University of California. FROM TIIK LIliRARV OF DR. FRANCIS LIEBER, Professor of History and Law in Columbia College, No\v Yrk. THI: GIFT OF MICHAEL REESj: Of San Francisco. 1ST 3. SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER LUTHERAN DOCTRINE LORD'S' SUPPER. BY THE REV. H. I. SCHMIDT, D.D, I* Prof, of the German Lang. !f Lit. fre., in Col Coll N. Y. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY HENRY LUDWIG, NO. 46, VESE Y-STREET. And to be had of all the principal Booksellers throughout the United States. 1852. 53 ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by HENRY LUDWIG, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION, THE essay which is here published in a separate form, appeared first in the Evangel- ical Review, being the lid Article of the Xth number (October, 1851,) of that quarterly. Its separate republication having been extensively called for, it was deemed desirable that a briei history of the doctrine which it discusses, more extended than the design of the article itself permitted, should be premised. There are sundry reasons for regarding a historic view of our doctrine as a desideratum at the present time. It is important, to show that in the views respecting the Lord's Supper, which Luther so clearly and fully stated, and so ably defended, he propounded no novelties, but simply re- asserted and vindicated, in opposition to the errors and perversions of Romanism, the doc- trinal views of the primitive church, and above all, the sense of Holy Writ, conveyed in most direct and simple language. It is important to show, that in our interpretation of the words of the institution, and of the language of St. Paul, 4 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. we have on our side not only the expositions given by the early Fathers in general, but the simple and strictly scriptural interpretations of those in particular, who immediately succeed- ed the apostolic age, and derived their views from the apostles themselves. It is the more important to point out this connexion, because, even if these primitive Fathers deserved in any particular to be looked upon with suspicion, which we deny, there could be, in respect of the subject here discussed, no motive to change, to distort, or in any way to pervert and corrupt, the teachings which they had received directly from one or more of our Lord's apostles. In matters pertaining to the polity and discipline, to the general government of the church, we may safely admit, without any serious dis- paragement to the clergy of the first two cen- turies, that human passions, motives of self- interest, and self-aggrandizement may have led, even at that early age, gradually and per- haps imperceptibly, to arbitrary arrangements and assumptions of authority, not borne out by the sanction of Scripture. But so much were the circumstances and wants of the infant HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. O church calculated to throw power into the hands of her pastors and teachers, that it seems scarcely just to charge the gradually increasing importance and growing authority of the clergy to their own ambitious schemes and measures. However this may be, there is no evidence and no reason to believe, that in the primitive ages of the church the doctrines of Christianity suffered any corruption within her pale ; on the other hand, we are certain that the early Fa- thers were the staunch and faithful protectors and defenders of the pure and uncorrupted truths of the gospel, in opposition to the speculatists and heretics who sought, in various ways, to modify and pervert them. Doctrinal corrup- tions within the church were of later growth, and it was not until the hierarchy of Rome was fully established, that it occurred to am- bitious priests and arrogant prelates, that the sacraments might be effectually employed as means of exalting their personal importance, and increasing their official dignity and power ; and to render them thus subservient, the doc- trines of scripture regarding them were either distorted, or encumbered with human inven- 1* 6 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. tions. But on subjects of this kind we may safely regard the early church as holding and promulgating the genuine doctrines of Scripture, and the just and sound views which she had re- ceived directly from the lips of inspired apostles. And hence it is that we deem it important to trace the views respecting the Lord's Supper, which, taught by our symbolical books, are presented and defended in the following treatise, up to that early age, in which the doctrinal cor- ruptions which after-ages of pampered prosper- ity and priestly arrogance superinduced, were still unknown. And that this we are able to do, it is our present business to show somewhat more in detail than our limited space permitted in the following essay. We merely yet remark that, although we have a number of important authorities before us, we are mainly indebted for much that follows infra, to Guericke's Handbuch der KirchengescMcJite. We assert then, that the church has, at all times, from the very beginning, held and avowed the be- lief, that in the sacrament of the altar the real (not figurative) body and blood of the Saviour are truly present, distributed to communicants, HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 7 and received by true believers to their unspeak- able comfort and edification, their establish- ment, confirmation and advancement in that spiritual life, of which Christ within them is the vital principle and the very essence. No opposite, nay, no other * view ever received ecclesiastical sanction, until the Re- formed church, the church of which Calvin and Zuingle were the founders, was organ- ized. On this point the evidence of history is clear and conclusive. Let us then look back to the beginning, and thence carry our view over the historic page, down to the present time. From the earliest times the church regarded and celebrated the Lord's Supper, not as a mere memorial-feast, commemorative of the suffer- ings and death of her Lord, but as a most sacred mystery, as the highest mystery of the * For the Romish doctrine- of transubstantiation, being a clumsy attempt rigidly and minutely to define the mode of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, is only a monstrous distor- tion, not a denial of the truth. It distorts, not by taking away, but by adding. The church of Rome goes far beyond the truth, while Zuinglians and others deny it, in open contradiction of Scripture and of the testimony of the early church. 8 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. Christian worship, because it effected a mys- terious union between Christ and his people, through the presence and reception of his body and blood. Hence from it were excluded all profane ; and hence also arose the false accusations of the heathens, that in this supper Christians partook of Thyestian meals, and ate human flesh, against which absurd charge Athenagoras most ably defended them > in his well-known apology. This accusation is one of those extraneous testimonies, of which the hostility of Pagans and Jews furnishes not a few : although a gross caricature of the truth, it proves, by its very presence, the existence and prevalence of the doctrine caricatured. The same view which was obviously uni- versal in the early church, is distinctly implied in the language employed by Ignatius, when, in the 20th chapter of his Ep. to the Ephesians, and in the 7th of his epistle to the church at Smyrna, he sets forth the nature of the Eucha- rist. This Father, whose praise was in all the early churches, was a disciple and companion of the apostles ; he was instructed in Christian truth probably by either Peter or John. In HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. V the epistles just referred to, he calls the Eucharist a medicine unto immortality, an anti- dote against death, through which we live evermore in Christ. He warns against the Docetse, who abstained from the Lord's Supper, because they refused to acknowledge that it is the flesh of our Redeemer Jesus Christ." Of course these heretics could not oppose a doc- trine that did not exist. Still more full and direct is the testimony of Justyn Martyr, born A. D. 8 9, martyred A. D. 163, or 165. He was the first apologist of Christianity, and declares, in his apology, that the language which we shall here quote, ex- presses the faith and confession of the church. Respecting the Eucharist he says : We receive it not as common bread or as common drink, . . . but we have been taught that it is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus." To the same effect Irenaeus, who studied in Smyrna under Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and died A.D. 209, as bishop of Lyons, expresses himself in his celebrated work Con- tra Hereticos, written about A.D. 107, as follows : The terrestrial bread, when through 10 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. the invocation of God it has been consecrated, is no more common bread, but the Eucharist, which consists of two constituents, the one earthly, the other heavenly." From this he deduces the future raising up of the body, " inasmuch as through Christ's body the germ of incorruptibility is deposited within us." The testimony of the Fathers respecting the doctrinal views inculcated, and the doctrinal expositions given by the apostles themselves, depends, for its value and weight of author- ity, in a good degree on their greater or less proximity to the age concerning which they bear witness. It is obvious that here the three Fathers whom we have just cited are the most important, not only because they are the oldest in whose writings the Lord's Supper is mentioned, but because the sphere of labour which they respectively occupied in the church, afforded them peculiar advantages for ascertaining and communica- ting the faith of the primitive church, in res- pect of doctrines which were afterwards made subjects of controversy. Ignatius, who is very properly regarded as a disciple of the HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 11 school of the apostle John, resided in Asia Minor, which, as the theatre of the labours of the apostles John and Paul, stood ill the highest estimation, as having preserved in its purity the earliest form of Christianity [vide Irenaeus adv. haer. III., 3.] We have already remarked that he was a friend of Polycarp, who, according to the most authentic primitive tradition, was a pupil of the apostle John. Irenaeus, also from Asia Minor, had likewise known and heard Polycarp ; and thus also Justin had, during his journeys, become ac- quainted with the prominent churches in Asia Minor. Their decided and remarkable agree- ment both in the doctrine and in the manner of expressing it, is therefore of the utmost importance, and "must convince us that we have here the original doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper, derived directly from the apos- tles themselves." [See H. L. Heubner's Supplement to the Vlth Edition of G. Biich- ner's, Biblical House-Concordance : Halle, 1845, Article, Lord's Supper, p. 3, sq.] To the same effect might be cited the ancient lit- urgical formulas, for the celebration of the 12 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. Lord's Supper, especially one, which is as- cribed to the Apostle James ; but it may suffice to refer the reader for information on this point, to Guericke's Handbuch der Kirchen- geschichte, Vol. I. p. 199. We may also appeal to Tertullian and Cyprian, and others, as avc v. i.:g, only more distinctly and fully, the same view of the Lord's Supper as that set forth in the writings of those primitive Fathers ; but, having the testimony of the latter, we do not consider it necessary to quote the language of any who wrote at a later period. What we want to show, is, that the primitive church held the view of the Lord's Supper which is taught by the symbolical books of the Lutheran church, and this we have satisfactorily done. Later changes in the doctrinal system of the church cannot at all affect our argument ; but such changes were by no means in haste to come. For, from the beginning of the fourth to near the end of the sixth century, the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, so clearly recognized in the period just partially reviewed, was even more decidedly and explicitly avowed and confessed, HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 13 as can be amply demonstrated from the liturgies of this period. To quote from these, and to cite the superabundant testimonies of the Fathers of this period, the limits to which we must here confine ourselves forbid. We again refer the reader for ample inform- ation to Guericke's Hnndbuch der Kirchen- geschichte, Vol. I. p. 404, sqq. But it was during this period also that, in the explicit and distinct manner in which the doctrine was expressed in the sacramental liturgies, the Lord's Supper began to be gradually regarded as a sacrificial act of the Christian priest, and, in connexion with this view, others which we must regard as erroneous, developed themselves into shape and distinctness. Prominent among these was the notion of its being an oblatio pro mortuis a sacrificial act repeating the death of the Redeemer, by which departed souls could be delivered from purgatory. This absurd view began to prevail more and more, and was particularly indebted to Gregory the Great, who not only decided that it belonged essentially to the doctrine of the Lord's Sup- per, but rendered it popular by imaginative 2 14 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. and florid representations of its practical value. And out of this notion grew, in the eighth cen- tury, the private or solitary masses, celebrated by the priest alone, notwithstanding that bish- ops and councils protested against the abuse so late even as the ninth century. The want of dogmatical distinctness and definiteness in stating the doctrine of the Church, which must always prevail, to a greater or less degree, until systematic divinity has become settled, could not fail to lead to discussions and to provoke controversies. It is unnecessary here to enter into specifications respecting these ; the less so as in one most important point of view, they will be fully exhibited in a trans- lation of Thomasius' Christologie which we intend shortly to publish. It will suffice to say, that the view wh.ich denies the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist never acquired any firm footing or extensive