III

The authoritative documents drawn up by the early Lutherans contain much the same Eucharistic doctrine as that in the writings of Luther himself. The articles of the Conference held at Marburg in October, 1529, will be considered later. In 1530 the Emperor Charles V. ordered the Lutheran princes to present a statement of their belief at a Diet to be held at Augsburg. Partly as a result of this command and partly in consequence of the need felt by the Lutheran teachers of some such document, the Confession of Augsburg was drawn up by Melanchthon, who utilised in the composition of it the articles of the Marburg Conference and the Schwabach Conference both held in October, 1529, and of the Torgau Conference held in March, 1530. This Confession was sent to Luther for revision, and he expressed his approval of it in a letter dated 15th May, 1530. On 25th June, 1530, it was read aloud at the Diet of Augsburg; and it was signed on 23rd August by John, Elector of Saxony; George, Margrave of Brandenburg; Ernest, Duke of Lueneburg; Philip, Landgrave of Hesse; John Frederick, Electoral Prince of Saxony; Francis, Duke of Lueneburg; Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt; the Senate and Magistracy of Nuremberg; and the Senate of Reutlingen. The tenth article of the Confession was entitled “Concerning the Lord’s Supper”. It stated, according to the Latin text of the Confession:—

“Concerning the Lord’s Supper they teach that the body and blood of Christ are really present, and are distributed to those who eat in the Lord’s Supper; and they disapprove of those who teach otherwise.”

In the German text this statement is more explicit:—

“Concerning the Lord’s Supper they teach that the real body and blood of Christ are really present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, and are distributed and received. Wherefore also the opposite doctrine is rejected.”

In an Appendix on the Amendment of Abuses, the first article gave as the reasons for the reception of Communion in both kinds that the Sacrament had been so instituted by our Lord; that it had been so used in the time of St. Paul; and that it had been so received for a long time in the Church. The third article was headed “Concerning the Mass”. It contained the following statements:—

“Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. For the Mass is retained among us, and is celebrated with the greatest reverence. Moreover, almost all the customary ceremonies are preserved, except that in some places, in order to teach the people, we have added to what is sung in Latin some things sung in German.… It does not appear that Masses are more religiously celebrated among our adversaries than among us. But it is clear that for a long time this has been the public and much the most important complaint of all good men, that Masses are basely profaned by being used for gain.… Therefore, when the priests among us were admonished of this sin, private Masses were discontinued among us, since scarcely any private Masses had been celebrated except for gain.… There was added an opinion, which increased private Misses infinitely, that Christ by His passion satisfied for original sin, and appointed the Mass in which an offering should be made for daily sins, both mortal and venial. From this came a common opinion that the Mass is a work blotting out the sins of the living and the dead by the fact of its being offered (ex opere operato). As a result men began to discuss whether one Mass said for many people was of as great force as particular Masses said for particular persons. This discussion brought forth that infinite multitude of Masses. Concerning these opinions we have taught that they differ from Holy Scripture and injure the glory of the passion of Christ. For the passion of Christ was an offering and satisfaction not only for original sin but also for all other sins.… Also Scripture teaches that we are justified before God through faith in Christ, when we believe that our sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ. If the Mass blots out the sins of the living and the dead by the fact of its being offered (ex opere operato), then justification takes place by the work of Masses, not by faith, which Scripture does not allow. But Christ commands to ‘do in remembrance of’ Himself; wherefore the Mass was instituted that faith in those who use the Sacrament may recollect the benefits received through Christ, and may raise and console the timid conscience. For this is to remember Christ, to remember His benefits and to perceive that they are really presented to us. Nor is it enough to recollect the history; because even the Jews and the wicked can recollect this. The Mass then is to be celebrated for this purpose, that in it the Sacrament may be given to those who have need of comfort fort.… And, since the Mass is such a giving of the Sacrament, one common Mass is kept up among us on all holy days and also on other days if any wish to use the Sacrament, and at these times the Sacrament is given to those who desire it.”

