#1759-Martin Bucer to ML

To the great Defender of the pure Christianity, D. Martin Luther, the very exalted Theologian, his exquisite, highly regarded teacher.
Grace and peace in Christ! Your letter, highly honorable teacher, written to me on January 22, I have read and thank the LOrd with my brethren and colleagues, who have conferred with me, you have, to an extent, found our Confession (A Harmony-Writing to Duke Ernst of Lueneberg) to be satisfactory. You marvel that I make Zwingli and Oecolampadius to be participants in this opinion. You might be surprised what they,especially Oecolampadius, who negotiated with me over this matter, after they tested my judgement, that they say we should be quiet about the writing. However, you will again be surprised and ask me why when we confess that here in the Lord's Supper Christ's Body is truly present and through the Words and Sacrament offered but as food for the soul and not for the belly why we have difficulty with applyiing the words "Take,eat",etc. (as we have in our Confession)to an external taking of the Body with the bread by the mouth so that also the godless have it offered to them. That does not trouble us, highly-honorable Luther, nor have I for that reason added the words "for the feeding of the soul" nor because I do not believe that the Body of Christ can be present in more than one thing at a time and could be there offered but rather because I want to satisfy those who falsely think that you make the Body of Christ to be food for the body but which you expressly make denial of in your Confession in Quatern Sij. Here are your words word for word:"Therefore it is also right to say that one who grasps this bread, takes hold of the Body of Christ, and he who eats this bread eats the Body of Christ, he who crumbles this bread with the teeth or the tongue the same crumbles the Body of Christ with teeth or tongue; and yet it remains in every way true that no one sees,holds, bites or crumbles the Body as one does visibly see and bite other flesh.Then what one does with the bread is appropriated to the Body of Christ because of the Sacramental union." In that you write:"Then, what one does with the bread"etc. you absolutely acknowledge that it is taken with the hand, bitten with the teeth, and delivered to the belly, digested as what happens to natural nourishment that happens to the bread but the Body of Christ accompanies (is attached?)it only by virtue of the Sacramental union and for this reason it does not actually happen to the Body of Christ.
Therefore the Body of Christ in the Lord's Supper is not given for nourishment to the belly but for the soul and it is for that (the soul) and not for the other (the belly) that it is sought. And since we confess that the Body of Christ is offered through the Words and Sacrament so we also confidently confess that He is present with the bread and that for this reason on account of the Sacramental union is extended to the mouths of the godless as well as to the blessed. However, the godless,as you write, do not apprehend it just as the blind do not apprehend the light of the sun though it shines on their eyes as on the eyes of the seeing. Yes, we confess that they who know that the Body of the LOrd is here offered receive it also but to the ruin of their soul and not its nourishment. Then they, after they have received the Word of the LOrd are not as the blind are to the light of the sun. Those who have nothing of the faith and regard this bread as completely no different than other bread-I do not see how they are different in their eating than would be a mouse who nibbles of it. Christ instituted this holy doing (or Sacrament? not known whether sacramentum or sacrum is to be read) for his disciples so I completely do not know what should be attributed to any sort of people who do not know Christ. Yet I might rather say: They on the outside are nothing to us and I have no quarrel with you or any other defender of the faith in this matter but remain silent. Thus we hold and teach and never at any time have anything but abhorrence for those who regard this Sacrament as nothing but bread and wine and not at the same time the Body and Blood of the LOrd and to be sure sought in the LOrd's Supper: so we do not think of it as any falsehood or blasphemy when either you celebrate with us or any of ours celebrate with you the Lord's Supper. Both sides recite the Words of the LOrd in good faith and simple faith in the same is taught and the partaking (Essen) of Christ commended above everything else. And while some have a backward understanding of this we do not believe the gifts of God are dependent upon the merit of the church-servant or the communicants and that those who receive Christ's promise in faith as well as with the ears are truly not deceived in their hope and as Leo says that as much as one believes so it happens.The more I think about it, as this is now to be for the judgments of the people, that you are right in saying that we should gradually teach about the presence and food (Essen=meal, supper?) of Christ in the LOrd's Supper so that the Church should be stremgthened if there is some sort of possibility to do so and that you are also sparing no effort toward harmony and that regarding the open questions you request that through friendliness nourished and further harmony through prayer to Christ and that not yet there be any public statement regarding our agreement put in writing. Surely, I would have done so much earlier and with your permission, no doubt, I would have held back our confession if I had not feared the perverted judgment of many and feared offending many. Therefore I am pleased about that the truth about the human body of Christ is in heaven and locally present in the bread and also not mingled with the bread in a natural way in that I see that this is not contrary to your faith. You describe the manner in which Christ's body is heaven as well as present in the LOrd's Supper in this way:"that He sits in the midst of all creation in a certain place and when a certain part of creation is designated such as bread and wine selected by the Word of God like one might say of a crystal when a definite part of it is placed before the eye in the midst of it in a certain place there is a spark or flame: see, here in the front part and back part of the crystal is a flame." Thus, you surely don't mean that the Body of Christ is locally in heaven and yet you maintain it is spatially in the bread. For this we would confess with the Fathers the true situation with a body that Christ is at some sort of place in heaven and nevertheless at the same time truly present in the Sacrament and I cannot see what the difference is between us on this matter.