influence in the Church : its only distinguished defender was Berengarius de Tours, a man whose repeated tergiversations and recantations prove him so utterly destitute of truth and sin- cerity, as to cancel all his claims to our res- HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 15 pect. His unscriptural views were condemned and speedily suppressed by the Church. The doctrine of transubstantiation, which had grad- ually worked its way upward, and had first been fully developed and distinctly stated in the ninth century by Paschasius Rhadbert, was now, near the end of the eleventh century, the dominant view, having gained a complete victory over the heresy of Berengarius, and thrown into the background the original apostolic doctrine, which taught the real presence without defining the quo modo. As the power of the papal hierarchy increased, and more and more found its interest in perverting truth, superstition grew and spread, and began te exert its bane- ful influence especially upon men's views of the Sacraments, of which there were (about A.D. 1100,) assumed, without the slightest warrant from Scripture, to be seven. As res- pects the Eucharist, the doctrine of transub- stantiation, [a term first used by Hildebert,] which had, as we have seen, gradually gained the ascendancy, was first elevated into an arti- cle of faith by the fourth general Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, while Innocent Hid. filled 16 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. the papal see. It met with opposition from various quarters as late as the 13th century, especially from the theological faculty of Paris. But soon every dissentient voice was hushed : papal bulls decreed the multiplication of superstitious practices and rites, and the festum corporis Domini capped the climax of the absurd and gorgeous mummeries of Rome. Even before the end of the 13th century the cup was denied to the laity. We have never learned how the introduction, by papal author- ity, of this unscriptural practice is to be recon- ciled with the pope's alleged infallibility ; for, as this departure from the original institution arose at first among heretics, Manichseans, it was very rigorously condemned by several bishops of Rome. But the papacy is never at a loss for plausibilities. Although the doctrine of transubstantiation, was thus permanently incorporated, with all its attendant absurdities, follies and abuses, in Rome's corrupt system, it did not long enjoy its predominance unquestioned or unassailed. The original and purely scriptural doctrine of the Church began gradually to gain new friends HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 17 and defenders, and to win its way to the res- pect and acceptance of candid inquirers. Du- randus, a very eminent French divine (t!332,) d'Ailly, chancellor of the University of Paris, afterwards bishop of Cambray, and subsequent- ly cardinal (f!425,) openly declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation was contrary to both Scripture and reason. Its prominent an- tagonist, however, was WyclifFe (f!384,) who unfortunately was not satisfied with rejecting the popish heresy, but proceeded to deny, as Berengarius and Ratramnus had done before him, that there was any real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The same denial appears in the writings of some other theologians of the period immedi- ately preceding the Reformation; and thus it was reserved for Luther and the apologists and expounders of the Augsburg Confession, again distinctly to assert, clearly to unfold, and triumphantly to vindicate the pure doctrine of Scripture, as taught in the words of the in- stitution and in the 1st, Ep. to the Corinthi- ans, and held by the primitive Church. Dr. Schmucker, in his article on the Eucharist, 2* 18 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. cites indeed the language of the Augustana, as quoted and explained by the Apology, and introduces (as he tells us, by way of explana- tion ! ) the word Romish bracketed into the language of the Apology. The Apology, both in the German and in the Latin language, distinctly mentions the Greek Church (or its Canon) as well as the Romish (in the German the Romish is not named, but evidently intend- ed): and as the word hitherto (bisher) occurs in the passage quoted, we should like to know what other churches than the Romish and the Greek the Apology could have referred to : we should like to be informed whether, during many cen- turies preceding the Reformation, the Church really was utterly extinct, or whether the Greek and Roman communions, however corrupt, were still to be regarded as Churches. If not, we should like to know at what precise period the Church became extinct : we suppose it must have expired immediately after the reput- ed conversion of Constantine the Great, for everybody knows that during his reign, and through his intervention, the flood of corruptions began to sweep over the Church. The Ian- HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 19 guage of the Apology, which Dr. S. so adroitly cites, with his amendment or supplement in brackets, is perfectly proper and just, and cannot, as is there attempted, be employed against the Reformers When Luther first began to protest and con- tend against the corruptions of the Romish church, he was, as is well known, by no means prepared to reject the doctrine of transubstantia- tion, although even at this early period he was far more solicitous to maintain that the Saviour is really present in the Eucharist, than to explain the manner of this presence. It re- quired a longer and more searching study of the Scriptures to lead him to a correct view of this great subject. In his subsequent contests against the Romish superstition, he could not fail to perceive that this would be most effectu- ally disposed of, by assuming that the bread and wine were nothing more than symbolic signs. But he soon obtained the clear and full convic- tion, never again to be disturbed or shaken, that every exegesis which denies a real presence of the body of Christ in the sacred Supper, is utterly irreconcilable with the words of the in- 20 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. stitution, and the parallel passages. And ad- hering, thenceforward, with unwavering firm- ness to the position, that the body and blood of Christ are truly and really present in the Eu- charist, he continued more clearly, soberly, con- siderately and intelligently to unfold, to divest of all human adjuncts, and to illustrate the doc- trine, on the basis of the Scriptures and the faith of the primitive Church, establishing it firmly in the dogmatic system of the Church, and at the same time, from the year 1520, he maintained that transubstantiation was a fiction of scholastico-metaphysical subtilty, whilst he more and more thoroughly demonstrated the real presence of the bread, as well as of the body of Christ. In this view Melanchthon entirely concurred in the first edition of his loci. That he afterwards changed his views wrought no little evil in the Church. However, the dis- cussions and controversies which subsequently arose in Germany respecting this doctrine do not concern us here. Although it passed through sundry modifications in the dogmatic systems of individual theologians and their disciples, the great body of the Church has always ad- HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 21 hered to the pure doctrine of the Scriptures, as held by the early Christians, and fully exhibited in our symbolical books. There is, however, one point of history which it is well to notice here. The American-Lutheran opponents of our symbolical theology are, probably to a man, great admirers of Spener : in their estimation the pietistic development in the Lutheran Church of Germany formed the most flourishing period, the true Bliithezeit, of Lutheranism : whatever sympathies they may have with Lutheranism seem to revolve around this point as their centre, or here to find their focus. It is well known that the leader and principal advocate of Ame- rican Lutheranism is not a whit behind his school in this distinguished admiration of Spener and his measures. We too entertain a high regard for Spener's pure and lofty character, and profoundly admire his laborious and devoted efforts for the conversion of sinners and the advancement of vital piety. But although the views of practical religion which he held and avowed, and the measures which he adopted, present some analogies to the views and opera- tions of those who in this country practised, or 22 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. still practise what has been called " new mea- sures," yet, unlike the friends of new measures in our communion, Spener never for an instant faltered in his loyal attachment to the Confessions of our Church ; and we, accordingly, claim him as a strictly consistent symbolic Lutheran. That we do not here speak unadvisedly, we consider it of some importance to demonstrate. We have before us the exposition of Christian Doc- trine, published by Spener for the use of the German churches, under the title : "Dr. Philipp Jacob Spener's einfache Erklaerung der christ- lichen Lehre nach der Ordnung des kleinen Katechismus Luthers in Fragen und Antworten verfasst und mit noethigen Zeugnissen der Schrift bewaehrt." The only point which here concerns us, is his position relative to our doc- trine concerning the Lord's Supper. Here he first answers the question : "How do the Pa- pists understand these words (i. e. of the insti- tution) ?" in strong terms of disapproval, enfor- cing them with suitable reasons. Then, on p. 427., comes the question : "But how do the Re- formed understand it (the Eucharist) ?" This he answers thus : "So as that the body and HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 23 blood of Christ are, in their essential reality (dem Wesen nach) present only in heaven above, whilst on earth, on the other hand, nothing but bread and wine are present ; that these are memorials of the body and blood of Christ, in the use of which faith recalls these to recollec- tion, and therefore partakes of them in a spirit- ual and figurative manner." "Is this", he proceeds to ask, "the correct understanding ?" The answer is : "No : this also cannot be the meaning of the Lord ; for 1., this view also i? an artificial mode of dealing with the language of the Testament (ist auch solcher Verstand wider die Art der Testamentesworte ver kunstelt), and the word 'is' is defined to denote 'signifies' ; 2. the Lord does not say, this is the memorial feast (Gedenkmal) or the virtue (Kraft) of my body, but, this is my body; 3. the apostle calls the bread the communion of the body of Christ (1. Cor. x. 16.), which must therefore be united with it; since, according to that (the Reformed) exposition, not the bread, but faith would be the communion of the body of Christ ; 4. if, in the Holy Supper, we receiv- ed Christ in no other way than merely by our 24 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. faith, that Supper would have been instituted in vain and without any use, since this spiritual partaking (Genuss) of him takes place constantly, independently of the Holy Sacraments, which is not compatible with the wisdom of our Saviour ; 5. we would have nothing more in the Holy Sacrament than the worthy Ancients (die lieben Altvaeter) had in their paschal lamb with a much more palpable significance (viel deutlicherer Bedeutung : a signification much more easily apprehended), seeing that they also, when eating it, became partakers, by faith, of the spiritual benefits obtained for us by Christ ; and this would be contrary to the nature (Art) of both Testaments, because in the Old we find the shadow, but in the new the reality of these benefits." And now comes the question : "What is the correct understanding of these words ?" Which is thus answered : "That which our Church teaches in simplicity ; to wit, that in the Holy Supper we truly receive bread, as we perceive by our taste, sight and smell ; but that, at the same time, through the efficacy of the institution by Christ are truly presented to us, together HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 25 with the bread, the real body of Christ, and, together with the wine, the real blood of Christ, to be partaken of by us, although of this we neither see nor taste any thing." Again he asks : "How are we assured that this is the correct understanding?" Answer: "Because 1., This is the simplicity of the letter in the words of the institution, if we understand them, as we are wont, in common life, to understand such expressions as, 'this is an excellent medi- cine,' and the like: 2., especially, because Paul calls the bread the communion of the body of Christ, 1 Cor. x. 16, whence bread and wine must be present, and connected in closest union ; 3., it is inseparable from the nature of the Sacra- ments, in which the earthly and the heavenly are wont always to be together, and united with each other." See p. 428. Again he asks : "But what manner of eat- ing is it?" Answer: "Not by any means a natural corporeal eating, for the natural nour- ishment of the body, as though the body of Christ were masticated, digested in the stomach, and converted into nutriment for our bodies : may all such thoughts be far from us ; and yet 3 26 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. it is a real eating, so that with the bodily mouth we receive, and partake of, not only the bread and the wine, but also the body and the blood of the Lord, for the spiritual nourishment of our inward man, with which, in this food, Christ unites himself." See p. 429. Again he asks : "In what manner does this eating and drinking take place ?" Answer " This is to us incomprehensible, whence we are not to endeavour any further to search out what is not revealed to us, nor, on the other hand, to question the divine omnipotence and truth as to any thing of which God assures us. But is it possible that Christ's body can be present and partaken of at so many places 1 How this is possible it is not necessary to un- derstand ; for it is a mystery which is above our comprehension, nevertheless we believe the word of Him who is the truth, and cannot lie." See p. 430. That the patriarchs of the Church in America adhered consistently and strictly to this evan- gelical doctrine, is abundantly demonstrated by unquestionable evidence. The first Lutheran Congregations in this country were (vide Muh- HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 27 lenberg's Journal, and