In December, 1536, partly with a view to negotiations with the adherents of the Pope, Luther drew up a series of articles which, after being submitted to Melanchthon and other Lutherans for their approval, was sent to the Elector of Saxony in January, 1537, and was subsequently signed by Luther and Melanchthon and other Lutheran theologians at Schmalkalden, in Thuringia, and became known as the Articles of Schmalkalden. The sixth of these articles was headed “Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar,” and was as follows:—

“Concerning the Sacrament of the altar we are of opinion that the bread and wine in the Supper are the real body and blood of Christ, and they are given and taken not only by pious but also by impious Christians. And not one species only is to be given. For we do not need that far-fetched idea which maintains that under one species is as much as under both, as the sophists and the Council of Constance teach. For, although it may perhaps be true that there is as much under one species as under both, yet one species is not the whole of what was ordained and instituted by Christ, and handed down and commanded.… We care nothing for the subtle sophistry concerning Transubstantiation, whereby they pretend that the bread and wine leave and lose their natural substance, and that only the species and colour of bread, and not real bread, remain. For it is most in agreement with Holy Scripture that the bread is present and remains, as Paul himself uses the word, ‘the bread which we break,’ and ‘So let him eat of the bread’.”

In 1540, ten years after the first drawing up of the Confession of Augsburg, this Confession was revised by Melanchthon, partly as an attempt to find a means of agreement between the Lutherans and the followers of Zwingli. In this new edition the tenth article was modified so as to be:—

“Concerning the Lord’s Supper they teach that together with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are really presented (exhibeantur) to those who eat in the Lord’s Supper.”

In this altered form of the articles there were four important changes. The express assertion “together with the bread and wine” was added. The declaration “the body and blood of Christ are really present” was omitted. The statement that the body and blood of Christ “are distributed to those who eat in the Lord’s Supper” was altered to a statement that they “are really presented to those who eat in the Lord’s Supper,” apparently to avoid what was held to be an assertion that the body and blood of Christ are given in the Sacrament to those who communicate unworthily as well as to those who communicate worthily. The words “they disapprove of those who teach otherwise” were omitted.

In the Appendix on the Amendment of Abuses in the Confession of Augsburg as revised in 1540 the section “Concerning the Mass” followed in an enlarged form the lines adopted in 1530. The passages in the original section on the retention of the Mass were little altered. The part relating to the theological ideas which had underlain the increase in the number of private Masses was modified so as to be in the following form:—

