the forﬁivenees which is
muted thr;u h faith in the ford. This caneeyt
still retains: ”Here m" Lord has given J9 r15

boﬂy ani bleoﬁ in bread and mine t3 eat emu t) doing

and to hate as my own, wherebv 1,9n certain that

 

 

sins are fozjiven, and that I am free from death

and hell, have eternal life, an a child 3f God and

an relr of heecen. It is to seek tile Lket I a» to
a. n 514' r\ { 4.!

the sacra10au. Ur, to express it ln another way,

the bady and 1331 of 3hr let, throu h \thg tha

farﬁivenees of sins was won on the cross, are by

their presence in the sacranent, the test p!e:ihle

eviﬂence that the grquRe in the ”era is inﬁeed true,

and therefore faith in the premiee is strengthened.
But this original cancept has row been

dee pens d. In his writin s arainet t‘e Catholic Church

Luther was overwhelmingly cancerned wit: establishing

1‘“.

hat only faith in the ’ovd of God bri 2rrivetese

:3.

to man, with the result that in his early sacratentel
writin<s ﬂuiher ﬁrew a sharp uni sanewhat artificial
distinctian between the word of rr7»‘*e and tle

sacrament or Bl“?, which incltﬂes the E35" ext blood

2‘ ,i3-. X7, 751- Italics mine.

m

114.

of Christ. In his zeal to emphasize the importance
of the ford Enther rent so far as to assert that if
abe3lutely nec cesssry the siwn cool! be done without
if only the “0rd remained. Strictly Speakint this
position remains unchanged, because Luther never
ebend3ns his l33e1ief in jun tific3ti3n by faith alone.
Howevcz, the em;:11nsis hos changed con lots 3. The
sweeping denials of both the existence and the value
of the Peel Fresence by Cerlstedt and ﬁsinjli have
forced utter to turn his argument around and to
emphasize not the distinction between M and

sacrament, but tleir int-lial and intimate conr3otion.

 

We first noted this shift of emphasis in
Luther‘s reply to Carlstndt, where, in commenting
upon the Lucen-?auline text "Chis C3p is the new
testament in my blood (Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25),“
he seemed to equate the reception of Christ's blood
with the recep 3tion of the now too -ezent, the t is , the
forgiveness of sins.55 This idea is carried over
into the dispute with Zningli, and the equation is
unmistakable. Again commenting on the above
mentioned verse, Luther says:

Eon where are all those who prate idly that

th forsivensss of sins is not in tte

°3crerent° St. Paul end Luke say that the

res testament is in the R rd's {unfer .
. If the new testament is in the Lor1's

O
'3

 

I:
“BEee above, p. 76.

115.

Sn? er, so must the ”orvivccenc of cine.
SDirit. trace, life and salvation.59

For the new to et.onent is tt3 pr omiee, yes,
one; more, the :rift of grace are t.e
for iver ese of sins . . . For althoujh

kn cup 1/fo gulp-2:7 it- a onwnqnql thirn-o:
no..rtsole e, 2ec3use it is one ee-c-ewontel
thin? Tith the blood of ”“3’“t or with the
n: 3 teet33ent, it is justly cell; d a new
,octonect, or, Mb tblood to vhich one nay
point and say: tnie is a new testztcnt;
this is the blood of Christ . . . [In the
eece way that the dove woo tt:e Holy -hoe§7.
Therefore, whoever drin"s fro~ this c”p
truly drinte tin blood of Christ, and tie
“or"ivnrec" of eine or the eoirit of Chris
Wict are to :en in and wi the co . . .57

.J

Therefore, if the blood of Christ is equateo
with the new teetanent, and the new tee‘e3ent ie
equated with the forgiveness of sine, then the

presence of the body and blood of Christ in he

c-

\

sacreeent is the living presence of thot whi-h is

(

the forgiveness of sins. Thee, while it still may
properly be said that the Fe eal Pres ence is t Sign
or seal of ti e forzive eee of sins in the sacrament,

it may also properly be said that the sign itself

9.
(D

the thine sienified.

Luther some this whole argument up in terms
of his doctrine of the tord, cescribir; the inter-
relation of the various parts of the sacrament in

one of the meet interestiix

'..J

13:18:38 ”E; in 1.313 "I‘itii‘

1:}

 

Jr
Oat-$.95“ ow r‘
Mi...» , 4' A. lu‘710

7Itid., xx, 1053.