Hallische Nachrichten) established on the basis of divine truth as confessionally exhibited in the Augustana. Through the operation of external influences, chiefly Presbyterian, Puritan and Methodistic, the faith of the Church became gradually un- settled and more and more modified, her scrip- tural view of the Sacraments vitiated, and eventually supplanted by Zuinglian notions, and her usages neglected, and superseded by novel practices, so that, in the progress of time, her doctrinal system and her ritual were impercep- tibly accommodated and conformed to the con- fessions and usages of surrounding commun- ions, and in the end entirely metamorphosed. This new state of things, for a long time irre- gular and chaotic, was after a while arranged and organized, chiefly through the agency of the Lutheran Observer and the Rev. Dr. Schmucker, into a mongrel system, half Luthe- ran, half multifariously otherwise. But it was not long before the leaders of this unchurchly movement, after publishing their novel views in such works as , "Why are you a Lutheran :" "Portraiture of Lutheranism :" "Popular Theo- '2$ HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. logy," &c. finding that, notwithstanding their efforts in behalf of "American Lutheranism," the consistent adherents of the unaltered Au- gustana were greatly multiplying in our land, turned from their first tacit, then overt nega- tions, and their zealous system-building, to open warfare against the distinctive characteristics of genuine Lutheranism. The Rev. Dr. Schmucker of the the Gettysburg Seminary, who, by his own showing (see the first Ed. of his translation of Storr and Flatt's Theology) received and defended, at the beginning of his professorial career, the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, after the effort to centralize "American Lutheranism" by means of the Ge- neral Synod, in connecting himself actively with the effort when it was in danger of sinking, employed it, at a subsequent period, in support of his later views, and after exerting himself to the utmost for the extension of these views, through the publication of various writings and the training of young minds, has at last stood forth for years, aided by his disciples and the Lutheran Observer, as the avowed enemy, the unrelenting antagonist of our Confessions. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 29 But, in spite of all these laborious efforts, a mighty reaction against this unconfessional and unchurchly movement and system has of late years supervened. Thoughtful and candid minds, perceiving the irregularity, inconsistency and perils of our condition, grew weary and sick of the anomalous position of our Church in America. Earnest inquiry, a strong desire, produced by our pressing necessities, to possess a distinct and definite confession to cling to and to avow before men, and to have an estab- lished and not ever tottering, a well ordered and not ever confused and distracted ecclesiasti- cal home, in which they may dwell in quietness and safety, have led back great numbers to the only known confessional basis of our Evangeli- cal Church. This reaction has, indeed, intensi- fied the energy and virulence of the antagonistic elements ; but, in spite of all opposing efforts, the change for the better, the revolution in favour of our venerable standards, is growing and spreading apace. Thus only can our Church in America attain to unity, strength, and per- manently vigorous vitality. May the Great Head of the Church preside over and guide 30 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. this auspicious movement, and hasten on the day when all who bear the name of Lutheran shall rally, with united hearts and hands, around the glorious standards of the first church of the Reformation, the one Evangelical Church. SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, FOR a good many years past a great deal has been written, and in various ways published, by ministers in connexion with the Lutheran Church in America, from which those without, and Christians of other denominations, can only draw one of two inferences : either that the Lutheran is a confessionless church ; or that her confession is a dead letter long since defunct and buried in oblivion, or at best, existing only as a target to be shot at or as a starting-point for all sorts of subjective speculations. Indeed, the most recent exhibitions, on the part of those who sustain this singular re- lation to our standards, which are really not" yet quite moribund, are calculated to pro- duce the impression abroad, that there is about Lutheranism nothing definite and fixed ; that Lutheranism is a vague abstrac- 31 32 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN tion, having no hold on men's minds or hearts ; waiting to be rendered acceptable to this enlightened and progressive age, admitting and requiring indefinite develop- ment, in accordance with the liberal ideas, and expanding views of this highly intelli- gent and rapidly advancing generation. We have of late years, seen one publication follow fast upon the other, calculated to produce this impression upon those who are not of our communion, and equally so upon many who worship in our sanctuaries, but who, from sundry causes not to be here in- vestigated, are ignorant of the standards, the doctrines, principles and usages of the first Church of the Reformation, the church of their fathers. In vain do writers, whose efforts tend to create such impres- sions, allege that the system which they are advocating is genuine Lutheranism. The plea would be summarily ruled out of every court of justice, and scouted by every competent and impartial jury. If Lutheranism be indeed a dogmatic sys- tem, susceptible of indefinite development in all sorts of subjective directions, then, truly, it would be time to renounce it as having no foundation on that eternal rock of truth, the Word of God : if it be indeed a shifting quicksand, never the same, but ever changing its shape and bearings, with every tide of human opinion sweeping over it w r ho could maintain his foothold on it? Who would venture to erect upon it the spiritual dwelling of his sojourn in this mor- tal state ? But Lutheranism is no such baseless and unstable system no such ever-variyng, ever-shifting sandbank. We deplore deeply and bitterly these destruc- tive efforts, not only because we fervently love the Church of our Fathers and feel the wrongs heaped upon her as though they were done to ourselves, but because we see but too plainly whither all this natural- ly and necessarily tends ; to the multiplica- tion of controversies, to the destruction of harmony in feeling and action, to the in- crease and perpetuation of disunion, if not eventually of something still more earnest- ly to be deprecated. We have repeatedly intended and un- dertaken to discuss the subject named at the head of this article, and have refrained from carrying our purpose into effect, mere- 34 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN ly because we did not wish rashly and pre- maturely to provoke controversy, or to lay ourselves open to the ready charge of dis- tracting the Church by a needless agitation of contested points. But silence on such points has ceased to be a virtue in those who are true to the doctrinal system of our Church. A war of extermination has long been carried on against the distinctive doc- trinal views of our Church, leaving those who are not willing to see her standard pull- ed down and trodden in the dust, no alter- native but to buckle on their armour, and to enter the lists. We dare not sit still, and composedly regard, with cowardly indiffer- ence, the unceasing assaults made upon the articles of our faith. The second article of the Evang. Review for April, 1851, presents a mournful exhi- bition of hostility to our evangelical stand- ards. The writer of that article here prom- inently displays his fixed aversion to the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper, as set forth in the Agustana and the subse- quent Symbolical Books. Although we earnestly hope that abler pens than ours will undertake the defence of this so per- DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUP'PER. 35 tinaciously contested view, we are im- pelled, by a sense of duty, to say some- thing in vindication of a doctrine which we hold sacred and precious ; but ere we proceed to the direct discussion of the subject itself, we would yet premise a few remarks with reference to an assertion made in that same article just specified Dr. S. there asserts, that Luther had reced ed from the doctrine of "the ubiquity or omnipresence of Christ's body, and that therefore he was himself no symbolic Lv.-- theran." For this assertion no authority is given. Now we frankly acknowledge that we are utterly ignorant of any other foundation for this allegation, than the well-known fact that, at the Marburg col- loquium, Luther, in his desire to promote or preserve the peace of the Church, did at one time concede that Christ's body was circumscribed, whilst all who know this fact, also know, that the concession was retracted almost as soon as made, as a measure of compromise incompatible with his honest convictions. So much for Lu- ther's being no symbolic Lutheran. But if this assertion be based upon the story so. 36 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN oft repeated and only recently again reite- rated in Henry's Life of Calvin, that Luther had, shortly before his death, changed his view of the Lord's Supper, we have only to say, that this has not the slightest historical foundation, and is utter- ly and notoriously false. He is, indeed, reported to have, a short time before his death, admitted that he might have gone to too great lengths in his disputes concern- ing the Lord's Supper, in the severity with which he treated his opponents ; but that his own views had undergone a change he no where intimates. In the above-mentioned article of Dr. S. a good deal is said about Luther's protest- ing "against the practice of designating the Church of the Reformation by his name," and " against investing his writings with binding authority on his successors." But of these protests an improper use is here made. So far as the first point is concerned, the title : "Church of the Augs- burg Confession," is quite as acceptable, and in some places nearly as current, as that of "the Lutheran Church:" in Hun- gary indeed, the former is the only appel- DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 37 lative allowed by government to be used. And as respects the second particular, the Doctor knows very well, that Luther's pro- test has reference only to his private writ- ings, and not to those which had, by special command, and with the aid of other learned and godly men, been drawn up for the benefit of the Church, for the establishment and defence, the exhibition and diffusion of her faith. That with these Melanch- thon was only too much disposed to tam- per, is well known, so that Luther one day seriously reproved him for it, adding that these writings were not private property, as they belonged to the Church, which had received and owned them as the exponents of her faith. But, we proceed to the subject more im- mediately in hand, the real presence of our Saviour's glorified humanity in the Sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper; a doctrine which, together with those with which it is most intimately connected, stands, as we shall have occasion incidentally to show, in the most momentous and vital relation to the doctrine of the atonement. Dr. Schmucker gives, on p. 249, of his Pop- 4 38 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN ular Theology, what he considers a correct statement of the Lutheran view of this sub- ject. That his statement is imperfect, every symbolic Lutheran will perceive at a glance. But we accept it for the present, as suffi- ciently accurate and explicit upon the point which here more particularly claims our attention, and as presenting in itself a satisfactory answer to sundry idle objec- tions frequently made to the doctrine. His words are as follows ; " The bread and wine remain in all respects unchanged ; but the invisible, glorified body and blood of Christ are also actually present at the celebration of the Eucharist, and exert an influence on all those who receive the bread and wine ; not indeed present in that form nor with those properties which belonged to the Saviour's body on earth, such as visibility, tangibility, &c., for these it no longer pos- sesses, but with the new and elevated pro- perties which now belong to its glorified state." Although we may, ere we conclude, give, in a few words, what we conceive to be a just exhibition of the view taken by the Church, from the earliest times, of the DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 39 Sacred Supper, and now held by the Luthe- ran Church, our present business is, to notice and briefly to answer sundry objec- tions, which, though a hundred times re- futed, are again and again brought forward, with as much confidence as if they were perfectly valid and unanswerable. We be- gin with a few observations upon what will, of course, not be denied,* viz.: that the view of the Eucharist which, though found in the writings of the earliest Fathers, it is now usual to designate as the Lutheran, is based upon the literal interpretation of the words of institution. Those who deny the correctness of this view maintain, that our Saviour's words are to be regarded as figurative. And we are accustomed to see it confidently affirmed, that the expressions employed by the Saviour, in instituting this most solemn ordinance, come under the same category as these: "I am the door :" "I am the vine :" "I am the good Shepherd," &c. &c. To this view of the subject there are many serious objections : * This is denied by Dr. Scbmucker, in the article which we received after this was written, and which is hereinafter answered : he calls Lu- ther s "The first figurative interpretation." 