“We will point out whence those abuses arose. An opinion became prevalent in the Church that the Lord’s Supper is a work, which being celebrated by a priest merits remission of sins and of guilt and of penalty to him who does it and to others, and this by the fact of its being offered (ex opere operato) without any good intention on the part of him who uses it. Also, that when applied on behalf of the dead it is a satisfaction, that is, it merits for them remission of the penalties of purgatory. So they interpret the sacrifice when they call the Mass a sacrifice, namely, to be a work, which when applied on behalf of others merits for them remission of guilt and of penalties, and this by the fact of its being offered (ex opere operato) without any good intention on the part of him who uses it. So they interpret that an offering is made by the priest in the Mass for the living and the dead. This notion being accepted, they went on to teach men to seek for remission of sins and good things of every kind, and to free the dead from penalties, by the benefit of the Mass. Nor did it make any difference by what kind of people the Masses were offered, because they taught that the Masses benefited others without any good intention on the part of the user. Then the question was debated whether one Mass said for many people was of as great benefit as particular Masses said for particular persons. This discussion increased infinitely the number and gain of Masses. But we are not now discussing the question of gain; we are making an accusation of impiety. For we teach that this opinion about the merit and application of the Mass is false and impious. This is the position of this controversy. And a judgment on this matter is easy for pious people, if any one will weigh the arguments which follow. First, we have shown above that men obtain remission of sins freely by faith, that is, by confidence in mercy for the sake of Christ. Therefore it is impossible to obtain remission of sins because of the work of another, and indeed without any good intention, that is, without faith of one’s own. This reason refutes clearly enough that monstrous and impious opinion about the merit and application of the Mass. Secondly, the passion of Christ was an offering and satisfaction not only for original guilt but also for all other sins.… This honour of the sacrifice of Christ ought not to be transferred to the work of a priest.… It is impious to transfer the confidence, which ought to rest on the offering and intercession of the High Priest Christ, to the work of a priest. Thirdly, in the institution of the Lord’s Supper Christ does not command that priests offer for others living and dead. By what authority then has this rite been instituted in the Church without the command of God as an offering for sins? It is much more absurd that the Mass is applied to freeing the souls of the dead. For the Mass was instituted to be a recollection, that is, that those who use the Lord’s Supper may by the recollection of the benefit of Christ stablish and strengthen their faith and comfort their terrified consciences. Nor is the Mass a satisfaction for penalty, but it was instituted for the sake of remission of guilt, that is, not that it may be a satisfaction for guilt, but that it may be a Sacrament by the use of which we may be kept in mind of the benefit of Christ and the remission of guilt.… Fourthly, in the New Testament a ceremony without faith merits nothing either for him who performs it or for others.… Therefore the Mass does not merit remission of guilt or penalty by the fact of its being offered (ex opere operato). Fifthly, the application of the benefit of Christ takes place through one’s own faith.… And this application takes place freely. Therefore no application of it takes place by the work of another or because of the work of another.… Sixthly, the institution of the Sacrament is against this abuse. For nothing is ordered about an offering for the sins of the living and the dead; but it is ordered that the body and blood of the Lord be taken, and that this be done for the recollection of the benefit of Christ. Now the recollection signifies not only some representation of the history as in a show, as those dream who defend merit from the fact of the offering (ex opere operato); but it signifies the recollection by faith of the promise and benefit, the comforting of the conscience, and the giving of thanks for so great a benefit. For the chief reason for the institution is that faith may there be aroused and exercised when we receive this pledge of grace. Besides, the institution provides that there be the administration, that is, that the ministers of the Church give to others also the body and blood of the Lord.”

Like the writings of Luther himself, this statement in the revised form of the Confession of Augsburg appears to deny the Eucharistic sacrifice in any ordinary sense as well as to clear away perverted ideas about it. And the sentence “The chief reason for the institution is that faith may be aroused and exercised when we receive this pledge of grace” seems to be an acceptance of one of the most puzzling elements in the teaching of Luther, the apparent dissociation of any grace from that which is received in the Sacrament in spite of the concurrent strong emphasis that the consecrated Sacrament is the body of Christ.

In 1551 an adaptation of the Confession of Augsburg was made by Melanchthon, with a view to its presentation to the Council of Trent, and was entitled the Saxon Confession. It represents substantially the same position as the Confession of Augsburg. The most noticeable features in it are an explanation of the sense in which the Eucharistic rite as a whole is regarded as sacrificial and the pains taken to emphasise the limitation of the sacramental character of the elements to their use in the service. In a statement in the preface on the abuses which the Lutherans were repudiating it is said:—

“Very many sacrificing priests read and offer Masses, as they say, in complete ignorance of what they are doing; they only follow custom and serve their belly. Other superstitious men, who think more about this work of theirs, pretend that they perform a work necessary to the whole Church, which merits remission of sins for him who performs it and for others. Afterwards comes in the snatching at the greatest gain, sacrifices are offered for the dead, and the churches are more filled with funeral ceremonies than with the sound of sermons or the devotions of the living. Nor are the people rightly taught about the use of the Sacrament among our opponents, because the monks teach that those who partake receive from the performance of the work (ex opere operato), as they say, remission of sins; and one part of the Sacrament is taken away from the people, and the other part is carried about outside the ordained use, and is adored contrary, to the nature (rationem) of the Sacrament; and many false opinions are added. They say nothing about the righteousness of faith and about the right use of the Sacraments, which are not merits but are testimonies confirming faith.”