116.

on the sacrament:

Therefore he lloli wnzt a beautifu 33d
Tondroue thin3t this is, how 3 er; thin3 is
interdependent and is one snore ental
e5?ence. The words are the first thing,
for Titn3v t the nor¢4 tie bread ani the
wine would be nothinz. Further, without
the bread and wine the boﬁy 3rd tl-oai of
Christ would not be there. ithou t th
body and blood of Christ the new test 3zent
would not be there. ithout the n w
testament the f rxive3ee e of sins Toule not
be there. ithogt the forgiveness of sins
life and salvation would not be there.
3333 first of all the ”0rd er.brec es the
bread erd nine in tle sacra-reut. ;r33£ 3nd
wine e3brece the bod y and blood of Chris t.
The tziy and blood of CILrict emcrnce the new
testament. The new testarert enbreces ttze
fergivenees of sins. The f-“~*ve3eeg of
sins enbreces life and salvation. Behold,
the “or 33 of tie Lord's Tupper offer and
given u; all t‘.is, and we creep it by

/

Flesh and Spirit
Put against all Luther's arguments for the
benefit of the Teal Presence Zwingli hes answered
the flesh pro- ite th 33th 3;." This means, he
argues, that Christ‘s boﬁy is not in the sacrament

because God 333 not give man 0333.333: Taich is

m

('1'
if

b1

0
*3

.0 'r-
135.. but.» 0

’2’
*5
U
Fﬁ
.3.
r"
m

ar-
e;

n
U

l
C“
C
—-J
m
c.“
D
k;
p!

r's
pqenage does not refer to Christ 0

c?
:1
a

an” t}.ere fore does not cor tradict the doctrine o
the 3331 Freeence.

 

L
/ {1" j." o ' Kn ’ 1821-72 0

117.

At the basis of the dispute are conflicting
ticns of the tarnn "flesh" and "spirit." In
Swinrli's mind there was an antithesis between
material thinqs 3:6 the invie isle v.3r 13 of Spirit

and faith. He unﬁerstcod the cuntrrnt between

‘,>

'1'...

S S<3Vi8€. ?:t for Luther the

c‘,’

fL rh ard Spirit in

I:
doctrine cf creation” means that all material

. . . 6
this s are intrinsically good. 0

Therefore, Lhera
is no necesnary contrast between material and
epiritual thin C, but rather material things may well
be the vet ales of ti? spirit. $1 In fact, Luther
argues, Gad alwayg deals with man in earn visible,
perceptible rarhian, as 1% the pirsan of Jesus Christ,
whc was be ircnrnate, in the written and “{0““1
Word, which tell man ab vat Chris t, and cl? 0 in the
sacraﬂent, uiere Chris~ t contin.u33 to revea l himt=elf
. 62

r: anally to the faithful.

Therefore Luther understands the contrast

between flesh and spirit differently than ﬂid Ewiaﬁlio
It is Luther's understanding tr at vherever in

Scripture flesh is contrasted with cgirit the intedt

tr
’J"Anﬁ God saw everything that Fe had 3339, ané,
behold it was very maod." Gen. 1:31.
:7 .-.

‘1 .( \
"' \I‘n («(-I ‘717
in?! h. ’ d 41 . 9?\’.

51h

6ﬂftiﬂ., El, E7}.
It‘ll-'3. :""'-" 9 8:23, 31:13, 892—335.

is to cont act original sin, or "the old Adam "
3

with t1m

4.“

H
(a
H
(a
3
w
:3
o

L‘ ‘~ .

1’13 1133
.L‘ , A.‘
p.33 urn

wl catinf, or filth. Pot“ of

‘ 0“.) .

Holy rpirit.

F"erythin3 t? at stems fron the 5313 Ghost
is called spirit, spiritual, and a Spiritual
thinﬁ, no not? r how corpor 1, out 3rd, or
visible it may be; on the other hen}, every-
thinf that $5613 fron the nature 1 purer of
tro flesh, apart fro:1t?o srir t, is flesh
Lllzifgt7 and ornal AW ,Erct‘in17, no
matter or i ward or d i: :visible it r?“ be.