40 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN we shall state only a few. And first, the instances just cited, and many others of the same character, occur in discourses in which our Saviour was communicating im- portant instruction, and illustrating truth, in that parabolic or highly figurative mode of expression, which he so often adopted ; and in these instances there was no danger of his being misunderstood. But on the occasion of his last solemn passover with his disciples, he was not teaching, not communicating instruction, in no sense of the word preaching, but he was appointing a sacred rite, instituting, for all coming time, the most holy of Christian ordinan- ces ; an occasion therefore on which, it strikes us, figurative language would have been singularly out of place. We trust that we are not presumptuous in supposing, that our Lord would, in a transaction like the present, most earnestly and solicitously seek to avoid using any language capable of the least misconception, or misconstruc- tion, (except it were wilful), and therefore free from the slightest ambiguity. We are, of course, not authorized to judge what was, or what was not, proper to be DOCTRINE OF THE LORDS SUPPER. 41 said or done by our Lord; but, at the same time, we are not to put constructions on his words, which, departing from their literal meaning, their direct and plain sense, are irreconcilable with that perfect wisdom which characterized all his proceedings. And we are compelled by common sense, and by our reverence for Him who " spake as never man spake," to regard the pre- sent occasion as one which preeminently demanded the utmost definiteness, or pre- cision of language ; so that if he should be thereafter misunderstood or misinterpreted, it could only be by rejecting the simple, literal meaning of his words, by distorting his language, and putting upon it an arbi- trary and unwarranted construction. If the Church has been distracted and divided by controversies respecting the nature of the Holy Supper, let not its Holy Founder be made responsible for these lamentable re- sults, by representing his direct and simple language as being so infelicitous, so obscure- ly figurative, as naturally and necessarily to give rise to conflicting views. Take him as he speaks, and the whole difficulty van- ishes. It is well known, that here was 4* 42 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN Luther's strongest foothold, in all his dis- cussions and controversies concerning this important subject. He could never be in- duced to depart one hair's breadth from the only construction of which, according to the simplest principles of interpretation, our Saviour's words will admit; because, as he declared, the text was too stringent, and left him no choice. But again : the instances referred to, and so often cited as coming under the same category, and as showing how the words of the institution are to be understood, are not by any means parallel. It is contended that the words, "this is my body :" "this is my blood :" are to be thus explained : " this denotes or signifies my body," &c. If this be correct, and if the words of institution be in the same manner figurative as those figurative expressions which have been quoted, then it will be proper to construe these in the same way in which it is pro- posed to construe the words before us, thus : I signify the door : I signify the vine : I signify the light of the world : I signify the good shepherd. It needs not that we should labour to show how prepos- terous this would be. There is nothing more easy, nothing that men are more ready to do, in explaining passages of Scripture that do not accord with their notions and theories, than to set up the plea that the language is figurative. It is in this way that Unitarians get rid of the Divinity of Christ : they hold the lan- guage of Scripture bearing upon this point to be strongly metaphorical, or, more strictly speaking, that figure of speech termed hyper- bole, and denoting no more than a very eminent degree of that divinity, which they ascribe to mankind in general. It is well known, that in this way also the Universa- lists get rid of the doctrine of future and eternal punishments. We need not cite any more instances to show how cautious we ought to be in accepting such explana- tions, and how dangerous it is to apply the figurative theory, except in cases where the language is so palpably metaphorical, that it is impossible to understand it in any other way. That the words employed by our Saviour in instituting the Sacrament of his 44 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN Supper, present a case of this kind, has never yet been shown to the satisfaction of more than one-fourth of Christendom ; and until those, who maintain that the language here is figurative, advance better reasons in sup- port of their theory than we have yet seen, we must persist in peremptorily rejecting it. In the case of the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation the thing is perfectly clear, because here certain substances which are obviously one thing, are represented to be actually quite another thing. But with this absurdity the Lutheran view of the real presence of Christ's glorified humanity has evidently no connexion whatever. We know very well that Papists, who, though they imagine that they are most literal in their interpretation, are not so at all in reality, have been obliged to admit, that the cup is used figuratively for its contents. According to their view of the whole subject, this ad- mission was unavoidable : but according to the Lutheran view it is perfectly immaterial whether we adopt it or not, because we do not believe in any transmutation or tran- substantiation at all. And to our real view of this subject we are constrained to call DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 45 the reader's particular attention, because writers on the opposite side are wont studi- ously to conceal it, or to express themselves in such* a manner as to create the impression, that we are all but papistical transubstantia- tionists. We hold, that it is in the Sacra- ment itself, in the solemn celebration of this sacred ordinance, that Christians enjoy the actual presence of the glorified Redeemer, and that the unchanged bread and wine, received by the communicant, are not only the outward visible signs of an inward spirit- ual grace ; but, connected with the word and promise of God, the vehicles through whose instrumentality the divine Saviour communicates himself to those who partake of them. Hence the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as believed by Lutherans, is frequently designated as a "sacramental presence." That this view is founded on a far more literal interpretation of the words of the institution, one philologically more correct, than is that of the Papists, it is not difficult to show. Luther himself very well knew what an advantage he had here ; and he did not fail to make good use of it, treat- ing with merited indignation and scorn 46 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN Carlstadt's perversions of the grammatical structure of the sentences containing the words of institution. The point, which we have here particu- larly in view, is this. The English version of the N. T. reads thus : "This is my body :" "This is my blood of the New Testament," &c. The translation is perfectly correct ; but, as the demonstrative has in English no gender, it leaves room for a misappre- hension, which might be avoided by circum- locution. As we have reason to look for the utmost precision in the words employed on. the occasion of such an institution, the fact that our Lord does not say euros o apr^ &c. This bread is my body, &c., is cer- tainly not to be considered as accidental or unimportant. And when he says : rro *V< T tra/uM p.** : and rSro -yeip Ift TO ouf4.cn pu&, we are by no means satisfied that this is merely because it is usual in all languages to use the demonstrative in the neuter gender, in pointing to an object that is directly before us, and concerning which we are about to to say something. We conceive the T^T* to be used with wise design, in calling the attention of his disciples to that which DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 47 is bestowed upon them, in the act of giving them the bread : to the sacramental gift bestowed in connexion with, and instru- mentally through, the gift of the bread. Bengel's exposition of the words, which ac- cords with this view, and embodies it, has met with general acceptance: "hoc quod vos sumere jubeo," &c. And this vigilant caution of the Saviour to guard against misapprehension, appears still more plainly in his not afterwards saying : OVTOS o oivos^ &c. but, if the words of Luke should be prefer- red as the most full and precise : " T^TO TO Trorr'ptov j Y.O.W" &C. That TroTijpiov (cup) is here employed figuratively for its contents, does not, .as we have already remarked, concern us at all, as it does not affect our position in the least ; for we are not de- fending the transubstantiation of Papists, but the mysterious, sacramental presence taught in accordance with Scripture, by ihe Lutheran Church, which believes the Saviour to say : That which I give you in presenting you this cup, that which ye re- -ceive in drinking its contents, is my blood, is the fulness of the blessing of the New Testament [covenant] in my blood. 48 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN Again, the Sacred Supper of the New Covenant has come, with all its substantial realities, into the place of the passover un- der the Old. The passover stood in a peculiar and mysterious relation to a great histori- cal event, which it afterwards symbolically shadowed forth, and commemorated. The event itself was typical of the greater de- liverance which we owe to Christ our pass- over, sacrificed for us ; and the celebration of the passover pointed to that sacred insti- tution, in which believers feast sacramen- tally, in a manner mysterious and inexplica- ble, upon the body broken and the blood shed for the salvation of their souls. In the passover we have the shadow, in the Eucharist the reality ; and this same typical relation of the former to the latter justifies the view which we take, viz. that the TXTO is to be understood to mean : this which I now give you ; or : this which I now appoint and institute to be partaken of by you, and all who shall believe through your word. If we reject this view of the subject, we lose the actual, positive, objective reality of the Christian Sacrament, as distinguished from the typical rite of the old covenant. DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 49 Not to prolong too much this part of our discussion, we will only add, that the pas- sages which are so confidently appealed to as illustrating, and even proving, the figu- rative character of our Saviour's language in instituting his Holy Supper, are in yet another respect unsatisfactory: they are figurative only in a very modified and limit- ed sense : expressions which would apply in a very narrow, and in a highly meta- phorical sense to ordinary human beings, are applicable to him with a breadth and comprehensiveness of scope, with a reality, depth, height and force of meaning, which they but faintly express. Thus it is a strong metaphor to say, that a distinguished states- man is the pillar of the state, or that some gifted politician is the soul of his party. But, on the other hand, when Christ calls himself the light of the world, the way and the truth and the life, the door, the vine, the good shepherd, &c. there is a vast and unsearch- able and unfigurative reality in these repre- sentations, which sets the widest reach of metaphor at nought. He is the religious and moral light of the world, its central and only Sun : there is no door or way of access to 5 50 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN God but himself, and through him, actually and exclusively, we come to the Father : He is the truth, its impersonation, imbodiment and essence ; and whatsoever in the reli- gious and moral world does not emanate from him, point and lead to him, is not truth : He is life, its very author, source and ful- ness, and out of him there is no life ; nothing but death dark and dismal. It needs not that we should dwell on other instances, showing that even where the language used by the Saviour of himself may, in a certain limited sense, be regarded as figurative, the words have a literal force of reality, which the loftiest figures, into which the boldest fancy could mould human language, cannot adequately describe : and if so, how idle is it to talk of figurative language in connexion with that solemn institution, into which the obscurity of metaphor can only introduce inextricable confusion, as the writings of all who adopt the figurative theory so amply and lamentably prove. Taking the person- age who spoke, and the occasion on which he spoke, together, we conceive all figura- tive language to be utterly and totally out of the question. The next objection made to our view of the Eucharist, which we would briefly no- tice, is, that it is a novel doctrine a doc- trine invented in later times. That the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation is com- paratively modern ; that, indeed, it did not assume its present form, until it was, in the ninth century, distinctly thus stated by Paschasius Rhadbert, is undoubtedly true : evidence of its having been rejected by the early Fathers can be found collected, in ample detail, in Bishop Burnet's Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles. But what have Lutherans to do with this Popish dogma ? We notice it in this connexion only, because those who oppose the Lutheran doctrine concerning the Sacrament, are, from mo- tives best known to themselves, perpetually dragging the absurdities of Papistry into their discussions, and bringing them into some sort of connection with the views set forth in our Confessions. We might as well bring in and belabour the doctrines of Zer- duscht or Kongfutse, for the purpose of casting odium upon the Anxious Bench. That the doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper, which is held by the Lutheran 52 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN Church is modern that it was either not known, or offensive, to the early Church, is not true ; and although, as we have on a former occasion distinctly declared, we do not ascribe to the Fathers any authority to define and settle, for all subsequent ages, the doctrine of the Church, we regard, and must regard and believe them, as competent and true witnesses concerning the common faith and practice of the primitive Church. But on the entire point here at issue we do not intend to expatiate at any length : we shall content ourselves with translating the following short passage from Stier's Com- mentary on the Discourses of our Lord, Vol. VI. p. 161. "The testimony of the Fathers, from Ignatius, Justin, and Irenseus downward, is known to the learned. In opposition to the opinions of heretics the ofMfoytiv [unanimous testimony, TR.] of the Church is clear and decided : "TJ o-atpxat etvatt TS 6-6>TJ)po$ ypav 'lqT))Tt o They know and confidently tes- * " That the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which, through his goodness, the Father raised" i. e. from the dead. DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 53 tify : "*Oa yctp u$ XOIMV ce,proi ov TetuToc. hst/HfictvofArv ixsivK^rx ra,p>co7roiiievTio<;'li)(rov xau a-os.py.ct, x,oti a.