Now I do not doubt that you would gladly set aside this thing for which you are not lined up to do battle over and thereby obtain through quarreling what is not permitted by conscience. We can easily acknowledge that this repulsive thing about which there is peace in our churches that in yours there is distress through misunderstanding, which is lacking nowhere,so therefore I am permitting with the greatest of equanimity that this my writing about our unanimity should be withheld and according to your advice which you also gave in Coburg and that on both sides we make efforts to promote peace in the way which I have previously outlined. What you will encounter with Oecolampadius and many other servants of other churches and, to be sure not a few churches is that the real presence (solida) of Christ in the Lord's Supper is also taught along with the signs (symbolis). Zwingli fears,according to my understanding, all too much, that the people will come to harm by thinking of a meal (Essen) of Christ as corruptible nourishment of the belly by neglecting the reality of the faith in human body of Christ. Yet he was willing to permit that what I have sent him be publicized with the hope which he still has that it will be the beginning step toward peace. We want to pray to Christ that He will bring it to completion and that in relation to one another it will serve to peace in everything before us. Of any stubborness on your I have already expressed myself at length, my dear father; I know that the glory of Christ and not for any of your own you have taken much care both here and in other matters. And I do not dooubt that you have fittingly deliberated how much this division has hindered the course of the Gospel although we truly have not recognized that the people, whose fellowship is very important, have any who have joined an army of Christ except for doing that which helps the saints. Trust in Christ to whose glory everything will be accomplished. I plead with you that you will attribute to this side what is written about their stubbornness since your position is unmovablly determined regarding the
words:"Take,eat, this is my body" and that you up to this can accept nothing else that the Body of Christ is given with the bread of the LOrd to eat and should be received with the mouth and given to all who eat this bread of the LOrd so they with an unalterable position that they ,considering that Christ is to be attributed true manhood ,shy away from expressing"this bread is my Body" in a simple (simplicem)way and that "is" should be taken essentially(substantive). They observe that you do not deny that the bread cannot be what the Body of the LOrd is. From that debate a thousand fighting points would arise about which I have always sworn that it only consists about words. Finally to bring this letter to an end I want to remind you of one thing that my conscience maintains this that these words of the LOrd:"Take" etc., require that we believe that the Body of the LOrd is truly offered with the bread. However, regarding what I wrote to M. Philip, whom I intentionally did not want to be considered, regarding the godless, I want to know that you concede that you understand, it seems to me, that these words were spoken to the disciples and that we should not be disputing in this matter about those who expressly are not disciples of Christ not that thereby I in expressing Christ's presence for souls make Him to be absent from the signs since I, nevertheless, say that He is received through the signs and His presence offered but only add to this that everything is instituted for the nourishment of the soul, not for the body, except to the extent the power of immortality overflows from the soul(to the body)/ Here you have amply my opinion which is earnestly taught in our church and in very many others and it is (my) good hope that we all finally will be of one opinion and that we zealously work for the same. Be it right well with you in Christ and receive me again, as you have, as a father. In Strassburg on the 9th of February. Most worthy Herr, Your yielding Martin Bucer.
NOTES: Very many distinctions that do make a difference though they may seem to be a matter of words. Seems to me like everything turns on the presence of Christ and the presence of His Body and Blood in the Sacrament.