consecration Why does He not say, "as often as ye eat this flesh and
drink this blood?" Evidently because the bread is, and remains plain,
natural bread, and so with the wine. There is no change in the
component elements, in the nature, matter, or substance of either.
Transubstantiation is not the doctrine of God's word; neither was it
the doctrine of the early Church. It is one of the human inventions
and corruptions of the Church of Rome.

Do then these words of Scripture teach the doctrine of
Consubstantiation? There are persons who talk a great deal about
Consubstantiation, and yet they know not what it means. What is it? It
is a mingling or fusing together of two different elements or
substances, so that the two combine into a third. A familiar example,
often given, is the fusing or melting together of copper and zinc
until they unite and form brass. Applied to the sacrament of the
altar, the doctrine of Consubstantiation would teach that the flesh
and blood of Christ are physically or materially mingled and combined
with the bread and wine; so that what the communicant receives is
neither plain, real bread, nor real flesh, but a gross mixture of
the two.

Again we ask, is this the teaching of the Word? The very same
proofs that convince us that the divine Word does not teach
Transubstantiation, also convince us that it does not teach
Consubstantiation. The simple fact that the earthly elements are
called _bread_ and _the fruit of the vine_, before, during and after
consecration, satisfies us that they remain plain, simple bread and
wine, without physical change or admixture. Consubstantiation is not
the teaching of the Word; neither is it, nor has it ever been, the
teaching of the Lutheran Church. It often has been, and is still