\u.at, loiou^^vi^y stvoti^* To CX- plain away this xa^ Wr/ [common faith] of the Church from the beginning, is sophistry ; and to contradict it, from a conceit of su- perior wisdom, is, for that very reason, at least suspicious." On a subject of this kind we do not consider the speculations of mo- dern theologians, however vastly learned or wonderfully enlightened, worth a rush, in comparison with the doctrinal views of those who lived and wrote in the age immediately succeeding that of the apostles, from whom their knowledge of Christian doctrine was directly derived. We proceed now to examine, as briefly * "We do not receive these as common bread or a common drink we have been taught that they are both the flesh and the blood of that same Jesus who was made flesh." By this the early Fathers meant no such thing as transubstantiation. We have already stated where a great number of citations from their writings may be found collected, showing that they repudiated the doctrine which the Romish Church afterwards embraced. They could then have held none other than the Lutheran view. 5* 54 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN as possible, an argument which is constantly used, and very much relied upon, as quite conclusive against the doctrine of our Con- fessions concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. This doctrine, it is con- tended, is contrary to all experience, and utterly at variance with the laws of matter, the laws which govern bodily existences, and confine each distinct body to some par- ticular space or locality. With respect to the first point, the contrariety of our doc- trine to experience, we do not think it worth while to say much, as it is of very little moment. Every well educated man knows that this is Hume's argument against our Lord's miracles against the possibility of miracles. The futility of his premises or general principles has been demonstrated, and the rottenness of his argument fully exposed, in a variety of dissertations written by grave and able men; and archbishop Whately has effectually exposed his falla- cies, and held them up to the ridicule and scorn which they deserve, in his celebrated work entitled : " Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte." Theologians had better be careful how they avail themselves DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 55 of modes of reasoning adopted by infidels, when they seek to discredit doctrines, which a great part of Christendom find in the Scriptures, but which are irreconcilable with their subjective views their own theories. For the past experience of mankind we would not give a groat, when it comes in conflict with any thing revealed in the word of Him who has made all things, and knows all things. To this argument about human expe- rience, the animus of the present age is not very favourable ; for the discoveries in phy- sical science, and the countless inventions in all the mechanical arts, which have, for many years past, been astonishing and re- volutionizing the world, have long since turned all implicit reliance upon the past experience of mankind most unceremoni- ously out of doors ; and there we shall leave it, to be condoled with by those who regard it with sympathy. But the other point deserves a more ex- tended notice, though we do not think it will be difficult to show, that it has no greater value than the one which we have just considered. There is, then, no objec- 56 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN tion more frequently and confidently urged against the Lutheran view of the Eucharist than this, that it contradicts the evidence of our senses, and the universal observation of mankind, by which it is fully ascertained, that a body cannot be in more than one place at a time. Now, that this is entirely true, and that this objection is perfectly valid, in respect of the ordinary bodies or substances belonging to this terrestrial globe, this temporal, mundane economy, is unhesi- tatingly admitted ; although there are even here, as we shall see, some startling pheno- mena not a little perplexing to positive generalizes. Nor do we doubt, that bodies or substances, such as we are conversant with, are subject to the same law, in what- ever part of God's universe they may be found. But this does not prove, that there may not be corporeal, substantial existences of a much higher order, and subject to far other laws, than those which come under our observation. It seems to us in the last degree impertinent and presumptuous for the tenants of this little globe, this speck in the vast universe, confidently to assert that the laws which govern their existence, DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 57 and the position and movements of the bodies which surround them, must be the same throughout the immeasurable realms of creation. It is perfectly clear from Scripture, that angelic beings either have bodies, or have often assumed them for special purposes ; and all (we believe with- out exception) the angelic appearances re- lated in the Bible clearly prove, that the laws which govern their presence and move- ments are totally different from those to which we are subject. And, in view of all this, it certainly does not become us to as- sert, that, in devising and ordaining the order of things prevailing on earth, or throughout our solar system, the Almighty has exhausted his power of invention and design . It would be preposterous arrogance to assert, that other regions of the universe may not be subject to physical laws, the very reverse of those which prevail on our sphere of action. And although all this is mere speculation, it is, at all events, evident that to elevate the evidence of our senses, or universal human observation into a uni- versal law for the entire creation, is non- sense ; especially when we are certain that 58 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN beings belonging to a higher economy, and coming frequently, perhaps being con- stantly, in contact with human affairs, obey far other laws than those which govern the grosser elements of our nature. But letting all this pass, w r e remark again, that the evidence of our senses, or the universal observation of mankind, is trustworthy and valuable only as far as it goes, which, in some directions, is certainly not very far. For all the ordinary practical purposes of life its availability is perfect, and its value inappreciable. But let it be consid- ered, that even within the sphere of daily in- spection and inquiry it encounters mysteries, which are as utterly inexplicable as the doc- trine which we are discussing. Let it be re- membered, that in numberless instances, the evidence of our senses, or the universal ob- servation of mankind, bears witness only of undeniable facts, whose rationale to as- certain, whose mode of being to discover and define, is utterly beyond the reach of human capacity. There are facts in natural history and chemistry, which, however clearly ascertained as facts, no human in- tellect can, or ever will, understand or ex- DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 59 plain, except, perhaps, amid the light of the future world. And some of these are isolated things, standing solitary and alone, having no analogies in the wide compass of nature, defying our senses to discover any thing like them anywhere else, ap- pealing to universal observation for their utter singularity, flatly contradicting all col- lateral experience, and refusing to bestow upon the acutest sagacity, and the keenest scrutiny, even the minutest spark of in- formation respecting their real nature, or mode of being. And do we therefore ever dream of denying such facts ? We would scorn to employ the sophistry which is so common in discussions of this kind. Let it not, therefore, be supposed, that we are urging these considerations with the design of producing, any where, the impression, that they have any direct bear- ing upon the great subject of the present treatise. We present them merely in order to show r , that the appeal to our senses, and the universal observation of mankind, must go for nothing in a case, which lies confess- edly beyond the scope of our senses, and could not be searched out, if all the power OU SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN of observation possessed by the whole hu- man race, were concentrated into one in- tensely keen and piercingly scrutinizing gaze ; while, on the other hand, even the common material world offers to our inspec- tion countless facts and phenomena of extra- ordinary interest, the real nature of which our senses strive in vain to penetrate and ascertain. And here we wish to enter our solemn protest against the practice so often resorted to, of applying the so-called laws of nature, or of matter, to facts or doctrines revealed in the Word of God respecting a higher economy than ours, and then deter- mining, according to these laws, (in other words, according to the evidence of our senses, or of universal observation), in what manner these facts or doctrines are to be explained. What, we would ask, are the laws of nature or of matter ? Are they un- alterable statutes, imposed by nature (who is nature?) upon herself? Are they laws, evolved by matter out of itself, and deter- mining the nature or mode of its existence and its movements, with a precision and a stringency that admit of no exceptions or changes ? Have these laws so much even DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 61 as a shadow of existence, independent of the will, of the originating and sustaining power of Him who alone did and could ordain them ? If he should will their dis- continuance or abrogation; nay, if he ceased to will that they shall continue to exist and to operate, would they not in- stantaneously cease to be, as utterly as if they had never been ? And can He not then change or annihilate them at pleasure ? Or are they green withes, with which the Al- mighty Creator has so completely tied up his own hands, that he cannot move, or control at pleasure, his own works ? When our Saviour, while on earth, healed diseases with a touch or a word, nay, at a distance probably of miles from those upon whom his power was exerted, how much of the process was submitted to the senses of those around him ? Did they see any thing more than an effect ? Had they not, up to that time, the most decided evidence of their senses, and of universal observation, that diseases, and those the most frightful, are not healed by a touch or a word ? And when with a word he raised the dead, did they not unanimously testify, that such a 62 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN thing had never been seen or heard of before ? We repeat, that we advance these considerations merely in order to insist, that when the Almighty chooses to adopt some mode of procedure different from any ever witnessed before, and in which our senses shall be completely at fault ; when it is his pleasure that Moses shall see a bush obviously burning and yet not burn- ing ; when it pleases him to set at nought nil the past experience and observation of men ; when the disciples can walk all the way to Emmaus with Jesus, and sit at meat with him, and yet not know him, though they had known him for years, it is all folly and presumption to say, that these things cannot and must not be, because they con- tradict the evidence of men's senses, and universal observation.* And if thus it is * Dr. Schmucker says, in his Article on the Nature of the Saviour's Presence in the Eucharist, p. 38, Ev. Rev. for July, 1851. "No testimony is so strong as that of the senses ; because on it rests our be- lief even of the Scriptures." This assertion calls for important qualifications. The testimony of the senses is so sure as to be safely relied upon in all the ordinary affairs, and common practical interests of life. But it is reliable only when the sense* DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 63 folly and impertinence to assert, in a gene- ral way, that God shall do nothing, and reveal nothing, or that no interpretation of his word shall stand, that does not accord with the evidence of our senses, as if these were infallible and could not be deceived, or that does not correspond with the past universal observation of mankind, how much more impertinent and arrogant is it, to apply this canon to a doctrine which observe under favourable circumstances : when the object seen is near, and in a clear light : when the sound heard is distinct, and when the object from which it proceeds; is seen, or, at least, certainly known to be the only one in the place capable of producing it. But our senses are so notoriously subject to a great many illusions, that the fact has been, long since, put into the form of a proverb : as, " Der Schein triigt :" "Appearances are de- ceitful." What becomes of the evidence of the senses, as respects the feats performed by modern Hindoo and Egyptian magicians, by such jugglers as Blitz and Anderson, and by many so-called ven- triloquists ? What is the origin of most ghost sto- ries ? When Dr. Webster was under trial, two very respectable women testified under oath, that they hac seen Dr. Parkman after the time of his alleged murder. Every body knows that our senses are liable to be deceived in numberless ways. 64 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN has reference to a glorified body, myste- riously and inseparably united with an in- finitely glorious divine nature, and when we know nothing of the capabilities of a glorified body, least of all of a glorified body united, like our Saviour's, with the divine nature of the Son of God. But for the further discus- sion of this point we are not yet ready. For the present we wish to show, that even with reference to our Saviour's humanity, pre- vious to his being glorified, it is inadmissible to reason from the universal observation and experience of mankind. We contend, that divers important events in the history of our Lord's earthly life forbid us to apply to his person the ordinary laws of matter, or to erect them into barriers to his move- ments and activity, when, in his infinite wisdom, he sees fit to disregard what is no doubt the ordinary course of things, and to dissolve relations which, though ascertained to prevail as far as we know, in general, we have no authority to consider as impe- rative laws, by which the Creator himself, (and is not the Son of God the Creator ?) had literally tied his own hands. On one occasion Christ was seen walking on the DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, 65 sea, and even enabled Peter to do the same, so long as he believed. What became here, in the persons of Peter and the Lord, of the laws of matter ? Was the law of gravi- tation suspended, or was the water con- gealed, or were their bodies sublimated into something lighter than w r ater ? The answer is due from those who reject the doctrine of the real presence, because it conflicts with the known and established laws of mat- ter or corporeity. Thus also our Lord seems, after his resurrection, to have ap- peared to his disciples in different forms (see Mark xvi. 12.); and on one occasion, as related by Luke (xxiv. 36.) and John (xx. 19.), he suddenly stood in their midst, when, for fear of the Jews, the doors were shut, or rather, locked bolted barred secured fastened: "T Svpat KfxA*e-|W.fv \ gk^d r;' tfafe dsttibiishing 'ifcfe absefrved %)f*he spekero tafceii place.