Ear in Tenant 8, ft. Saul calls C“r"al
inte llnct flcsh, 8rd in Galatians 5: 20
Ilﬂitafs hora“5'. hats, erN= etc. soon: the

v3: K3 :3 too £19: a“, even thou i thos
tn‘v-"r: arr? en's-31V :lv‘vv ~:-1 q
- v . .47 .4 \I \ .

...-4--or Jn. .JI-AJ. ai‘

3n 5 \ t v r 1 1 4
.41 ‘ I»! a": e .ns..1(.u( .3. ‘

w. L "Y . a L . 3! ~. c
hat c.lccld it tirist iron, u ..... n V‘ n “c
- I; »- ~ u - w -l .‘
Iowa w:o;: It is on: scﬂri t‘ct

‘.~ ‘1‘ ‘ , . Mn -‘ - ,
.ti, t.e flesh profitcth nothinﬁ 3 U9 to a

$30.1:t Luther' s intcrp rotation of John 6 is
a: Frinfli's. Both agree that all the
;.s in the cha ptor to eating refer to
grco that m‘ny of

words tocnus

5.2.- . hr... Baa-.040.

 

04-5; 1’? . , ya" 5.3/0.1; .
U” I?) d . , XX, 0,4 0
m

'Jmin; li interpret 1:6 " h; flesh profiteth
nothing" as a statenént by (Eris: thr‘ his flesh is

of no prafit if eaten in the cruﬂe ghgric l manner

. V .~ -I. r‘,‘ .pn‘- :. ' . -‘- 9 .4: ~ 7 ' ‘9 '1 " J "' ‘ «-
lild:,lnu-3 VJ v.1‘J-TJ‘ YhO $1.7“: 0.14.99; ital. 4.3.3:: , ill

ﬁwingli‘: mind, enrpnral sitin: of Christ's LDC; in

canribalist ie satin; as th9t 19951991 I; t 099 930

were offe969d -9 ins stee that this text dispruves

.
O
N-

‘3 Neal }>]Nez:r)l~(16 and rﬁqtu'ﬁes a nNn“d1)‘L“-ch 1
interuretatign of tie vords "thi‘ is my boiy.

Hut Turner points out tiat Chriit did not

3..

sav specii :ic liy "99 flesh profitethh i 3," but

66

imply "3:3 flesh profiteth nothin3.‘ H9 i9919ts,
therefore, that Ci :rist is not here ref9rrinj to his
awn flesh, hut 9:399‘1193 in {jenjrnl terns 95' the
contrast between flesh and 9girit as defined 339:9.
~‘-tia>refore, when Christ said "the flash profiteth
nbthing,” What he was daing was condemninr the
carnal unierstsnﬁing 3f t 999 v‘ o understo: d hi n to
be teaching a cannibalistic eating of his flesh,
instead of understanding his words in a spiritual

sense, referring to the spiritual eating of his

flesh, which is faith.

 

d0 1-1. 1 a x"; c: 9. h n o
_‘_ I.’ ‘ . . J- - '9 ’ . 9—. "- - IL- .
m .

'l

.14.»).

i.n verse 65 he pronouicee this judwwvnt:
. .& .

7! + ‘i \ v I; .- _1' a I- _.
6.: ..‘:H )Pc-iuetu nJu~u

r
a
1P
U

I;

snir 3 but Hive: life." In aréitiJn to

L; -: f. 1.‘ 3 a.w,~ 0 Q. r” 1i ~"n($1.;- $‘v- (‘d'i‘hv ‘--‘\ ‘\. .' >‘y
UL-__,_-..l A l:_ .-J_ -I.- -v ‘ \~KJ- '. ‘rd I.<rv _. - ‘

V
wards ere s; L it and life." {hieh cen TDGﬂ
v: f) ‘31.: '- I? '- .‘. f - o ”I "Ilijﬁ' I 1' eru')

s iritzal d'
lxnnfh. ﬂf‘ vn '| -. . .i.

of the flesn and not 0t my worse; but the
flesh prafitnth nﬁ‘hil aud J.Q8'S t1 .03
as “ray." her due as t?: e spirit is his

m:r€ 0:1 tencmli*j, t?3 fler: gurt 1i raise
be the word and teaching of the flesh

".1." “hf ﬂ": LR .‘ "p“irit 9| '14:}.Q5- 1” L46. T )rd
and tea chin3, gives life; and ”£10 sh," that
it, 5?: ~9"d "r‘ teeclinf J§f the flesh,
'IJI‘QI tﬁth ﬁnthiﬂi . Q 3‘

3

To be sure, the type of eating iTQSiEIJd by Christ's

hearer

m
“’4

.3uld he of no profit, but in I,uther ‘5 xind
this type of cannibalistic eating beers n-qt the
faintest resedtlence to the carporal eating of Christ
in the sacrament. Therefore he sees nothing in tke
whole of John 6 to contradict the literal teaming
of the words "this is my body."

