Fathers

A Candid Inquiry into the Controversies among Evangelicals · §90

Controv. XIII.III: Is breaking ordinary bread in the Supper required by Christ's institution — or may wafers replace it?

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

Third: the breaking of ordinary table bread in the Holy Supper.

However they first broke it — by fingers or knife, by the consecrators themselves or left after consecration for others to break and tear into portions — and however the broken bread is put into communicants' hands for sacramental eating: is that rite only pious or useful, as they grant, or also necessary by Christ's institution, when He told us to do what He Himself did?

Not as if breaking belonged to the bare essence of the sacrament, yet as belonging to its integrity — which is why the supper was called, preeminently, the breaking of bread.

Or is the rite simply indifferent, freely dropped — so that little hosts or round wafers, placed by the minister in the communicants' mouths, may rightly replace ordinary bread?

Lutherans deny the first and affirm the second — yet not all of them, and not from Luther. The Reformed take the other side.

Latin

III. An Fractio panis cibarii in Sacra Coena, (quocunque modo fregerint primitus, sive digitis, sive cultro, sive ipsi Consecrantes, sive à Consecratione frangendum aliis ac discerpendum in μερίδας reliquerint) fractique panis distributio in manus communicantium, ad manducationem Sacramentalem sit Ritus non modo pius aut utilis, ut fatentur, sed etiam necessarius ex praecepto institutione Christi, quâ jussit nos hoc facere, quod ipse met fecit; Faciens idem non simpliciter ad essentiam Sacramenti, sed tamen ad integritatem illius, quod indè vocatum ἐξοχῶς fuit, Fractio panis? An verò sit Ritus simpliciter ἀδιάφορος, liberè intermissus; ut loco Panis cibarii vel usualis, rectè substituantur Hostiolæ, seu placentulae orbiculares, in os communicantium à Ministro ingestæ? Prius negant, Posterius affirm. Luth. nec omnes tamen, sed nec ex Luthero; Contra Reform.

About this text

Samuel Strimesius — Prefatio through Controversiae Post Lutherum Controv. III-XIII + XV Tolerantia, Hexades Annotationum Prooemium and Annotatio I through Decem Theses / Francus plus Annotatio II §.I-§.VI and Annotatio III §.I–§.VII (through Cassellanum 1661) from Ingenua in Controversias Evangelicorum (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1708). Honest partial; Prefatio silence reasons, Annotatio III §.VIII+ fruits / §.IX+, Hexades theses body, deeper Controversiae / Part II remain.

English follows the locked 1708 Francofurti ad Viadrum Latin of Prefatio §I–II, Crimina defenses through III, Part I Protheoria through Controversiae Obices/Historia/Varii gradus, Formula Discord/Disparitas, Ulterius confirmatur / Classes / Formula protest / triplex differentia, Coena Domini Controversiae Priores through Precariae Hypotheses (Controv. print pp. 34–40), Controversiae Post Lutherum Natae Controv. III–XV tip (providence through De Tolerantia mutua; Controv. print pp. 40–78), Hexades Annotationum Prooemium H.I–§.III (Hexades print pp. 1–4 / PDF ~182–185), and Annotatio I De Augustana Confessione §.I–§.VIII tip (Hexades print pp. 5–24+ / PDF ~186–205+), reconstructed from Google Books PDF page images (ONB copy, id 3epYAAAAcAAJ) with pdftotext as check. No modern English was copied. Sister Halle digitization of Ingenua in Arminianismum (DOI 10.25673/65287) remains Anubis-blocked — skipped; Controversias only. Prefatio silence reasons, Annotatio I §.IX+, Hexades theses body beyond §.VIII, and remainder of Controversiae / folio remain.

Witnesses

This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.