*; vbr&inii , J of rofebcsti^ actr^j ik iieafiofely/iAnd^ifhemsi w^e;ii(Diisiddi;y th^-t jtia Hblyr ISaorj9rqi^n chafactiBBi6f its of most a pra^ arM to oihs&tr ^i Jhai geivnen ) i institutioa^ i tie Hotyi'Suppejri twafe, : my stefi^bsfy/ yet ripuly 1 land i : a6tua%,y Mbe communion of 1 t&B /body and feloodsof Lamb ?f \vtach "Vvas^lai of: thteyUrorhLiii Wfa$i eiikdr ^ritew l oeiiifei&f tfeife ->tfe istratogly la>ttei:. .doiurfO rusitarafO iij 10 l^itidiad IbeenJonfj iiitentioni t&ic&try out oa^:>disGtu^sion f ;~vi4thot dialect >re%fcehjoe it0 aarp tvmtdrs' "opposed itp theiLmtherani , fe&sitfras; ^dtiaiMae-ofthreppated oVj^ oiijotii: ist] haire 76 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN been presented, in martial array, in Dr. Schmucker's recent article, it will, for va- rious reasons, be best that we should take them up in the form, if not quite in the or- der, in which they are there exhibited. And this we shall accordingly proceed to do. There is but one point in the Doctor's Introduction which we feel called upon to notice. Respecting the doctrine here be- fore us he states (p. 34), 'that "it has been a bone of contention in the Protestant Church, with but little intermission, ever since its origin, until about fifty years ago, when the Lutheran Church almost univer- sally abandoned the views, which Luther and his co-labourers, with few exceptions, entertained." If the word "origin" here refers to the doctrine, we have only to re- peat, what has already been shown, that the origin of the doctrine dates back to the beginning of the Christian Church. As to the rest, we incline to think, that a correct knowledge of the true state of the case would reduce the expression, "almost uni- versally," to "to a considerable extent." If the statement has any particular refer- ence to the Lutheran Church in this coun- : jt to decide the ; , fifty ^IJMffl ^^./^!!^ $^ 78 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN not yet heard of any formal, universal abrogation of our Confessions ; and the event is less likely than ever to occur. Is it not quite noteworthy and thankworthy that, as the pernicious miasmata and the illusive ignes fatui of modern rationalism and neology in Germany were compelled to give way before the light diffused through the revival of a candid, humble, reverent and devout study of the Scriptures, and as theology again learned submission to the Bible, the most thoroughly educated and enlightened theologians of our Church be- gan to return to the unaltered text of her Confession, the loyal adherents of which are daily increasing in number ? In his first section (p. 35. sq.) Doctor S. lays down certain "general principles of in- terpretation," respecting which we have little to say. The first paragraph contains an assertion concerning the nature of words, which a superficial acquaintance with the subject may seem to warrant, but which, upon thorough research, and a profound study of the sources of our modern lan- guages, is proved to be untenable and ut- terly incorrect. This, however, merely en DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 79 passant : we have no time for philological disquisitions. As respects his subordination of inspired language to the judgments of natural reason and of common sense, and his rejection, as untrue, of what his natural reason and his common sense cannot approve, though it be the meaning of Scripture literally under- stood, we had seen this position taken so often before, that it did not at all startle us to encounter it again in this place. Hence we took no notice of it at first. We deem it, however, proper to state here, that we regard it as essentially and thoroughly rationalistic ; and we are satisfied, that whenever this rule or canon comes to be strictly and consistently carried out in its application to revealed truth, by divines of still orthodox churches, we shall soon see that many doctrines, which are now con- sidered fundamental and of paramount im- portance, among them that of the insepar- able union of the divine and human natures in Christ, of the Trinity, and with these, that of redemption, will be cast away. The advocates of the paramount authority of natural reason and common sense, which another, a different thing, c' i^a ; ^ ini ilfais or > dai^ n onqiKlel io i^i^^ge .- 1 1 toithfe M16 wirtgf Mt afeeiii'tot >) rf,; ra^s^4;Qf ^rneaal ordbafftl tWei^ fjnatrita^ t f anqsflfii ofeMi^tts, t an^ < occur, to iftM J DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 81 cussion, when we read, for the first time, the dissertation on the doctrine of the Eu charist, which Dr. Schmucker appended to the first edition of his translation of Storr and Flatt's Elementary Course of Biblical Theology, published in 1826. Viewed by the side of his article now before us, this dissertation possesses a peculiar interest. It is composed mainly of extended extracts from the writings of Reinhard and Mos- heim, in which it is clearly shown that the words of institution are not, and cannot be, figurative, and the entire consistency of the Lutheran view with Scripture and reason is most effectually vindicated. We have not room, in this place, to quote from these extracts; we may do so on a subsequent page. If our readers will look them up, and read them in connexion with the article to which we are now endeavouring to reply, we promise them that they will find them quite rich and delicious. In his conclusion, the Doctor himself labours very successfully, by a train of reasoning totally different, in the main, from that which we have pre- sented supra, to show that the appeal to the " properties and laws of matter," in ar- 82 guing' agaiiist^the LoirdJs * Supper^ i^> fyiattfcuso and absurd : ofl&irfgi -:tfcfL$, whde^WottHcitirch's denial tfoo&e > ^rQpMess^ ' isLiSl*'- sifej ^ctf ; j to ,]5]? ? a e -the agree %ittt i of <3hri$t wifar ^mof d inS iijs) pe$e*ti terial) i Bodies i oif the f greatest ^xaliat^n ' from Ms ) -^ith j ; G*od? B without ' destroying f he properties (ubkho^viiillo^iJs^^f His fifed 'bd>y/'n HBenei dixisti; refrjarfciis; as^fbiloks^ ^ we j (tviBh'l merety 'ltd ; . * tap 'i ait^eitlri^^J ftf Scrfptuce; i iar^ll itfeat^i a^' m- thV>cfasei M tH^ d0ctrin-e. > of .> the f 'TriYiit it) IHa^e tHe in^irdii writers " Aiid' ith'is 4tiestibn4ia' Been^uly-dis^ussed - CXF in i 4hfvjpfwc*ding'y f&ragtajfti 6f/ onr andi f hlo tipel < exlfcadfsi r irorri : (flues wcrrife Off i Dm i; >Wheik> r we t ftnSna> tewfar ^jfte'i if ram; oMio atte ^dffflteteiqr^ar dciatSe ligHt dihe: acnpfeffl6hg the i.EuH :pt Ujjorii ifcini deep regret,. 1th at{ beeqi / 4edj i rixyj 1 pMbo^piiealc j to abandon '?aldoc}tr&e>oW!h;iclj i ously ? taught t hyi tbeiSsadited fScri df> whieh Ms shooid:> cd iii: the-ckigti-.fNb.fof-Jtiii BeSriew, w dmnri^a hasfe> fbrit! ;lit'1>lft otm ;sa whrit isilthfeiiie grviefa I&B//' The>liteifa'i' of; (the! tfoMff fjtkejJnstHutioni;*!' ftterebrji the! RtJpisli 9int^pet sibBiatia^lon . . < t M0 ^have riied Ihktiltfiiis Hniferpretatrottiife i 'would 84 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN manner in which the Saviour's words are, in this section, between marks of quotation, amplified, distorted, and made self-contra- dictory, for the purpose of caricaturing the so-called literal interpretation of the Ro- manists. Such proceedings are unworthy a grave and dignified divine. To the wri- ter's strong assertion respecting the superior validity of the testimony of our senses, w y e have replied in a note on p. 62. Having disposed of the Romish super- stition, Dr. S. proceeds to give what he is pleased to style "the first figurative inter- pretation (that of Luther)" of the words of the institution, in a burlesque amplification, and a downright caricature of our Saviour's language. If the Doctor imagines that such outrages are creditable to himself and those who agree with him, and that they will gain friends to the side which he has espoused, he will, we fancy, find himself sadly mistaken. For our part, we shall not further meddle with his unwarranted and bizarre paraphrase of words, which, in their plain and direct meaning, are suscep- tible of one widely different from his, as we have already shown ; he is welcome to DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 85 all the praise which his efforts as a carica- turist may procure him. That the Luthe- ran interpretation is not figurative at all, but the only truly literal one that we know of, we have also fully set forth on a pre- ceding page. It therefore only remains in this place, that we briefly notice another instance of his promptness to supply words which those, upon whose language he is commenting, never used, and meanings which they never intended. In a note on p. 39. he puts the tenth article of the Augs- burg Confession into the following words : "the body and blood of the Lord are truly and substantially (vere et substantialiter) present, and tendered and received, as the Romish Church has hitherto believed* (wie man bis anher inderKirchen gehaltenhat.)" Now this is a downright perversion, an in- excusable instance of misrepresentation, and calculated to mislead every reader un- acquainted with the German language. The article in question says not a word about the Romish Church, but speaks of the Church in general terms of that Church which existed long before. Romanism was * The italics are his own. 8 86 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN born ; and that the primitive Church held those views, which he is here assiduously- labouring to bring into discredit, we have already proved by the requisite evidence. But what must candid readers think of a cause which requires such methods of de- fence as that to which our author has here resorted ? In another note on p. 41, he cites the language of the Visitation Articles of Saxo- ny, in order to render that of the Symboli- cal Books more offensive. We shall here only reply, that it has always been well understood, that the language quoted from the Visitation Articles was never intended to be received in so gross a sense as to identify our Lord's body in the Sacrament with his earthly body, as will, moreover, clearly appear upon a candid examination of the whole context. And, at all events, whatever may be thought of the represen- tation made in these articles, the Symboli- cal Books of the Lutheran Church are not at all responsible for it : those Articles have never had authority out of Saxony, where sovereign power imposed, and required subscription to them, and hence they ought DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 87 never to have been printed with the Sym- bolical Books of our Church, except in an Appendix. We do wish, that those who controvert our Confessions would confine themselves to such books as have real sym- bolical authority. We proceed. The general drift of the argument advanced by our author under b., c., d. e., on pp. 41 sqq. has already been answered in that part of our discussion, which w r as written before we received the article before us. We have therefore yet only to attend to a few of his specifications. The manner in which instances are men- tioned, in which the risen Saviour appeared to one or more of his disciples, and not at the same time to others, amounts to noth- ing more than transparent special pleading : we might as well be told, that when he pronounced the parable of the sower, he was not, at the same time, uttering that of the good Samaritan, and so on. If the risen Saviour deemed it proper to show himself, on different occasions, to one or more of his friends, while others were ab- sent, does this prove any thing more than that he chose, in his wisdom, to act so and 88 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN no otherwise ? Does it demonstrate the im- possibility of his doing a thousand other things which he did not do ? But does our author forget that shortly before his ascen- sion, our Saviour ate with (or in the pre- sence of) his disciples? "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honey-comb. And he took it, and did eat before them." Luke xxiv. 42, 43. In the narrative found in St. John xxi. 1 14. the fact that the Saviour himself ate on that occasion is not distinctly stated, but it may be justly inferred from all the circumstances of the case. These events plainly prove, that our Lord's human nature was not yet perfectly glorified. And this is equally evident from other considerations, for his body still obviously possessed certain or- dinary properties of terrestrial bodies, such as visibility, tangibility, &c. We know very well, that the state which is, in syste- matic divinity, termed the status exalta- tionis, began with the resurrection ; but we conceive it to be indisputable that the Son of Man was not fully glorified, until he ascended to heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father Almighty ; and DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 89 as the controversy respecting the real pre- sence of Christ's body and blood in the Eu- charist has reference to his perfectly glori- fied humanity, the argument here employed by Dr. S. necessarily falls to the ground. But there is another point, already dis- cussed in extenso, to be briefly noticed here : this, namely, that the Lutheran inter- pretation of the words of institution "con- tradicts the observation of all ages and nations, that all bodies, (material substan- ces) must occupy definite portions of space, and cannot be at more than one place at the same time." [See the whole statement on p. 41. b.] We would here merely pre- sent a few analogies from nature, which those who are applying the ordinary laws of matter or corporeity to the glorified body of Christ, may take into serious considera- tion. The sun is sensibly present through- out at least the whole of our system, by its light, its heat, and its pow r er of attraction, whereby it centralizes the movements of all the bodies that belong to our section of the universe. If a telegraph wire extended, in one unbroken line, from New- York to St. Louis [the effect would be the same if 90 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN it ran round the globe], and the electric current were passed into it at either ter- minus, the same electric spark would be at one and the same moment, in St. Louis arid New- York, and at all intermediate places, certainly without any appreciable difference of time.