Luther cannot unﬁeretand how Ewingli can refer

tte pasenfe "the flesh profiteth netting" to Christ’s

(d_ , . ‘ . . .1
)iln JOHD 0‘ 51! "I at tne liv1ng breed wnicn cane

dawn from heaven: if eny man eat of this 1w read, he
Elell live for ever; and the bread that I *7111 iva
is my flesh, which I will qive for the life of tie
murld."

121.

fl3sh and still profess to take serious 1“"' Ct rist's
incarnation, death, resurrection or ascension, all
of v? ich ~ere acconplisbed in tte flesb 69 ?Ti3:li
would answer that Christ's flesh is nrofitable if

&

ﬁrituall3e eate3, thre t is, if one believes .bot it

’i

33 give3 into de3tb for 333' s rele gtio3, bu.t not
if eaten corporally in the sacraﬁent.

But I ask 43338 Luther, addressinp t3e
”313311333 If I were to eat Christ's
flesh corﬁorelly in the lord' s {upper in
such a 333 that I ate it <3iritually at the
sare tiﬂe, would you not adnit to we t1 at
Christ's body is ver3 "uch profitable in
the Tord's Supper? But how can this be?
This is how it can be: I rill eat his
body corporally with the tread and at the
seee time believe in my heart that it is
the body which is given for me for the
forgiveness of sins . . . which is that you
yourselves cell Spiritual entinr. If th
spiritual eating is there t3e3 the corner"l
eating can do no Mrm, but on tzhe cantN r3
must also be profitable for the sate of
the spiritual eating.70

The corporal eating indeed would be unprofitable if
\
tbat were all there is to the lord's Cigier, but:

”hen heve you ever heard fron us that we
eat, or teach 3:;one to eat, the Lord's
Cupper in such 3 333 that there is 0313 an
outward, corpor l eatine of the body of
n’rist’? Wave we not taqut in many booas
that there are two fhinﬁs to observe in the
Lord's Supper? One is the highest and most
necessary, the words: "Take, eat, this is
my body" etc. The other is the sacraient
or the corporal eating of the body of
Christ . . . And iwive eaid further tiat to
eat the sacrament corporelly “it33ut these
words, or without ttis Spiritual eating, is

Ibidg. XX. 827-")! 8.
70Tbid., XX, 839—933.

not only not profitable, but also he mful,
as Paul says in I Cor. 11:27: "thosoever
shell eat this breed unworthily shall be
guilty of the booy of the Lord."7l
Thus Luther is here actually dealing With the funilier
concepts of Vord 3nd secrsnent in terns of spiritual
and corporal eetinr. ﬁnd once sﬁiin his enphseie
is or the intimate connection between the two parts
of the sscrseent. Becncse Z:inﬁli made Spiritual
and corporal eating ﬁrtitheticsl to find Puthcr
snrril; denendinm: "that devil has connsnﬁed you to
separate the Word from the body of Christ in the
Tord's Fupper /?/ . . ."72
Eut not content simply with the negative
argument that "the flesh profiteth nothing" does
not apply to Christ's flesh, Luther argues that
Christ's boiy is Ei£.§2 a thing if greet profit, and
furthermore that its reception in the sacrament
produces an effect upon the body of the recipient.
Zwingli had reasoned that even if Christ's body were
eaten in the sacrament, nothinﬁ more weald result
than the nourishnent of the flesh, because "that
which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which

in b-rn of the spirit is spirit (John 5:3)." But,

Luther argues, the doctrine of the virgin birth

 

711b1d., xx, 830-831.
7211316... .XY. 8‘12‘84'4.

teaches us that Christ was conceived by the $013
Ghost and born of the Virgin Lory. Therefore his
flesh properlv bolonss un1cr tie Lenﬁixg of "that
Which is born of the Spirit" rather than "that
which is born of the flesh." Because of this,
Christ’s flea 3h is distinct from rll oti1r flesh in

7 v
,o
'

that it in spiritual. It is "en imoeristsb-t,

immortal, incorru; titrle flesh . . . God is in this

 

food. "Perishable food is charged into the bodv
of him who eats it; this food, on tie other Lord,
changes the bee: ‘f h in who eats it into itself, and
makes his boﬂy like itself, spiritual, living,
eternal . . ." Thus, when Christ's too; is eaten

in the sacrament, the body of the recioient is

transformed and becones liVe the body of Christ,

Spiritual, holy, corfi ted in the hope of the

O

resurrection of the dead snﬂ eternal lize.

