Interesting things I ran across in Hoenecke

Some interesting things I found in the 4th volume of Adolf Hoenecke's Dogmatics:

1. He is a receptionist, but his argument, though speculative, is compelling for anyone who rejects substance ontology. He equates Wesen with einsetzungsmaessig Akt. The nature of the Lord's Supper is in the act according to the institution. What then is substantial to the act and what is accidental? Hoenecke never reintroduces this Aristotelian terminology, but he functions in such categories. He gives a list of what is necessary. I would reproduce it here, but I left my volume back in St. Louis and the text isn't yet on Google Books. Hoenecke, along with Quenstedt (who, as it turns out, was a receptionist), includes more than just the Word and the elements. Reception is part of the act and the act is included in the Wesen. The Formula includes reception as a sine non qua for Lord's Supper, but it never spells out this act-ontology.

So, the point is that if you include in einsetzungsmaessig--and link einsetzungsmaessig to ontology--anything other than what the Small Catechism includes (namely, the Word and the elements) you appear to do so arbitrarily. Is it necessary that the presider be a man? What is essential and what is accidental?

Here Hoenecke is inconsistent. One of the things he lists as necessary is the benedictio --"this cup of blessing which we bless." However, he can't really identify what the benedictio is. It isn't the verba, he contends. He appeals to the tradition that the benedictio is the Lord's Prayer, but he can't prove this authoritatively. So, he drops the issue and appeals to the power of God's Word in the word's of institution.

This is all from memory, so check me on this.

2. Hoenecke holds that the office of the ministry is divinely instituted. How did the Wauwatosa people get this so wrong?