* More analogies of a similar nature might be given ; not, cer- tainly, to prove any thing positive respect- ing the ubiquity of our Lord's glorified hu- manity, but merely to show, that if material objects with which men are regularly con- versant, and w r hich are, in a greater or less degree, subject to the direct inspection of our senses, and even to our control, exhibit such remarkable properties, such astonish- ing phenomena, it is in the highest degree presumptuous to assert, that the Lord of glory cannot, in his infinitely exalted and glorified humanity, be present, entire and undivided, if it so please him, in all places of his dominions. * " Electricity passes instantaneously to any dis- tance on the earth's surface." " The news received from foreign countries may reach all parts of the United States at the same moment" " The velo- city of electricity amounts to 288,000 miles per second." Gray's Elements of Natural Philosophy. On p. 42 we find the following assertion : "The alleged 'spiritual' presence of the Saviour's body is a contradiction in terms." Is it indeed? Well, we can supply our au- thor with a few more such contradictions, and he may dispose of them as he best can : " It is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" [1 Cor. xv. 44]". Really, the apostle Paul shows very little deference to the decisions of philosophers. But here is another : "But a moral signification, as is evident from the passages just quoted, is far more agreeable to the usus loquendi, and is perfectly easy and natural. The cup of the blessing is it not the communion, does it not bring us spiritually into communion with the body of Christ," &c. [Dr. Schmucker on the Nature of the Saviour's Presence in the Eucharist : Ev. Rev. for July, 1851, p. 46.] What does our friend mean by being brought spiritually into communion with the body of Christ ? What does this spiritual com- munion with a body mean? According to our author it is simply a point-blank contradiction in terms. We, who hold 92 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN that the reception of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, is, though con- nected with the reception of material ele- ments, not grossly sensuous, but in an im- portant sense a spiritual communion, have no difficulty with the subject. But more of this when this point comes up in due order. Having already answered the objections under c., d., and e., we proceed to/., on p. 43. It is here argued, that the doctrine of the real presence cannot be true, because the Scriptures represent Christ as having left this world, as having returned to the Father, and -as being seated at his right hand in heaven: it is urged, that "he was carried up into heaven" and that Peter de- clares, that " the heavens must receive him until the times of the restitution of all things, which God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began." &c. &c. If this argument avails any thing, it must prove, that though there be a divine presence in the Church on earth, the exalted Mediator, the glorified Redeem- er, is in heaven, and cannot, therefore, be in his Church, or have any thing to do with DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 93 it, as the God-man. For surely, in his per- son the two natures are inseparably united, constituting the one only Mediator; and where he is at all, there he is totus, entire and undivided. We are really surprised that a veteran theologian, like Dr. S., should use arguments like this, to prove the impossibility of the glorified Saviour's presence, in his personal integrity or entire- ty, among his people ; and especially that he should support his reasoning by an ap- peal to Matt. xxiv. 23., as if this passage had any connexion whatever with the sub- ject in hand, and were not directly intend- ed to caution his disciples against the pre- tensions of pseudo-messiahs, and various false rumours. But if this argument has any bearing against the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, its force must reach far beyond this, for it is equally valid, (as we have seen), against the Saviour's being in any sense present in his Church, and indeed, against the entire doctrine of the divine omnipresence. We will not weary our readers by citing the numberless passages in the Old and New Testaments, which, on the one hand, directly declare, and on the 94 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN other indirectly imply, that God dwelleth and reigneth in heaven : let a single one suffice : " Our Father who art in heaven /" Now, if the argument under consideration proves, that he, who is in the undivided in- tegrity of his divine and human nature the glorious Head of the Church universal, can- not thus be present among his people on earth, it also proves that the Almighty Fa- ther is not and cannot be omnipresent, is not and cannot be present any where but in heaven ; for this part of the Doctor's argu- ment rests entirely on the declarations that represent Christ as having gone to, and as being in, heaven. In connexion with the passages cited by Dr. S., we may here refer to John xvi. 16. : "A little while, and ye shall not see me : and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father ;" and John xvi. 22.: "And ye now therefore have sor- row ; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you :" which seeing of him, after his brief removal, the best commen- tators understand, for divers cogent rea- sons, to mean the perpetual communion of believers with him. As respects the passage, Acts iii. 21., o $u xaxvlv pkv (Js^ac-Soti; translated, "whom the heaven must receive," and thus quoted here ; does not our author know, that, according to the grammatical construction, the words are as readily and correctly translated : " who must take possession of heaven :" ov and not xpxvov, being the accusative before the infinitive ? The use of a middle verb confirms the propriety of this rendering, which is, in every respect, more accordant with the exalted dignity of the personage spoken of, who is constantly represented, not as being carried to heaven by other agents, but as ascending into heaven, and whom St. Paul expressly describes as hav- ing " ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things;" Eph. iv. 10., and not that heaven might so receive him, as there locally to confine and shut him up. And the apostle evidently says this of the glori- fied Redeemer ; for, that God was univer- sally present did not, in this place, demand so solemn an announcement. Of course the whole passage refers to Christ. 9b SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN In this same connexion the author says : " And although the Saviour left on record the delightful promise, that he would be always with his disciples till the end of the world, it was in his divine nature, which is omnipresent ; and his next visible appear- ance, the angels informed the men of Gali- lee at his ascension, would again be from heaven in like manner as they had seen him ascend." We should like to ask Dr. S. whether, either in the sanctuary, or at the domestic altar, or in the closet, he ever prays for the divine presence, ever entreats the exalted Mediator and Redeemer to be- stow the favour of his gracious presence ; and if so, whether he means no more than this, that the divine omnipresence might not be suspended, but be continued unto and over those with and for whom he prays ? Tn fact, this manner of explaining the Sa- viour's delightful promise robs it of all its force, and strips it of all that special com- fort, and joy which it was designed to com- municate. If it implied no more than the divine omnipresence, then it is simply tan- tamount to saying ; that providence which, as God, I exercise over all my works, will DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 97 not be withdrawn from you, but will be over and with you at all times, unto the end of the world. Such promises, rich, indeed, in blessing and comfort, but entirely general, they had doubtless often read in the Old Testament. But the context, the entire occasion, compels the belief that something special and peculiar was intend- ed that he would be present in his Church and with his people, in a peculiar manner, different from his presence in the world by his overruling providence. And we con- tend, that he promised to be present in the character in which he spake, as the Son of God and man, in the indivisible oneness of his divine and human nature ; nor are we any where told, that he is ever otherwise present, in one nature and not in the other. And whether men choose to call this a per- petual miracle or not, the promise remains sure, that the divine and human person constituting the one Mediator, will be with his people always, even unto the end of the world. Next objection. P. 44. g. : "Again, whilst the idea, that Christ is figuratively represented as the spiritual food of the 9 98 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN believer, is a delightful, consoling and be- coming one ; the supposition that the be- liever is to eat the actual flesh of his best friend, and drink his real blood, is a gross, repulsive and unnatural idea, which nothing but the clearest evidence would authorize us to adopt." " Gross, repulsive, and un- natural idea !" Yes, if we held that gross sort of reception, which Luther calls Ca- pernaitish eating, or if, like the Papists, we taught transubstantiation. But of this else- where. With reference to the objection here more particularly before us, we, in the first place, translate the following sentences from Sartorius : [Christi Person und Werk.] " It is further said, that to partake of Christ's body and blood is a revolting idea: where, however, those who make this objection, themselves carry the revolt- ing element into the idea, by representing to themselves the act, as did the Jews at Capernaum, in the most grossly sensuous and inhuman manner. But there is surely, in another form, a partaking of the flesh and blood of a human being, which, al- though still very material and sensuous, yet not only presents nothing revolting, SUPPER. 99 but is rather an emblem (Bild) of the ten- derest love ; we mean this, when a mother nourishes her sucking child with her flesh and blood.* But with this also, our par- taking of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is not to be compared, be- cause here every thing that is materially (or grossly, TV.) sensuous is out of the ques- tion, and only the supersensuous substance thereof is received with arid under the bread and wine. Thus every thing offen- sive and repulsive disappears," &c. This is well said. But we have yet another, and, we think, most important considera- tion to urge. If the reception of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist "is a gross, repulsive, and unnatural idea," what are we to say of the doctrine, that mankind were redeemed from sin and eternal death through Christ's atoning sacrifice? It will not, we suppose, be pretended, that Christ came into the world to deliver men from * We would go still further, and instance the manner in which the life of the unborn child is sustained, nourished, and developed in the mo- ther's womb. Is there any thing repulsive or re- volting in this. Verbum sapienti sat. 100 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN physical infirmities and sufferings, other- wise than indirectly through the cure and removal of that moral disease, by which all sorts of physical sufferings are brought upon the children of men ; and certainly the disciples of Christ have not, through their connexion with him, obtained exemp- tion from those infirmities and sufferings which are the common lot of humanity. It was the moral, the spiritual relations of mankind to their Creator, which he came to restore, from the disordered and evil state into which they had fallen, to their normal and legitimate condition ; he came to save men's souls ; to reconcile man, as a moral being, to his God ; to heal his moral diseases ; to effect his moral or spir- itual renovation ; and to fit him for the en- joyment of happiness flowing from moral sources, having a moral or spiritual basis. And yet, notwithstanding this moral or spir- itual design of his mission, it was necessary that the Son of God should appear in the flesh; should suffer and bleed and die in the flesh ; that his body should be broken and his blood shed, as a propitiatory sacri- fice for sin, to which pointed all the sin- DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 101 offerings offered from the beginning 1 of time. Whatever else was necessary to render the sacrifice effectual, nothing is more certain than that the physical sufferings and death of Christ, as the Lamb of God, were indis- pensable, "forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conver- sation received by tradition from your fa- thers ; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot," 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.; and while we are told that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission," w r e are also assured that "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." Now, viewing this subject from the standpoint of the opponents of our Confession, we ask, what means more gross and unnatural could have been employed to effect the great moral ends of the gospel scheme ? What idea can be more repulsive than this, that, in