"hot happens in this eating Lsuther continues ,
if I may 11se a crude ex nple, 3 r
as if a wolf were to est 3 shoep, and the

 

7fIb1d., XY, sue—e44.

1!15., xx, se7-ess.

124.

sheep was so powerful a food that it
transformed the wolf and made a sheep out
of it. Thus when we eat Christ's flesh
corporelly and spiritually, the food is
so powerful that it changes us into itself,
and notes spiritual, holy, living syn out
of carnal, sinful, mortal men . . .7
But even though the blessing or the Feel Freeence
is here described in terms of an effect upon the
body, the benefit is still seen to depend upon the
Spiritual eating, or faith. Vor the body cannot by
itself even know that it receives this spiritual
food, but the heart must grasp the words of promise:

"This is my bod;, given for you."76

Furthermore,
the sacraner t without the Vord, or corporal eating
without spiritual eating amounts to the sin of
unworthy eating, as Luther has exglsined before.77

This conception of an effect of the Real
Presence upon the body of the recipient, an inference
not drawn in Luther's earlier writinfs, is obviously
well suited to tne controversy ed tn Ewingli, but for
Luther it has only a secondary importance. In the
EEEES Catechism (1529) Yuther leaves it out altogether,
concentrating instead entirely upon his original
conception of the forgiveness of sins proclaimed
gggougg the Wgrd and sealed by the presence of Christ:
follo%¥%g’c1§§;ly the géaa§31§2131°§33m333igﬁghgiuézh
Father Ironuuo, coo 111,535,101, 861-863.

75,1319... xx 831. 837.
77:2111., Yx, 871-872.

125.

ﬂow we cone to the power and blessing for
which the sacrament was instituted, which
is the most important part of it, in order
that we may know what we there at uld seek
and receive. This is clear from the
aforementioned words: This is my body and
blood, given and shed for you for the
roeisrion of sins. In other words, we fo
to the sacrament in order that we there
receive ttis treasure, in an& through which
we rCC‘iVB the forgiveness of sins. How
so? Because there stand tie words which
give it to us. *or he commands me to eat
and drink in order that it be mine, and a
source of blessing for me as a certain
pledme and sinn, yea even the very blessing
itself, which has been established for me
against my sins, death and all misfortune.73

Thus, apart from this one concession to
polemical necessity, Luther's basic View of the
Lord's Sepper, as originally stated in 1520, has
remained fundamentally unchanged. In the course of
being defended against attack much has been
explained, clarified, refined and deepened, but
the leniinf ideas remain the sane: Tie tord
declares God's testament of the forgiveness of
sins, the real presence of Christ seals the testanent,
brings with it the assurance of the forgiveness of

sins, and strengthens faith in the proaise.

Postscript on the narbur

“(3‘3

Colloquy
ith the publication of his Concerning the Lori's
ner, 5,9onfession, the deveIOpnent of Luther's

8r 1d., x, 137-153.

”I
F

 

‘3

126.

doctrine of the Lord's Supper was completed. He
considered this his final and definitive statement
on the subject,79 and so it in. te find no statement
thereafter wrich represents any advance in this
particular phase or his thouqtt. In the following
year (1-4 October 1529) buther and Kringli came face
to face at the marburg Colloquy to debate the issue
of the Lord's Supper in person. This very important
debate has not been treated in this study for the
reason that the issues raised and the arguments used
on.both sides were the cane as those in the written
phase of the dispute, and therefore constitute no
significant addition to the material already

covered.80

 

7gggid., xx, 896.

See Walther Koehler, "Dee Marburger Religions-
gesprleh 1529; Versuch oiner Rekonatruktion,"

Schrifteg d s Vﬁﬁeina gag,Reformationsgesehichte
a gang 0 H. Nr. 1 I 93 80 e ’

pp. “380

127.

BIBLICGRA?H CAL NOTE

Primary Sources:
The principal sources for this thesis were
the writings of Luther himself. One edition used
was Egggg‘ggefertin Luther, ed. Eenry Eyster Jacobs,
trans. J. J. Schindel, A.~T. W. Cteinhaeueer, at. 81.,
6 vols. (Philadelphia, 1915), commonly known as the
Philadelphia Edition. The small scope of this
edition severely limits its value for research. The
other edition.was 2;, Fort Luthers Cdertlichepfctrif-
en, ed. Johann Georg talch. rev. G. StOCkhﬂrdtv 3*
w. Kahler, et. al., 23 vols. (Saint Louis, 1331-
1910). Known as the St. Louis fiition, this is a
revision or the original talch edition published in
Halls, Germany from 1740-1751. Although the selec-
tion is large, this edition does not include all of
Luther's known.works, especially those discovered
since the middle of the eighteenth century. But
the materials dealing with his doctrine of the Lord's

Supper are consists. The definitive edition is new

Tether? Yorke, kritieche Coottntcusgshe,
. W . *7.

   

 

ed. J. E. F. Knauke, et. 81., over eighty volumes

to date, with more in preparation Claimsr, 1833 ff.).
However, the author did not have access to this edi-
tion during the preparation of this thesis.

Luther's writings on the Lord's Supper

are divided roughly into two periods: the earlier
writings in which his doctrine was first stated in
opposition to the‘Ronan Catholic Doctrine, and the
later writinfs in which the doctrine was defended
against the attacks of Corlstadt and Zringli. The
earlier works are available in English in the Phil-

adelphia Edition: 1) ﬁ|Trestise goncorning the
E eased Secreeent‘gg the Holx and True Bodz‘gg

Christ and Concerning the grotherhood§ (December
1519), vol. II, 5-31. This is Luther's first

 

extended treatment of the sacrament, in which his
nature position has not yet been developed. 2)
Treatise 33% m Testament, M .13, 2:3 32};
EEEE (August 1520), vol. I, 287-526. Luther's
first statenent of his nature position. 5),§
Prelude 93 5;; Rabi loniag Captivitz of; £1322. Church
(ﬁctoher 1520), vol. II, 165-293. Luther's attack
upon the whole Catholic sacranental system, re-
peating and expanding the position stated in the
Trgetico 23 5332. ﬁg; Zestziveenjg.

But the later works are available only in
German. All of then are printed in volume 3K of

the St. Louis 7"'r‘lTetion: 1) W1 or die hieolischen

   

Propheten, veg Sacranent (January 1595), pp. 199-
287. This is Luther's reply to Carlstadt, con-
centrating on his exefesis of all the Eitlical

texts pertaining to the sacrament. 2) Sermon von

129.

den Sacrament den Leihes ung glutes ghristi Eider
dig Sghwdrggeister (Fall of 1526), pp. 75¢~753.
Luther’s brief first reply to Ewincli, emphasizing
f

0

adherence to the literal meaning of the rords
institution. 3) §5g§,die:e Torte Chrisi: ‘das

in seize. her 229,-. ran an Mem- mwider n9.
Pchdrngeister (April 1527), pp. 762~895. Luther's
second reply to Zwingli, in which he insists that
the doctrine of the Sacrament should not be reduced
to the linits of human reason, and defends the
plausibility of his position on theological grounds.
a) 133_Abendeah;.Christi, Bekenntniss (Sarah 1523),
pp. Sgt-1105. Luther's final summation of his
Eucharistic thought, containing three parts: a)

his final answers to all these who Oppose his doc-
trine, b) s re~exaninetion of all the important
Eucharistic texts, and c) a general confession of
his faith. In his irascihle old age Luther took
one final blast at his sacramental Opponents in

his Zurzeg Felzenntnisz w reilijen E'aersscnt rider
gigrfchwermer (Septenber 1544), St. Louis Edition,
IX, 1734-1791. Since this work is neted more for
its venom than for any advance in thesis 3 it has
not been considered in this study.

‘

Preserved Smith and Charles 1. Jacobs,

trans. and ede., ﬂutter'" Correepandenee ard ether

ID
1-. -

 

gentnrnerery Fetters, 2 vols. (Fhiladclphie, 1313~

130.

('1’

1918) orovido, n a tell selects; and well tranrla ed

collection of Futher's letters. ﬁne of Luther‘

t?

33‘

favorites among is con r.orks, and an ercollen
we eral introduction to his theoloxy is‘i Conten-

on ft. 2ou1'2’wuirtle to the Shirtinns, ed.

C?
B}
L3

 

Phi in no vote on, trans. anon. (tendon, 1955).

‘V ‘ r711. ,- 7! '0 :5 "n. ‘3 ! "\ "' v ‘.
Iruyh L 0712.!!! £81"? Jr. so. I: too. .1971"; c-t. '..u.':rcr's
‘J . , . c‘ .-

 

Ihevloov (Philadelphia, 19%5) e a collection of
excerpts freq Tn lish tronrletionﬁ of Luther's
works arrantei under various headLn"s, intended

Q

as an introduction to the reformer's theolofy.

n r. V ,n 0 e! - ..
:or the clan catholic poriLlon on the sac-
.- ‘ ‘ {t b .‘ J. l . ' h ? '_‘
regent the LJLloring sources ‘e e use 1: Lenry

'enninrer, :31 Fovrces‘li Catholic Downs, trans.
Roy J. Deferrari (C t. Louis, 1957). a chronolo ical
arra "er~nt of excerpts from the papal decretals
and decrees of the Church councils; and Thomas
Aquinas, fuuna Theolocica, trans. Fathers of the
Inglish Dominican Province, 3 vols. (Renzinjor
Fros., few Yor;:, 1947).

The usefulness of the St. Louis S"-Z‘Ii’cion of
Luther's works is considerably enhanced by the £803
that it a1; 0 contains the major works of Ca rlrta m
and Z,i ncli pe taining to the sacramental contro-
versy. Carlstadt '8 two main work c on ﬁle sacra-
ment are found in volume XX: Dialorus‘gigg‘ggg

gorﬁchhﬂchlein von den_;reu1ichen ahgﬁttische

151.

“iozbreucg dos hochwﬂrdiﬁen Sacraments Jenn Christi

(August 1524), pp. 2512-2359: and Vo n den.wiﬁcr-

ctristlichen Fiénbrouch deg Herrn Frod und Helch
L #mmmﬂm

 

(i‘eptenter 15:24), pp. 92-139.

The author's discussion of Zoingli'c doc»
trine of the Focterict is beceﬂ prirarily upon
three of tle reform Wor 8 war! :8: 1) Brief 32

:gtthﬁue Alter (iarch 1525), St. Louis Edition,

 

?"II, 1? 12-1529 .(Thie is a German troncle ion of

the original Intin text). Swingli's first state-
ment of his nature doctrine. 2) Connentcgz‘gg‘ZEEE
2:1 Felro Felifion (ﬁnrch 1525), trans. anry Proble,

vol. III of The Latin Works and the Correcnondonce

 

of H zldreich Zringli, ed. Clarence Icvin Holler
(Philadelphia, 1929); the Eucharistic portions of
the text are on pp. 153-253. In this work ﬁningli
attacks indirectly the position taken by Luthc r in
Her“ die tirrliccton Proohotcn. 5) 2; £3; m'g
Funner (February 1526), in G. W. Bronilcy, ed. and
trnne.,ﬁwincli ggﬁ'ﬁullinrer, vol. XXIV of 2:3
*ibrnrv ££,Ctr€rtinn Closeicg (London, 1955). pp.
175-258. This was not one of the works wtich fifurcd
prominently in the diSpute With Luther, but it 18
an excellent statement of Ewingli'e oencrol posi-
tion. In addition to these works, volume XX of the
St. Louis Edition offers Ewingli'e replies to Luticr's

treatises of 1536-27-23, see pp. 1104.1475.

r

An eycellent recons truction of th.a deb hate 3
at the Enrburg Colloquy, baeed on eyewitness accounts,
is found in Lalther Koehler, "Dag Earburger Re-

li nionsgeSprﬁch 1529; Versuch einer Rekonetruktion,"

L.’

r33

iften ﬁes Vereins {ﬁr Reformatinnstecchighte,
J3 hr r3ang XL"III, Heft 1 (Er. 148), (Leipzig, 1929),
pp. 7-58.

A. .3, ,._.. (a. ,.
Li'eCUMVUJJ s.u1...I.LLE):

The 51,3116;qu trreatzmnt 0.1" t3..ef:=2-.fzrn3t10n
period if: 1333. Harold Cr’. Grimm, L E‘cfnrr’; 1:13 :1 3.13.9.0
1ﬁh~m W( ew York, 1954). Not the least valuabla
feature of €311: has: 18 Grimm‘s excrllent biblio-
graphy. 5 well written, popular account of the
Reformation is Waland H. Eainton,'2§3 ”efnrﬂﬁtion
.23.:12 fiwteenhh Centugz (Boston, 1952).

Ernest G. Schwiebert, Luther ﬂ.&§
Tineg‘ ; 273:3 Reformation £593 a 331'! Persmectivg
(Saint Louis, 1950 is, in the author's Opinion,

he fest “103333“y of Luther availab13. It is
eynpathetic’ u treetucnt, and comproM ilSiVG in
CCOpO, coverin3 all aspects of LutF3r'a life and

the movement which he led. {clawiebert's treatwent

of th3 theulorical aﬁues involved, inclu7inﬁ that

W}
a-
M:
(D

o Lord's Eupyer, is particularly 3303. Tess
monumental in scope, but an extremely well wr tten
account of Iuther's r311 13 35 develapwent is L313nd

V Balnton, Eh —re‘l f‘*3nd; A T{?e of ’3rtin Inﬁ‘cr

m—MMW

 

l.

133.

(Nashville, 1950). Heinrich Boehmer, Luther in.
5.2.9. Eight 9; Recent Research, trans. Carl F. Huth,
Jr. (New York, 1916), has an excellent treatment of
the influences which transformed the young monk
into a reformer. The same author's martin Luther:
EgggﬂggiRggormation, trans. John E. Doberstein and
Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia, 1946), covers
Luther's life down to 1521, emphasizing the steps
in his gradual break with Rome. The best biogra-
phy of Zwingli is still Samuel Vacauley Jackson,
Huldreigh Zvinglig £2£_Reformer‘2£ German gaitgy
erland (New York, 1901), but a newer treatment is
badly needed.

One of the finest interpretations of Luther's
theolo:y has been written by an English methodist
scholar, Philip {1. Watson, 213.? d 233 9.13.1.3 in. .13."

m

terpretationigg the Theologz gg,yertin Luther (Phila-
delphia, 1950). There is probably no better intro-

duction for the interested beginner. Cyril C.
Richardson, Zwingli €2.29. Cranmer 93 the Eucharist
(Evenston, 111., 1949) has an excellent summary of
Zwingli's position and an analysis of the philo-
SOphical presuppositions which underlie it. A1-
ways a reliable source for the history of Christian
doctrine is Reinhold Seeberg, Text—Rook g; the

Historz g§-Doctrines, trans. Charles F. Hay, 2

 

vols. (Grand Rapids, Vich., 1952).

I'llul , ||.lJIl.I.I 1‘

154.

Followins is a list of several brief essays

f:

O-

t

.uther' s View of the Lord's Supper by Specialists
in Lutheran tmieoloczy. Although none of then is a
comprehensive historical treats ent, each contri-
buted to the author's understanding of one or more
of the specific issues covered in this thesis.
Paul Althaus, "Tuthers Abendmahlslehre," Luther-
Jahrbuch: Jahrbuch g2; Luthc .r Gesellschaft, Jahr-
gang XI, 1929, pp. 2-42. William.H. Bear, "Luther's
Sacramental Thought," 253 Lutheran Quarterl , II
(Fevenber 1950), 414-425. Conrad Bergendoff, "The
Lutheran View of the L rd's Supper," 222 Lutheran
.ug:tg:11,IV (Angus t 195 2), 278-294. Ruben Josef-
son, "The Lutheran View of the Lord's Supper,” in
21:45.9. is; Eli Church, ed. Anders Fygren, trans Carl
C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia, 1952) pp. 255-267.
Janoslav Pelikan, "Feglected Aspects of Luther’ s
Doctrine of the Lord's Supper," essay delivered at
the thirtieth annual convention of the English
District of the Lutheran Church-Lissouri Synod.
Published in the proceedings of the convention
(Concordia Publishin,j; Melee, St. Louis, 1957)

12-55.

 

"'Wiﬁiﬁnﬁﬂiﬂiﬂuﬁﬁﬂiﬂﬁﬂiﬂﬁﬁiﬁiﬁias

173