In the section entitled “Concerning the Lord’s Supper” the most important parts relating to the use of the Sacrament and to the sacrifice are the following:—

“That there may be greater reverence in the use of this Sacrament, the real reasons of the institution are to be considered, which pertain to the public congregation and to the comfort of individuals. The first reason is: the Son of God wishes the sound of the Gospel to be heard in a public and honourable congregation. The bond of this congregation He wishes to be this reception, which must be with the greatest reverence, since there is shown the testimony of the wonderful association of the Lord and of those who receive.… The second reason is that He wishes the assembly and the rite itself to be beneficial for the preservation and propagation of the memory of the passion and the resurrection and of His benefits. The third reason is that He wishes each one who receives to establish individually by this testimony that he determines that the benefits of the Gospel pertain to him, since the discourse is common; and by this testimony, by this reception, He shows that you are His own member, and that you have been washed by His blood, and that He makes this covenant, ‘Abide in Me, and I in you,’ and ‘I in them, and Thou in Me’. The fourth reason is that He wishes this public reception to be a confession, whereby you may show that you accept the kind of doctrine of the assembly to which you join yourself; He wishes also that thanks be given publicly and privately in this ceremony itself to God the eternal Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost both for all other benefits and especially for the immeasurable benefit of redemption and salvation; He wishes also that the members of the Church themselves may have a bond of mutual kindness with one another.… We openly condemn the monstrous error of the monks, who wrote that the reception merits remission of sins, and this from the performance of the work (ex opere operato) without any good intention on the part of the user.… We exhort also that men are not to think that because of this work or this obedience sins are remitted, but that confidence may behold the death and merits of the Son of God and His resurrection, and may determine that our sins are remitted for His sake and that He wishes this faith to be confirmed by this remembrance and witness.… Also men are taught that the Sacraments are actions ordained by God, and that the things themselves have not the nature (rationem) of a Sacrament outside the ordained use; but that in the ordained use Christ is really and substantially present in this Communion, and that the body and blood of Christ are really presented (exhiberi) to those who receive; and that Christ bears witness that He is in them and makes them His members, and that He has washed them by His blood.… And since a rite outside the ordained use has not the nature (rationem) of a Sacrament, let the devout and learned consider what a service of idols takes place there [i.e. among the opponents of the Lutherans]. It is also clear sacrilege to carry about and adore part of the Lord’s Supper, where in truth a part is put to a use wholly different from that for which it was ordained.”

“Many before this time have written that there is an offering in the Mass for the living and the dead, and that it merits for him who offers it and for others remission of sins from the performance of the work (ex opere operato).… We simply and truly set out the word of God, which condemns those errors, and we affirm with all our heart in the presence of God and the whole Church in heaven and in earth that there is only one propitiatory sacrifice or sacrifice whereby the wrath of the eternal Father towards the human race was appeased, that is, the complete obedience of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified and risen.… And this sacrifice is applied to individuals by their own faith, when they hear the Gospel and use the Sacraments.… The ancient Church uses the words sacrifice and offering, but thereby understands the whole action, prayer, reception, recollection, faith, confession, and thanksgiving. This whole inner and outer action, in one converted to God, and in the whole Church, is in very truth a sacrifice of praise, or Eucharistic, and a reasonable service.… Certain persons are now craftily learning to lessen the absurdity. They say that the offering is not merit but application; they form plots by means of words, and keep the same abuses. But I have already said that each one applies to himself the sacrifice of Christ by his faith both when he hears the Gospel and when he uses the Sacraments.… What then do the sacrificing priests now understand who say that they offer Christ? Antiquity did not so speak. They accuse us most savagely, and say that we destroy the continual sacrifice, as did Antiochus, who is a type of Anti-Christ. We have already made answer that we retain the whole rite of the Church of the Apostles. And it is a continual sacrifice to proclaim the uncorrupted doctrine of the Gospel and to call on God rightly; lastly, as the Lord says, to ‘worship the Father in spirit and in truth’. Here also we hold fast the right use of the Sacraments. Since we preserve all these things most faithfully, we preserve with the greatest reverence the continual sacrifice.”

About the same time as the formation of the Saxon Confession, the Wurtemberg Confession was drawn up by John Brenz, also for the purpose of presentation to the Council of Trent. The teaching contained in it closely resembles that in the Saxon Confession. The nineteenth article is on the Eucharist. Emphasis is laid on the continued existence of real bread and wine in the consecrated Sacrament and on the presence of the real body and blood of Christ. The Eucharist is allowed to be a sacrifice in a general sense, as a memorial of Christ’s death, and as a means of applying the merits of His passion to communicants.

“Concerning the substance of the Eucharist, we believe and teach that the real body of Christ and His real blood are given; and we reject the teaching of those who say that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are only the signs of the absent body and blood of Christ. We believe also that the almighty power of God is so great that He is able in the Eucharist to annihilate the substance of bread and wine, or to change it into the body and blood of Christ. But that God uses in the Eucharist this absolute almighty power of His does not seem to be declared in the certain word of God; and it appears to have been unknown to the ancient Church.… When it is said of the bread, ‘This is My body,’ it is not necessary that the substance of the bread be changed into the substance of the substance of the body of Christ; but it suffices to the reality of the Sacrament that the body of Christ be really present together with the bread, and therefore the very necessity of the reality of the Sacrament seems to require that real bread remains together with the real presence of the body of Christ.”

“Since the word sacrifice is capable of very wide meaning, and signifies a holy worship in general, we willingly grant that the right and lawful use of the Eucharist may in this sense be called a sacrifice. And, if the Eucharist be celebrated according to Christ’s ordinance in such a way that the death of Christ is proclaimed therein, and the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood dispensed to the Church, it is rightly called an application of the merit of Christ’s passion, to them, that is, who receive the Sacrament.… Another error is that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of such a kind that it ought to be continually offered in the Church to expiate the sins of the living and the dead, and to obtain for them other benefits both bodily and spiritual.… Another error is that some think the oblation, as they call it, not indeed to be in itself a propitiation for sins, but to apply the propitiation and merit of Christ to the living and dead. But it has been shown that the Eucharist is not properly an oblation but is so called because it is a memorial of the oblation once offered on the cross. Again the application of the merit of Christ is not made by any other external instrument than the preaching of the Gospel of Christ and the administration of the Sacraments which Christ instituted for this purpose. And the merit of Christ which is offered and applied is received only by faith.… Another error is the carrying about and reserving of one part of the Eucharist for the special worship of God. The Holy Ghost forbids the institution of any worship of God without the certain command of God.… It is clear that the bread which is carried about and reserved for adoration is not reserved for the sick but is at last consumed by those who consecrate it.”

In consequence of the controversies with the adherents of the Pope, with the more extreme Reformers, and among the Lutherans themselves, the Formula of Concord was drawn up in 1577, as a result of long and difficult negotiations. It was the work of Martin Chemnitz of Brunswick, an eminent theologian, a pupil of Melanchthon; Nicholas Selnecker of Leipsic, also a follower of Melanchthon; Jacob Andreæ, Professor of Theology and Chancellor of the University at Tuebingen, a pupil of Brenz; Christopher Koerner, Professor of Theology at Frankfort on the Oder, a follower of Melanchthon; David Chytraeus, Professor of Theology at Rostock, a follower of Melanchthon; and Andreas Musculus, Professor of Theology at Frankfort on the Oder, an opponent of Melanchthon in those matters, chiefly relating to the Incarnation, in which Melanchthon and Luther were opposed to one another. In 1580 the Formula of Concord was published by order of Augustus, Elector of Saxony, in the Book of Concord, together with the Apostles’ Creed, the enlarged Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Confession of Augsburg, Melanchthon’s Apology for the Confession of Augsburg, the Articles of Schmalkalden, and Luther’s two Catechisms. In spite of this attempt to place the Formula of Concord in the position of an authorised Lutheran statement of doctrine, it was much attacked, and it never attained to the authority of the Confession of Augsburg. Its teaching about the Eucharist, however, except in regard to the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ, may be taken as representative of the Lutheranism of the time. The most important parts of this teaching are the following:—

“We believe, teach, and confess that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are really and substantially present, and that they are really distributed and taken together with the bread and wine; … that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of the sacramental union the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Christ; … that the right hand of God is everywhere, and that Christ, in respect of His manhood, is really and actually seated thereat; … that God knows and has in His power various ways in which He can be any where, and is not limited to that single way which philosophers usually call local or circumscribed; … that the body and blood of Christ are taken, together with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith but also by the mouth, yet not Capernaitically but after a supernatural and heavenly manner by reason of the sacramental union; … that not only those who really believe in Christ and approach the Lord’s Supper worthily but also the unworthy and unbelieving take the real body and blood of Christ, in such wise, nevertheless, that they receive thence neither comfort nor life but rather that the reception turns to them for judgment and condemnation unless they are converted and penitent; … that no one who really believes, so long as he keeps a living faith, takes the Holy Supper of the Lord to judgment, whatever be the weakness of faith under which he labours; … that the whole worthiness of the guests at this heavenly Supper consists alone in the most holy obedience and the most perfect merit of Christ, and that we apply this to ourselves by real faith, and are made certain of the application of this merit and are confirmed in our minds by means of the Sacrament, and that the worthiness in no way depends on our virtues or on our inward or outward preparations.”

“We reject and condemn … the papistical Transubstantiation, namely, when it is taught among the papists that the bread and wine in the Holy Supper lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated, and that those elements are so changed into the body of Christ that nothing remains of them except the outward species; the papistical sacrifice of the Mass, which is offered for the sins of the living and the dead; … that the body of Christ in the Holy Supper is not taken by the mouth together with the bread, but that only bread and wine are received by the mouth, while the body of Christ is taken only spiritually, that is, by faith; that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are only symbols or tokens whereby Christians mutually recognise one another; that the bread and wine are only figures and similitudes and types of the body and blood of Christ very far absent from us; … that Christ’s body is so shut up in heaven that it can in no way whatever be at one and the same time in more places than one or in all the places on earth where the Lord’s Supper is celebrated; … that God, even with all His almighty power (a thing fearful to say and hear), cannot effect that the body of Christ be at one and the same time substantially present in more places than one; … that the external and visible elements of bread and wine in the Sacrament are to be adored.”

The Saxon Visitation Articles were written in 1592 by Aegidius Hunnius, Professor of Theology at Marburg, a leading Lutheran divine, with the assistance of other Lutheran theologians. The acceptance of them was enforced in Saxony on all pastors and teachers and civil officers; but they were never made a generally authoritative Lutheran document. In regard to the Eucharist, they state the main points of the Lutheran doctrine shortly and clearly in the following article, in which the use of the phrases “natural body” and “natural blood” is of some importance:—

“The words of Christ … are to be understood in the simple and literal sense, as they sound. In the Sacrament there are two things, which are presented (exhibentur) and received together, the one earthly, which is bread and wine; the other heavenly, which is the body and blood of Christ. This union and presentation (exhibitio) and reception takes place here below on earth, not above in heaven. The real and natural body of Christ, which hung on the cross, and the real and natural blood, which flowed from the side of Christ, are presented (exhibeatur) and received. The body and blood of Christ are received in the Supper not only spiritually by faith, which can take place even apart from the Supper, but by the mouth together with the bread and wine, yet after a manner which is inscrutable and supernatural; and this for a pledge and assurance of the resurrection of our bodies from the dead. The reception of the body and blood of Christ by the mouth is not only by the worthy but also by the unworthy who approach without penitence and real faith, though with different result. For the reception is by the worthy for salvation and by the unworthy for judgment.”