order to ac- complish the reconciliation of man's soul with the Eternal Spirit, such a bodily sacri- fice, such physical sufferings and death of the innocent Jesus should have been im- peratively necessary ? God forbid that we 9* 102 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN should intimate, that in all this there is aught gross, repulsive and unnatural : but we do say, that, if this charge lies against the Lutheran view, not mis-stated or dis- torted, respecting the Eucharist, it holds with equal comprehensiveness and force against the doctrine of atonement through a bleeding and crucified Saviour. We see nothing gross, repulsive, or unnatural in either doctrine : but those who make such objections against the one, are bound, in consistency, to make them against the other. As respects the remarks at the close of this section, 9., with respect to the term spiritual applied by the Form of Concord to eating and drinking material flesh and blood, [recollect, Lutherans believe that Christ's body is glorified], in a manner ut- terly unintelligible, we do not deem it ne- cessary to say more, than that to us it is quite as intelligible as Dr. Schmucker's as- sertion, that the cup of blessing brings us spiritually into communion [i. e. spiritual communion] with the body of Christ. See p. 46. Our author next proceeds to examine DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 103 "several expressions in the portion of Scrip- ture discussing this subject, which have been supposed to favour Luther's interpre- tation ;" and he labours hard to show that they can have no such bearing. The first passage which passes through the ordeal of his criticism is, 1 Cor. xi. 27. The reader is referred to p. 45 of the July No. of the Review. Hear our author: "It has been said, * How could w T e be guilty of the body of Christ, if it were not present?' We answer; To be guilty of the body, means in the original, to be guilty or com- mit sin in reference to the body : that is, to make the body of Christ the occasion of committing sin." Very well said. But how this is to be accomplished, except that body be present, is far beyond our feeble powers of comprehension. To treat with irreverence, or to insult, on earth, a body that is in heaven, and far above all heavens, is a mystery entirely too deep for us to penetrate. However, we are having help. The Doctor proceeds, and gives us as won- derful a piece of argumentation as we have ever had the felicity of inspecting. " And must not all admit, that we can and often 104 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN do commit sin in regard to absent per- sons or things ? May we not sin, or be guilty, in regard to an absent friend [rather a shabby sort of friendship this, at all events], by slandering or even thinking ill of him, just as well as when he is present ?" Why yes, to be sure ; but what in all the world can this have to do with our friend's body, unless we go and commit assault and battery upon him ? And even if, when he is absent, we were to say of him, that he is a paragon of ugliness, and this were to be repeated to him, we fancy that he would regard the offence as committed, not against his body, but against him, the in- tellectual and moral man, our friend. We go on. "Do we not insult the majesty of an absent king, when we treat with indig- nity a monument or other memorial which has been established in honour of him V Ay, surely : we grant, that, if he were to hear of such disrespectful proceedings, his pride might be offended, his dignity wounded, his conscious soul aggrieved : but unless, in ad- dition to all this, we should assail him per- sonally and lay violent hands on him, his body would, we conceive, care nothing at DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 105 all about the affair, and certainly be none the worse for it. No sir, no ! We must keep serious. And we do most solemnly contend, that this very declaration of St. Paul is one which the opponents of the Lutheran Confession never can get over, never can torture to say any thing else, than that unworthy communicants are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord ; guilty of insulting and treating with irreve- rence and indignity the body and blood of our Lord, because his body and blood are present in the Holy Sacrament, which such unworthy communicants dishonour, by not discerning, not bearing in mind and devoutly considering, that it is the glorified body of Christ which, in mysterious con- nexion with the visible elements, is pre- sented to them ; by not receiving it with a believing and loving soul, and therefore by treating it with irreverence and contumely. If the apostle had meant only, that the un- worthy communicant treated his absent Saviour with disrespect and indignity, why did he not say so ? Why did he not say fvo^o5 xpirv, or '/va# 'ly-rul But not mean- ing this, he says what he does mean : 106 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE LUTHERAN ry o-6ip.ce.Tos xxi C&!/M.CITO$ r KvpiX :" guilty of the body and blood of the Lord : thereby distinctly declaring, that he regards the Saviour as, in his glorified humanity, ac- tually present in the Eucharist ; so that he who partakes unworthily of the bread and wine, treats with disrespect and irreverence what is most sacred, and thus incurs un- speakable guilt. As respects the passage quoted from St. James, it has not the slightest connexion with the matter in hand. It is not the word '/<>#, but the words T* owfMT* *,*\ ctipxros TX Ky/>%$, I John i. and ii. ( f the Son of God. They say: o xupios 7%$ $O%K (desig- nating his divine nature) is crucified, 1 Cor. ii. 8. but also w = g) o r f , luit folgenbe Sitter berlcgt uub fihnmt btcfelfcen tton ifym ober fetnen ^Igeuten bejogeit toerben : t .fcrti?t?oftWc, son Sett SDietrt*. Smpenal-Dc- tn, grobe cbrift, f^bneis Rapier, mit Suture 33il6ni, gut ge- bunben. frets ........ $2 00. G't)tinc,clifd>c <5^oi:corttonbiich cber fammtli^e in fcem Son cprbienbud)e entl)aUene fjmbcHf4)t lautenef^riften ber esange- Iifc^4iitb,erifci5en A1rd)e. @ro Duotej, etwa 700 Setten, gut gebnnbcit in farbigea geprete> Jeber. ^retss . $1 00. Die SltigSbnrgifrfK CTonfcffiun, o(ffa(id) erffart cn . Setimann unb ^. Sdjnabel, euaug. lutf). ^rebiger in ad)fen. ebunben, $0 38; brof^trt ...... $025. tf'irrfKiuCSefoiicjbiid) fiir eangelif^-futf)erifc^e emeinben un- geanberter 5(ug^burgifc^er Soufeffton. S?erijffentlid)t innt ber Son- gregation ber uuveranberten SIugeburgtfdKrt (ionfeffton ju @t. i'oiii*, iJIJo. rc^ Xucbej. grobe fwfcrtft, gut gebunben in farbiged gefreb'tee Seber. 5->r* *0 75. aleiue 5lugabe, $0 50, fetnge- bunbene, $1 unb $1 25. 3etmal 52 au^crfefene 25iblifd)s.' .^>ifto^icn u bem atten unb ncufit JcftanieiUe, brr ^itgenb 5 um ^f^f't abfle r at rn ; v f o- I) a n n > ii b n e r. II n e r a n b e r t e 21 it * g a b > e. 9->reta $0 25. Der qrof;c isnfc fJcinc ^ati-rfii^mu* Dr. 9)f a rtin 8ittf>er3. lluernnfcert ait bent SiMicerbienbudje abgebrudEt. s Prei $0 12^. Dor fh'inc ji\itcd)imttd be fa Dr. War tin Slither*. SDJit Minveifeiiten unb rr!larenben Sibelfifllcit au^ beit beftcn unb befanutcften >2pnid)bud)ern ^rgfdttij gcfjiitniflt. 9leb|i gcirtbr.- Iid)en ebelen. S33eldjem beigefiigt ii't tie Drbnung bea .^eUa, eine 3frglicbening be^ Atated)ionuiiS, ba-3 5Di'irtembergifd) ,ftincer> xintn, bie (ionftrmation unb Cdcfcte. SWitnciien S.ciiftnnatioit^ unb anbern Piefern, wie aud) Uoflttanbiger unseranberter ?[M,ia burgifd)er Sonfeffton. Sfteue S(ugabe. y reio $0 1S^. i-r Heine fintljcrird)c .Hatcdtioitnie. fiir (2ouHtafd)ii: fi'ti. Sntbaltenb: 2)ie ^iinf OABptftucfe, mit erflareitbeit SBibctfteUen, nebft gen>obulid)en ebcten. 91 cue Slit^gabe. 5)ret ..... , . . . . $0 6'4 O~iid)ivibion. 2)er ffeine ,^oted)i2mu#, fiir gemeine ^farrberreit uub ^rebiger, burd) Dr. 9JJ n r t i n 2 u t b e r. ' $Tei . $0 10. $iiMU' cfcbtt(f) fiir *3d)iilcn, oter 3ette$ 33ud). Sedate Sluflage, oerbeffert. 3)retiii ..... $() 25, 6 nebft ?efe- itnb DenMtehtttgen ji"n erfhn llnterrid)t ber Winter. rei* .......... $0 18%. 9?i'itc (2chul= n nb .^aiiSftbcl. 108 (Seiten. 5>reia $0 18%. ShiJvOf^tidi itnb tfrfe- unb >enMlebungen jitm erfhn Untrrrid)t t-er .ftinber, ober (Srftea 93ud). $>reta . . . $012.1. ^Jrnf tifdics Stcdnicubudi, fiir bcittfdx Slemcntarfduiten in ben ^creinifiten taaten ....... $0 37.]. !>cr Fleiii' 1 3toa d'nantt, cber cine lurje unb itmfaiTcnbe Ueber ftd)t bcr !)?egierung ber Ser. Staaten unb ber Staaten^tetiterHncKn. i>ou 5. 58.'@t)urtleff ...... $0 50. 33ucher trerben im refjen, tnit ctnem bcbeiu tonben ^abatt, an 33udi()dnblcr ab^egebeu. Uorratl)i{] JUKI Prrhanf: ii* 5BibcI, cber bie ganje 5ftlicie Sd)rift be^ often unb neuen Jeftrt- ment? ttach Dr. OTarti n i'ntber'^ Uebfrfffjuna. $n erfd)ie< benen 5luegaben unb (Stnbanbeit . . $0 75. bis* $4 00. rnfct'S fecl) SSncber torn tvafircn SBriftentbnm nebft cte?iiartlein. 5)lnlacel^t)ia. (i)utgebunben. $Teitf$2 50. Jranffurt a. OT., gut gebunben. ?)retd . $1 50. >affc!bc. ^Reutlingen. 4to. ut gebunben . . $2 00. tag li *e* ^an bbud) in guten unbbBfen2:agen. lpbia. Out gebuneen. $rei3 ... $1 00. c, prbinarer (Siitbanb. JReutltngen . . $0 50. &affclbc, gut gcbunbcn. Stuttgart . . . $0 62^. 3. %. 3tnrf's 9J?orgcn itnb ?lbenbanbad)ten frcmmer Sbrifieit ouf alleSngc im 3a^r. trie foldje aii3 ber duelle bee gbttltd)en SBorte fliefeh. 6te2lu5gabe. itt gebunben. granffurta. 2ft. $1 00. 5f*soltcv*torf' 3 ^falmcn, geb. .... $1 00. 3>affe!bc, brcf*irt ....... $0 75. afPoItct-^fcorf ii ffii'ncuS'cr 25rief an bie^wgenb. geb.$0 44. nffflbe, brefdnrt ....... $031. '.'rharfcf'd erbaulidje SBetrac^tungen, geb. $0 56. brofdiirt ....... $038. Sitcr .^iid)cr ooit bcr birdie. 93on 3. 2) e It | f d), 3)reiben. $rfi ......... $0 75. $>n3 @afratncnt bc loohrcn ficibce unb SShites ^efu Sbrifti. 5?eid)t< unb Sommunttnt(^ebcte on %rar\i 3) eli 13 f d). geb ........... $6 50. Xaffolbo, brcfd)trt ....... $031. r;flhl?'nflcn t>ptt .ftart tober. efammt^u^gabe. 5D7ft Betd^nitngen 3 33be eb. ..... $2 75. fur ^tnbcr, son ^arl tctcr $0 20. 8 SQtourer'S fintficr'S Si-bi'tt, in 2 93be. geb., ofnte 33i(ber, $1 75. afff!be, al'jjefiirjite SdtSgabe, gebunben ... $1 00. Xaff I&f. nette 2lit3gabe, 8?o. >ieb. mil JBiftern . . $2 50. .frUifcbe ginleitutig in tie Slugg. bttrflif^t Sonffffton. ?lebft eriteuerter UntcrfuAung ber 2?erbinb lidiftMt ter Smttbole unb ber 33erpflid)titng auf biefelben. UVeibot, brofd)irt . . ....... $0 75. e, gebunben ..:.... ,11 00. c, 2 58be.,@tuttgart, fetne neue 2liK^abe, gebunteit ......... $3 25. SJtithw'd Dr. 93?. tfd)reben ober Sottoquia, fo er tit uielen ^afjren geaen gelebrtcni'euten, and) fremben dilten unb fetnen Jtfdtvicfeflen gefi'ibrct; beriuiegegeben ooa ^. g. gorfteman. 8vo. 3 Sbe. i'eipjig 1844. @ut gebunben. $5 (X). mfter-3 .^ilfcuifit nad) ?. dranad) .... $1 50. "^orfrd, -3L>bann, ottltdje 3 it 6 r it n g ber er it'd)cnmtd)ol, etne rjab,Iung nttt gabetn, oon ilarl to- ber ... ...... $0 20. ^iehcHifle ^affi'ott flcfrf)ichte . . . . $005. (gwifteltt unb G-oattgcHcn auf afle Sonntage unb ornebmfteit Sefte . .... ... $0 10. $>ic Hiiiou (Sftoral .^arsiiotiic, init beutfd)em unb englifdjein 'Jerte, sen Jp S. St)er ...... $1 00. ^litttnt.'Qcr 3. 331., Setradstuncjen fiber ba betlige S JI b e n b m a f) I. 6te Sluflage, beforgt eu 5- S- SSfiHer, gebun- ten .......... $0 75. $ofmantt, fi. biefieilige $ of ft on ober efd)i*te bea Cei* bena unb (terben3 intferS Jperrn unb Jpeilanbeo $efu Gbriftt, nach ben oier (Joangelien. 3" m ebmnd)e in ji'irdicn unb @ct)ii(eit ttcthrenb ber beiligen jfaftenjeit. $Rit ebeten unb ?tebern, nebft einer furjcn efd)id)te ber Berftb'rung 3erufdlem. 2te Shttaafie, gebunben ... $U 25. (Sffomifr, Dr. ^., eb>bd) ber $tr d) en g efd) t ch te, ^e- Intnben $1 50. 2^taro>f*i, Dr. 'TP. (5. 3. on. Da 9kter ttnfcr in Shriften- kdren. gin fate$eHf$er 3?erfud), brofd)trt . . $0 25. Si>lK, 'TP. Die 9/itffton nnter ben ^>eiben. Biret G^c. fprad)e nur SBelebnnig bf? 3?clfee gefd)rieben, brofd) $0 13. $i*r','cH?, ?lusserlefene d^rtjHtdje JJerngebete. (Sttt allgemctne^ cbetbud), gebunben .... $0 75. Xctfclbc. agnd)er$Banbelbe$ h r i (I e n , ber immer bae (Sine, was 9Iott) ift, cor $tugen fiat. Sine 2(i;(eitiiiig jum tbd ttjU'it (ibriflentbum. in 2et)ren nnb 'Slegeln, niit Oiebeten uitb i'iebern, ill's Witgabe fi'ir baa ganje ?eben. 3te 9lnflage. geb. $0 25. Svltfobmibi, Dr. 5 J& v Doflftantiges ftamm, unb itnnoeripanbt fd)nft(id)ee efammt'ffiorterbitd) ber beutfd)cn Sprad)e ait^ aflen ihreu 'iJJiunbarten unb mit often grembiuortern. (Sin Jpanefd>aft ber Wutterfpradje' fur afle Stanbe bea beutfdjcn 2.U ; Ifee. 4to. ge^ bunben $2 50. 'JHphabctc ber beutfdjen unb latetnifcben Sd)rift nnb Siffern jum SBebufe bee gefententene ber A'inber. 5 iBogen in golio : $0 13. 3>cS olrctt 9iicolaui .fiinniu$ (^lawbcnsircFirc ber ecangef. littf). Strobe. 2te 5Iuflage, gebunben .... $l'uO. %">nffionbc(rarf)tuucn sum ebraud) bet 5au$!anbad)tcn. 9)?it einem SSorroorte son t)r. . . 21. ^arten, brofd). . ' $0 30. ftr. Xteli^frf), om ^aufe ottes unb ber &ir.d)e, brofd). $0 50. 335. iJohc, Sonrab. Sine abe fitr Sonfirmanben. getne Slusgabe mit 2Mlbern $0 25. 'TP. 9lcbnibacf)cr. efd)id)tlid)e Beugntffe fitr ben lauben. 2 3?anbd)en $0 30. 2>erfc(bc, neuefie SBoI^bibliotfjef, 184751. 14 33anbd)en $2 25. $$;hr, bte ^eier be$ 5Beib,nad)teabenb. Sine 933ei()nad)t^gabe fiir .rtinber $0 15 crfelbe, ottbetf unb SInna ..... $0 20. c, ber Heine 2>anl $0 15. 10 OT. ft. 3Bcftrhrtii, TOitnberfnmS unb ScUcneS cut* b:r fatdjte. gur Sung uno Ht . . $0 95. 9lufjevbem fyat er, nebft anberen a cbt;(utf?etifeben SSerfeu, cine grejje 2ln$al)( 2lnttquarifcbe 33itdber, bie er you 3cit gu 3eit in bcm //Sutfierifiten ?r; faufe anjeigt. iuf-, Confirmations- itnb rau-Sd)dne, gut gebrucft, in bcutfcber ober env](ifcher (Spracfye, v>ovrat(;ig ju $1 bag 100. KJ 3 9M(cvt?i Xirucfavbeiten lit beutfdhet unb euglifd)i;r ura*e, twcrben forgfaltuj unb billig cerfcrtigt. * # * Pfr"fut()enfd)C^crolb", em ltterartf*e JBlatt fur .Rirdbe unb <$au6, erfdbctnt recjelmapig am 1. unb 15. jebe SWonat*, foftet joifyvHcti, 24 9htmme.ni, $1. * # * Most of the above Books, and especially those published by H. LIJDWIG, may also be ordered from : E. H. PEASE & Co., Albany, N. Y. SCH^FER & KORADI, 167, North Third-st. ) p^y PEOK & BLISS, Cor. N. 3d. St. & Race-st. J J. NEWTON KURTZ, Baltimore, Md. FRANZ DRESSEL, Pittsburg, Pa. HECHEL & LEE, Reading, Pa. WILLIAM MURRAY, Lancaster, Pa. H. HAMMANN, Easton, Pa. REV. C. SPIELMANX, Columbus, 0. REV. J. J. FAST, Canton, O. EGGERS & WILDE, Cincinnati, O. J. G. WESSELHCEFFT, St. Louis, Mo. S. D. HENKEL, New-Market, Va. 04181 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY