1. What is the Lord’s Supper?

It is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ himself, in which the true body and the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, are truly communicated to all who eat and drink, and the promise of grace is applied and sealed to every believer. (See Smaller Catechism, Larger Catechism.)

2. On what ground does this explanation rest?

The words of institution tell us this: Matt. 26:27, 28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20. And the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23-25. Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and gave it to his disciples, saying: “Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.” After the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: “Drink ye all of it; this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins; this do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (Smaller Catechism.)

3. Are these words to be understood in a real and literal or in a figurative sense?

We believe, teach, and confess, that the words of the Testament of Christ are not otherwise to be understood, than in their literal sense, so that the bread does not signify the absent body, nor the wine the absent blood, but that it is truly, because of the sacramental union, the body and blood of Christ. (Form of Concord, Epitome, Art. vii.)

4. Do not the Calvinists also understand the words of institution in the same sense?

They do not; for they do not understand the words of institution, “Eat, this is my body,” really, as they read, according to the letter, but figuratively, so that to eat the body of Christ, means nothing else than to believe in Christ, and the body of Christ, nothing else than a symbol, that is, a sign or figure of the body of Christ, which body is not in the Eucharist on earth, but only in heaven. In like manner they maintain that the word is must be understood sacramentally, that is (according to their explanation), as merely signifying, and they directly deny that the thing is so connected with the sign, that the body of Christ is now also present upon earth, although in an invisible and incomprehensible manner. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

5. But whence do you prove that the words of institution are to be understood in their real, literal sense?

My first proof I take from this: that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (concerning whom this serious command was given to all men from heaven, Him ye shall hear) is not an ordinary man or an angel, nor merely true, wise, and powerful, but that he is Eternal Wisdom and Truth itself and Almighty God. He therefore knew very well what and how to speak, and he can also powerfully carry out and put into effect, whatever he speaks and promises; according to his word: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Luke 21:33. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

6. Can you not give another proof?

Yes; “for when our true and almighty Lord Jesus Christ, after the Last Supper, when he was about to begin his bitter suffering and death, instituted this highly revered sacrament of the church, very thoughtfully and seriously, he certainly had at heart that which was greatest and of most importance, when he spoke these words of institution. We are therefore bound not to interpret them as metaphorical, figurative, foreign expressions, but to receive the words as they stand, in their proper, manifest sense.” (Form of Concord.)

7. Can you mention a third proof?

Yes; and this is furnished by all the circumstances attending the institution of the Lord’s Supper. “For since Christ gives this command concerning the eating of his body, and the drinking of his blood, at the table, during the supper, there can be no doubt but that he speaks of true natural bread, and of true natural wine, and of eating and drinking with the mouth.” (Form of Concord.)

“Then, too, Christ himself takes precaution, that no metonymy, that no change in the meaning of the word body, that no sign or figure, or the power or benefits of the absent body of Christ, should be understood. For he clearly speaks of his true, essential, and substantial body, which he has given into death for our sins, and of his true essential blood, which he has shed for us on the cross.” (Form of Concord.)

8. Adduce still a fourth proof.

Concerning the consecrated and proffered bread, all the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as also St. Paul, who received it after the ascension of Christ, unanimously repeat, precisely in the same manner and in the same words and syllables, without any figure or change, these clear, firm, and true words of Christ, “This is my body.” (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

9. I recognize the clearness of these reasons, and you may now continue and show wherein the nature of this sacrament consists.

We confess, in the words of Irenaeus, that there are two things in the sacrament, an earthly, namely bread and wine, and a heavenly, namely the body and blood of Christ.

10. Then you maintain that the body and blood of Christ are truly present with the bread and wine?

Certainly; for not the elements alone, but the elements sacramentally united with the heavenly matter, and essentially present, compose the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper on earth. (See Augsburg Confession, Art. x; Form of Concord, Art. vii.)

11. Does the Augsburg Confession teach this also?

Yes; for we read in the 10th Article: “Concerning the Holy Supper of the Lord, our churches teach that the true body and blood of Christ is truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist, and is there communicated and received. Therefore, the contrary doctrine is rejected. And more plainly the Apology of the above, Art. iv.” We confess that the body and blood of our Lord Christ is truly present in the supper, and is proffered and received with the visible things, bread and wine. (Compare Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

12. I would now like you to prove by clear reasons that the body and blood of Christ are truly present on earth with the bread and wine in this sacrament.

The first and chief reason is given by the words of institution themselves. For Christ says expressly: “Take, eat, this is my body; drink ye all of it, for this cup is the New Testament in my blood.” To this word, we steadfastly and firmly hold, and maintain that Christ does not otherwise than he has promised. (Larger Catechism; Form of Concord, Art. vii.)

13. Will you not mention the other reasons?

The second reason is, that when Paul says the bread is the communion of the body, and the wine the communion of the blood of Christ, it would follow that the bread is not the communion of the body of Christ, but only of the spirit of Christ, and the wine not the communion of the blood of Christ, but only of the spirit of Christ, if the body and blood of the Lord were not truly present. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

Then, too, this repetition, corroboration, and explanation of the words of Christ, which is given by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10, must with all diligence and seriousness be regarded as a special, clear testimony of the true essential presence and distribution of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper. Since he writes thus: “The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” From which we clearly learn that not only the cup which Christ blessed in the first supper, and not only the bread which Christ brake and distributed, but also that which we break and bless, is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, so that all those who eat this bread, and drink of this cup, truly receive and become partakers of the true body and blood of Christ. For if the body and blood of Christ were not truly and essentially present, but only present and partaken of according to their power and efficacy, the bread would have to be called, not a communion of the body, but of the spirit, power, and benefits of Christ. And if Paul were speaking only of the spiritual communion of the body of Christ by faith, as the Sacramentarians pervert this verse; he would not say this bread, but the spirit or faith is the communion of the body of Christ. But he says: “The bread is the communion of the body of Christ, that all who partake of the blessed bread also become partakers of the body;” he can therefore not be speaking of a spiritual, but of a sacramental and oral partaking of the body of Christ, common to pious and wicked Christians.

Thirdly, the four reasons with which Luther most clearly manifests and proves the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. (Form of Concord.)

14. Will you not mention these?

The first is this article of our faith: Jesus Christ is essential, natural, true, perfect God and man in one person, inseparate and undivided.

The second: Because the right hand of God is everywhere.

The third: Because the Word of God is neither false nor fallacious.

The fourth: Because God both possesses and knows the various modes of being at a certain place, and not merely the one of which the fanatics dream, called the local by philosophers. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

15. If the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the sacrament, in what way are they distributed and received with the bread and wine?

This certainly does not take place by transubstantiation, as taught by the Papists, according to which the consecrated or blessed bread and wine in the Holy Supper, entirely lose their substance and essence, and are changed into the substance and essence of the body and blood of Christ, so that merely the bare form of bread and wine, or the extra-essential remains, without the essence. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

Moreover, it does not take place by consubstantiation, or a local inclusion of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine; nor by means of a union, which would continue even after the celebration of the sacrament had been finished. On the contrary it takes place by means of the sacramental union, which is effected by the power of Christ’s promise, so that when the bread is distributed, the body of Christ is also at the same time truly present and distributed, and that when the wine is distributed, the blood of Christ is also truly present and distributed at the same time. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

16. What then is the sacramental union?

It is an operation of divine power, by which two different things, namely, an earthly, the bread and wine, and a heavenly, the body and blood of Christ, in the true use of the Supper, which consists in eating and drinking, are united to one another sacramentally, that is, in a supernatural and inexpressible manner, and according to the institution of Christ are at the same time communicated and received.

17. But why and in what sense does our church use the words in, with, and under the bread and wine?

In the first place, in order that the Papistical doctrine of transubstantiation may thereby be rejected. In the next place, in order to indicate the sacramental union of the sign, with that which is signified, that is, of the earthly with the heavenly. Finally, as a testimony, that the words of Christ, This is my body, must be received and understood simply as the words read. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

18. Can the nature and attributes of the sacramental formulae be recognized from this?

Yes; for the sacramental formulae are not of this kind; that the name of the object, perceived by the senses, is by them given to the earthly element only by virtue of a certain similarity or figure, so that the one word only stands for the other, as the Calvinists dream; but they are of this kind, that when by means of the sacramental union of the earthly element with the heavenly, that which is received with the bread, is called the body of Christ, and that which is drunk with the wine, is called the blood of Christ; this is done with the most veritable and essential appellation. Such sacramental formulae are: This is my body, This is my blood; further: The bread is the communion of the body of Christ, The wine is the communion of the blood of Christ. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

19. Do you maintain that the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament is received with the bodily mouth?

I believe and firmly maintain, “that the body and blood of Christ is not only received spiritually by faith, but also orally, yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly manner, because of the sacramental union with the bread and wine.” (Form of Concord, Epitome, Art. vii.)

20. Then you acknowledge, so far as I can see, a double eating of the body of Christ?

Yes; for there is one eating of the body of Christ, which is spiritual, whereof Christ treats specially, John 6, which does not take place otherwise than with the spirit and faith, in the preaching and consideration of the Gospel, as well as in the Holy Supper, and which is of itself useful and salutary, and necessary to all Christians, at all times, for their salvation. For such spiritual eating is nothing else than faith in Christ. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

21. What is the other eating of the body of Christ?

The other eating of the body of Christ is oral or sacramental, when in the Holy Supper the true essential body and blood of Christ are orally received and partaken of by all who eat the blessed bread and drink the blessed wine in the Lord’s Supper. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

22. Can this sacramental eating also be called a spiritual eating?

It can be so called, but not in the sense in which the Sacramentarians would have it, namely, as if in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, only the spirit or the power of the absent body of Christ, and his merit, were present, and received by believers; but by the word spiritual, we understand the supernatural, heavenly manner, in which Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. And by this word we reject the Capernaitic notion of a gross, carnal presence. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

In explaining this controversy it must first be remarked, that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who express in clear words what they hold in their hearts: that there is nothing more present in the Lord’s Supper than bread and wine, distributed and received with the mouth. But the others are crafty and the more injurious, who in part speak most speciously in our words, and pretend that they too believe a real presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, that this, however, takes place spiritually by faith, and who, under these specious words, retain their first gross opinion, namely, that there is nothing present and received with the mouth in the Lord’s Supper but bread and wine. For spiritual with them means nothing but the spirit of Christ, or the power of his absent body, and his merit, which is present; but they believe that the body of Christ is in no manner or way present, but only above in the highest heaven, to which we are to raise ourselves with the thoughts of our faith, and that there, but not in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, we are to seek such body and blood. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

23. Are not there two species of eating enjoined in the Lord’s Supper?

Yes; as to the pious or believing, but not as to the impious or unbelieving. For believers receive the sacrament not only sacramentally or with the mouth, but also spiritually; that is, they receive its salutary fruit by faith, as a sure pledge and seal that their sins are forgiven. But the wicked are without this spiritual and salutary eating, because of their unbelief, and receive only sacramentally, that is, with the mouth, the same body and blood of Christ, but receive it unto judgment and condemnation. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

24. Prove that the body and blood of Christ are received, with the bodily mouth.

Christ’s words of institution expressly teach this. For since he, at the table, and during the supper, extends natural bread and natural wine to his disciples, which he calls his true body and his true blood, saying: “Eat and drink;” such command cannot because of the circumstances be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, not however of a gross, carnal Capernaitic, but of a supernatural, incomprehensible eating. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii. Compare F. C., Epitome, Art. vii.)

25. Can you furnish still another proof?

Yes; for St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10:16, says, “The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” whereby he most clearly teaches oral eating. For if Paul were only speaking of a spiritual communion of the body of Christ by faith, as the Sacramentarians pervert this passage, he would not have said the bread, but the spirit or faith is the communion of the body of Christ. But as he says, the bread is the communion of the body of Christ, and that all who partake of the blessed bread, also partake of the body of Christ, he therefore cannot be speaking of a spiritual, but of a sacramental or oral reception of the body of Christ, common to pious and wicked Christians. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

26. Do the unworthy, wicked, and unbelieving, likewise eat and drink the holy body and the holy blood of Christ with the mouth?

St. Paul expressly teaches that not only godly, pious, and believing Christians, but also the unworthy, wicked hypocrites, receive the true body and blood of Christ orally in the sacrament, and grievously sin against the body and blood of Christ, by their unworthy eating and drinking. 1 Cor. 11:27. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

27. Before you prove this, show who are worthy and who are unworthy.

Those are unworthy who go to the sacrament without true penitence and sorrow, and without true faith, and the good resolve to better their lives. “But believers in Christ are worthy, and not only these, but also those weak in the faith, the timid troubled Christians, who are frightened at heart because of the greatness and multitude of their sins, and think that they, in their great impurity, are unworthy of this noble treasure and of the benefits of Christ, and who feel and lament the weakness of their faith, and have the heartfelt desire to serve God with a stronger, more joyous faith, and in purer obedience.” (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

28. Now prove that all the unworthy receive orally the body of Christ in this sacrament.

This is confirmed by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11:27, 29, when he says: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” In these words the Apostle clearly testifies, that those who eat unworthily of this bread (which is the communion of the body of Christ) and drink unworthily of the blessed cup (which is the communion of the blood of Christ), not only sin against bread and wine, not only against signs or symbols and figures of the body and blood, but become guilty of the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which they there dishonor, abuse, and put to shame. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

29. What is your opinion of the words of institution? Have they the power to make the sacrament?

As to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess, that no work of man, or speaking on the part of the minister, creates such presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed solely and alone to the Almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose true and omnipotent words, spoken at the first consecration, were powerful not only in the first Supper, but continue, are valid, work and still are powerful, so that Christ himself everywhere, where his institution is observed, and his words repeated over the bread and wine, and the consecrated bread and wine distributed, even to-day is still efficient, when these words are repeated, by virtue of the first institution. (Form of Concord, Epitome, Art. vii; Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

30. Then the words of institution may be entirely omitted in the use of this sacrament?

They dare by no means be omitted, but must be spoken publicly, as it is written: “The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” and this consecration takes place by the repetition of Christ’s words. Besides, we must obey the command of Christ, which says: “This do;” what Christ himself did in the Holy Supper dare not therefore be omitted.

Thirdly, the words of Christ must also be repeated for this reason, that the faith of those hearing, concerning the essence and fruit of this sacrament, may be awakened, strengthened, and made sure by the words of the Testament of Christ.

And finally, that the elements, bread and wine, may be consecrated or blessed unto this holy use, and separated from other elements of this kind. (Form of Concord, Epitome, Art. vii; Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

31. What do you think of the Romish administration of the sacrament under but one form?

I maintain that a great and fearful robbery and sacrilege is committed where but one form of the sacrament is given to laymen, and where, contrary to the express words of the Testament of Christ, they are forbidden the cup and despoiled of the blood of Christ. (Form of Concord, Epitome, Art. vii. Compare Augsburg Confession, Art. xxii; Smalcald Articles, Part iii. Art. vi.)

32. Give your reasons for this assertion.

In the first place, “Christ has instituted both forms, not only for a part of the church, but for the whole church. If Christ, then, has instituted the whole sacrament for the whole church, why do they take one form from the church? Why do they change the order established by Christ?” (Apology, Art. x.)

Christ, too, has clearly commanded that all shall drink of the cup. Matt. 26:27. And in order that no one might attack these words, and comment on them; as if it belonged solely to the priests, Paul informs us, 1 Cor. 11:24ff., that the entire assembly of the Corinthian church used both forms. (Augsburg Confession, Art. xxii.)

33. Do the Papists cherish other errors concerning this sacrament?

Yes; the first abomination is the figment of transubstantiation or the conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance of the body, and of the substance of the wine into the substance of the blood of Christ.

The second abomination is that they imagine that the body of Christ is truly present in a sacramental manner under the form of bread, even outside of the act of the Holy Supper; whilst nothing can be a sacrament, apart from God’s ordained command and instituted use, which consists in eating and drinking.

The third abomination is, that the bread (which they imagine has been changed into the body of Christ) is inclosed in the pyx, in order that it may be ostentatiously adored.

The fourth abomination is, that they change the sacrament of the altar into a real sacrifice, namely, an atoning sacrifice, for the living and the dead, which they call mass. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. vii.)

34. What is the design and use of the institution of the Lord’s Supper?

It was instituted in order that the faith of those who use the sacrament, might be reminded of the benefits which it receives at the hands of Christ, and that it might encourage and comfort affrighted consciences. For to remember Christ is to think of his benefits, and to believe that they are truly imparted to us. (Augsburg Confession, Art. xxiv.)

35. Should the sacrament be used frequently?

Yes; for in the first place, we have the words of Christ, “This do in remembrance of me;” which words are a command. (Smaller Catechism; Larger Catechism.)

Again, the oftener you go to the Lord’s Supper, the more your heart is inflamed with the love of God. (Smaller Catechism; Larger Catechism.)

In the third place, there is also a promise added to the command, which is to allure and impel us most strongly to the frequent use of this sacrament; for these are the gracious and lovely words: “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins.” (Smaller Catechism; Larger Catechism.)

Finally, the feeling of our unworthiness and misery is to enkindle the desire for this sacrament. For in it you bring yourself unto Christ, that he may refresh, comfort, and strengthen you. (Smaller Catechism; Larger Catechism.)