The following three doctrines have been taught within Christendom concerning the Lord's Supper: -
a. In the Holy Supper there is only body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to say, in the Eucharist the bread and wine are changed (transubstantiated) into the body and blood of our Lord (transubstantiation; established by the Lateran Council of 1215 as a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church and confirmed by the Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, Can. 2).
b. In the Holy Supper the bread and wine are only symbols or bare signs of the absent body and blood of Christ ("Abesse Christi corpus et sanguinem a signis tanto intervallo dicimus, quanto abest terra ab altissimis coelis"; cp. Formula of Concord, Thor. Decl., VII, 4. 5; also the Consensus Tigurinus, XXII, Niemeyer, p. 196, where the Lutheran doctrine is rejected as "preposterous").
c. In the Holy Supper a peculiar union (the sacramental union) occurs by virtue of Christ's institution between the bread and the wine, on the one hand, and the body and blood of Christ, on the other, and because of this union all communicants (manducatio generalis) receive in, with, and under the bread and wine in a supernatural, incomprehensible manner Christ's true body and blood (manducatio oralis) as a pledge of the gracious remission of their sins.
This union is neither personal, as is the union of the two natures in Christ, nor mystical (unio mystica), as is that between Christ and the believer, but sacramental, that is to say, the unio sacramentalis takes place only in the Holy Supper (praesentia sacramentalis). It is neither natural nor local, but illocal, supernatural, and incomprehensible, yet real.
This doctrine has always been maintained by confessional Lutheranism as the true doctrine of Scripture. It is set forth in Luther's Small Catechism: "The Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself"; in the Augsburg Confession Art. X: "Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and are distributed to those who eat in the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise"; in the Formula of Concord Epit., VII, 6. 7: "We believe ... that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine. We believe ... that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of the sacramental union they the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ."
If we compare the three tenets with Holy Scripture, we find that indeed only the Lutheran doctrine can be proved to be Scriptural. That transubstantiation does not occur in the Lord's Supper is shown by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11, 27; 1 Cor. 10, 16, where he declares that the earthly elements (bread and wine) remain such even after the consecration. The contention of the Romanists that only "the external appearance and taste" (visus et gust us corporeus) of the earthly elements remain while their substance has disappeared is a "sophistical subtlety." In 1 Cor. 10, 16 and 1 Cor. 11, 28 St. Paul declares the very opposite to be true; for he speaks of the consecrated bread as still being bread, etc.
Luther is indeed right when he says Smalcald Articles, Part III, Art. VI: "As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scripture that there is and remains bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: 'The bread which we break'; and 1 Cor. 11, 28: 'So let him eat of that bread.'"
Closely connected with the pernicious doctrine of transubstantiation are the papistic errors of the "sacrifice of the Mass," by which Christ's body "is continually offered up in an unbloody manner for the sins of the living and the dead," of the "adoration of the host" (corpus Christi festivals; Eucharistic Congresses), and of sub una specie, that is, the prohibition of the cup to the laity (cp. the pernicious doctrine of concomitance: with the consecrated host the communicant receives both the body and blood of our Lord). For these three papistic errors not even a shred of proof is found in Holy Scripture; indeed, the Word of God is strictly opposed to them, Heb. 10, 10-14; Matt. 26, 27; 1 Cor. 11, 24-26.
The Reformed doctrine ("The body and blood are absent from the Lord's Supper, but are received spiritually, or by faith") is disproved by the words of institution, where Christ says distinctly: "Take, eat, this is My body; take, drink, this is My blood." In other words, our Lord declares expressly of the bread which is eaten that it is His body and of the wine which is drunk that it is His blood. Chemnitz rightly affirms that, when Christ says: "Eat, drink," He directly prescribes the way, or mode, of the receiving (modus sumptionis), so that we indeed receive His body and blood with the mouth (oral reception; manducatio oral is).
Chemnitz, of course, does not champion a "Capernaitic," or natural, eating and drinking of the Lord's body and blood ; for he teaches distinctly that, while the bread and wine are received in a natural manner, the body and blood of our Lord are received in a supernatural, incomprehensible manner. According to the words of institution the reception of Christ's body and blood with the mouth is true and real.
The words of institution, it is true, demand also a spiritual eating or drinking, or faith in the words "Given and shed for you for the remission of sins." This is proved directly by Christ's command: "This do in remembrance of Me." But what the words of institution declare in particular is that "in, with, and under the bread and wine Christ presents His true body and blood to be truly and substantially eaten and drunk by us." In other words, the words of institution say: "That which I offer you, which you are to receive and eat, is not only bread, but also My body. That which I offer you, which you are to receive and drink, is not only wine, but also My blood."
The papistic doctrine makes of the bread a "sham bread" (Scheinbrot), teaching that the bread is transubstantiated into Christ's body, while that of the Reformed makes of the body a "sham body," claiming that the bread is only a symbol of Christ's absent body. /The Lutheran doctrine, on the contrary, affirms that the bread remains real bread also after the consecration, but that Christ's true body is substantially present in, with, and under the bread on account of the sacramental union. That is to say, Lutheranism accepts the words of institution as they read, or in their literal sense. It avers that our Lord, when instituting the Holy Supper, employed a mode of speech which is readily intelligible, namely, the so-called locutio exhibitiva, according to which only that object js named to which attention should be directed (synecdoche).
Our Savior said: "This the bread is My body; this the wine is My blood," directing the attention of the disciples not to that which was visible, namely, the bread and wine, but to that "which was exhibited through the medium of the bread and wine, namely, His body and blood." This is proved also by the words which He added: "which is given" and "which is shed"; for they show that Christ, when instituting the Holy Supper, had in mind His real body and His real blood.
Hollaz writes: "In the former proposition ('This is My body') the demonstrative pronoun this denotes the entire sacramental complex, consisting of bread and the body of Christ; in the latter proposition ('This is My blood') it likewise denotes the entire complex, consisting of ... the wine and the blood of Christ, mysteriously united. Because the pronoun this is employed with regard to both the bread and the body, the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation is excluded. The substantive verb is connects the predicate with the subject and denotes that that which is offered in the Holy Supper is really and truly not only bread, but also the body of Christ." (Doctr. Theol., p. 559. Cp. also Luther, St. L., XX, 1034 ff.)
To the objection of the Reformed (Hodge, Syst. Theol., III, 662) that, "if the bread is literally the body of Christ, it is no longer bread; for no one asserts that the same thing can be bread and flesh (or body) at the same time," we reply that this is a premise which not even the Calvinists concede. For although Scripture applies the same locutio exhibitiva to Christ (Luke 1, 35: "The Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God"), they nevertheless admit that Christ is not only true God, but also true man. (Cp. also Matt. 16, 16.) For this reason their argument "If the words of Christ are to be taken literally, they teach the doctrine of transubstantiation" (Hodge) is untenable. As the locutio exhibitiva in Luke 1, 35 does not exclude the existence of the true human nature in Christ, so the locutio exhibitiva in Matt. 26, 26-28 does not exclude the existence of true bread and wine in the Lord's Supper.
It has been pointed out that "the Reformed were not agreed among themselves" (Hodge). This well-known Reformed theologian says (Syst. Theol., III, 626) that "there were three distinct types of doctrine among them, the Zwinglian, the Calvinistic, and an intermediate form, which ultimately became symbolical, being adopted in the authoritative standards of the Church." But Shedd, another Calvinistic theologian, admits (Dogm. Theol., II, 569) that "the difference between Zwingli and Calvin upon sacramentarian points has been exaggerated."
In the final analysis all Reformed theologians were in full agreement with one another with respect to the "sacramentarian points." Their difference related to expressions rather than to doctrines; for they all held that Christ's body has only a local and visible mode of presence (praesentia localis) and, since it is now locally included in heaven, cannot be really present in the Holy Supper.
The Formula of Concord Thor. Decl., VIII, 2 says: "When Dr. Luther ... had maintained the true, essential presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper with solid arguments from the words of institution, the objection was urged against him by the Zwinglians that, if the body of Christ were present at the same time in heaven and on earth in the Holy Supper, it could be no real, true human body; for such majesty was said to be peculiar to God alone and the body of Christ not capable of it."
Calvin denied the real presence in the sense of the Lutheran teachers as much as did Zwingli, as also Hodge admits. Of this the Formula of Concord declares Thor. Decl., VII, 5: "Afterwards, when they were forced by Christ's words to confess that the body of Christ is present in the Supper, they still understood and declared it in no other way than spiritually, that is, of partaking through faith of His power, efficacy, and benefits, because, they say, through the Spirit of Christ, who is everywhere, our bodies, in which the Spirit of Christ dwells here upon earth, are united with the body of Christ, which is in heaven."
Calvin's accommodation to the Lutheran terminology was done mainly in the interest of effecting a pan-Protestant union between the Reformed and the Lutherans. Dr. F. Bente is right when he says: "Calvin's doctrine was nothing but a polished form of Zwingli's crude teaching, couched in phrases approaching the Lutheran terminology as closely as possible." Concordia Triglotta., Hist. lntrod. XVIII, pp. 174 ff.
However, while the Reformed agreed with respect to the doctrine that Christ's body is absent from the Holy Supper and is therefore received only spiritually by the believing communicant, they disagreed with regard to the interpretation of the words of institution. Carlstadt asserted that the word this does not refer to the bread, but to the body of the present Christ, who "pointed to His own body'' while pronouncing the words of institution. ("I have always explained it thus that Christ pointed to His body when He said, 'This is My body.'" St. L., XX, 2325.)
Zwingli, on the other hand, explained the words of institution by taking the verb is in the sense of signify (significat), so that the meaning is: "This signifies or represents My body."
Calvin (Oecolampadius), again, sought the figure of speech in the words "My body," explaining them as follows: "That which I give you is the sign of My body (signum corporis)." While Carlstadt's explanation of the words of institution was soon rejected as absurd even by Reformed scholars (Schenkel), those of Zwingli and Calvin, though just as arbitrary, were generally accepted.
Against Zwingli's contention that the verb is means as much as signifies Krauth (Cons. Ref., p. 619) rightly declares: "Language itself would commit suicide if it could tolerate the idea that the substantive verb is shall express not substance, but symbol." On this point compare also Luther, St. L., XX, 909 ff.; also Meyer on 1 Cor. 10, 16, who, though personally favoring the Reformed interpretation, nevertheless declares: "'Εστί never means anything else than est,· never does it mean significat; it is a copula, always expressing that which is (die Kopula des Seins)."
The passages adduced by Zwingli in proof for his doctrine (John 10, 9; 15, 5; 1 Cor. 10, 4; Luke 8, 11; Matt. 13, 38; 11, 14; Gal. 4, 24) do not support his claim. When, for example, it is said that "Christ is the Door," the verb is does not mean signify, but is; since in the realm of heavenly things Christ actually is what a door is in the realm of earthly things. In other words, as the door admits a person into a house, so Christ admits a person into heaven. Consequently the figure of speech (tropus) in the statements quoted is not to be sought in the verb is, but in the predicate noun (door, rock, vine, etc.). Luther is right when he says that no man can. ever prove that in a single Scripturepassage, indeed in all the languages of the world, is means as much as signifies (St. L., XX, 905 ff.).
Dr. Krauth writes very correctly (Cons. Ref., 618 ff.): "A more dangerous falsity in interpretation than the assumption that the word is may be explained in the sense of signify or be a symbol of is hardly conceivable. Almost every doctrine of the Word of God will melt under it. 'The Word was God' would mean: 'The Word signified, was a symbol of, God.' 'God is a spirit' would mean: 'God is a symbol of a spirit.' When it is said of Jesus Christ: 'This is the true God,' it would mean that He is the symbol, or image, of the true God. By it Christ would cease to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life and would be a mere symbol of them .. Creation, redemption, and sanctification would all fuse and be disipated in the crucible of this species of interpretation. It would take the Bible from us and lay upon our breasts, cold and heavy, a Swedenborgian nightmare of correspondences."
Among the Reformed theologians who rejected Zwingli's interpretation we may note Keckermann (t 1609) and John Piscator (f 1625). Piscator thus writes: "In the copula is there can be no trope" (in copula EST non posse esse tropum).
However, must we then not adopt Calvin's interpretation? Calvin, as said before, interpreted the words of institution to read: "This is the sign of My body (signum corporis)." In other words, he affirmed that the words "My body" and "My blood" must be explained figuratively. Against this claim the Lutherans assert that the words do not allow a figurative interpretation, since Christ here speaks of that body which was given into death and of that blood, which was shed for the remission of sins (Luther, St. L., XX, 1046 ff.).
Hollaz says: "It is readily inferred that in the Eucharist with the consecrated bread there is given us to eat not a typical body or a figurative one, such as was the body of the paschal lamb, so far as it shadowed forth and prefigured the body of Christ; not a mystical body, which is the Church, Eph. 1, 23; not the sign of a body, for that was not crucified for us; but the true and personal body of Christ, belonging to the Son of God." Doctr. Theol., p. 561.
Even Beza, the pronounced Calvinist, affirmed that the term body here cannot stand for sign of the body, since Christ describes as the materia the body which was given and the blood which was shed. For this reason the word body must be taken to denote the true, substantial, or essential body of Christ. (Beza, Hom.2, De Coena: "Confiteor hic nullum tropum esse, quia SIGNUM proprie EXPONI necesse fuit, ne FALLEREMUR.")
Beza also rejected the explanation that in the words of institution the words body and blood indicate the fruit and effect of Christ's death, an explanation which even Hodge adopted ("To receive the body and blood as offered in the Sacrament ... is to receive and appropriate the sacrificial virtue, or effects, of the death of Christ on the cross." Syst. Theol., III, 646).
Of this sort of explanation Beza states: "It would certainly be absurd to interpret the words body and blood with respect to tba fruit and effect of the death of Christ" (Epi.st. 5 ad Alemannum, p. 57, ed. Geneva). Beza himself rejected the doctrine of the real presence, which the Lutherans taught so strenuously, but he likewise rejected the interpretation of Calvin as absurd and impossible. Cp. Christl. Dogmatik, III, 368 ff.
Calvin's error is fully refuted by St. Paul, who teaches (not that the word body is to be interpreted as sign of body, but) that the bread is the communion (κοινωνία) of the body and the cup (wine) the communion of the blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 10, 16, so that, "whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the LOf'd/' 1 Cor. 11, 27; and who also says that ''he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body," 1 Cor. 11, 29. This explanation, given by divine inspiration, decides the matter once for all and establishes the truth of both the sacramental union and the oral reception.
Some Reformed theologians (Keckermann, Zan chi, Bucanus, etc.) assumed that the trope, or figure of speech, must be sought not in particular expressions of the words of institution, but rather in the entire statement ("This is My body''; "This is My blood"). However, in the final analysis their explanation is the same as that of Calvin ("Panis est symbolum sive signum corpom Okristi").
It goes without saying that, if the entire statement must be interpreted figuratively, then all the words ought to be interpreted tropically and not merely a few individual words. Krauth calls attention to this when he writes (Cons. Ref., p. 608 ff.): "The word eat they the Reformed have interpreted literally; though why the eating ought not to be done symbolically, or mentally, to correspond with the symbolical, or mental, character of the body they cannot say. Certainly there are plenty of instances of a figurative use of the word eat, while there are none of such a use of the word is. The Quakers are more consistent."
In summary, it is clear that the Reformed have no Scriptural ground whatever for the figurative interpretation of the words of institution. Their doctrine is based alone on the rationalistic axiom that (as Luther says) "Christ's body must be at one place bodily and palpably, as a peasant is in his coat and trousers" (St. L., XX, 950. 953. 1776), since it has only a local and visible presence (local is et visibilis praesentia).
Calvin expressly styled the Lutheran doctrine of the illocal and repletive presence of Christ's human nature (John 20, 19; Eph. 1, 20-23; 4, 10) a ridiculous notion (stultum commentum), because in that case the human nature of Christ would be destroyed. In his lnst., IV, 17. 29 (tr. by John Allen) he says: "It is essential to a real body to have its particular form and dimension and to be contained within some certain space. Let us hear no more, then, of the ridiculous notion which fastens the minds of men and Christ Himself to the bread."
At this point the Calvinists argue as rationalistically as when they deny the gratia universalis on the ground that not all are actually saved or when they deny the true communion of natures in Christ (real is communio) on the ground that the finite is not capable of the infinite (Finitum non est capax infiniti). (Cp. Oecolampadius against Luther: "Our reason is that the body of Christ is in heaven; that is certain and cannot be wrong." St. L., XX, 591 ff.)
This rationalistic interpretation of Scripture, Calvin employs quite consistently. According to Calvin, Christ did not appear before His disciples through closed doors (John 20, 19), but opened the door and so came to them quite naturally. Again, Christ did not vanish out of the sight of the two disciples at Emma us (Luke 24, 31), but merely closed their eyes, so that they could not see Him. Moreover, the right hand of God is not God's majesty and omnipotent power, as Scripture distinctly teaches, Is. 48, 13; Ps. 89, 13. 14; 118, 15. 16; 20, 6; Ex. 15, 6. 12, but a definite place where Christ is enclosed till the end of the world. The omnipresence of Christ, so strongly attested in Matt. 28, 20, Calvin predicates only of the divine nature of Christ.
As an ingrained rationalist, Calvin also argues that Christ's human nature would become locally extended, or infinite (immense) if omnipresence (the real presence) would be ascribed to it. Hence, with the exception of sinlessness, Calvin avers, we must predicate of the human nature of Christ nothing that cannot be predicated of any other human nature. Calvinism on this point is therefore as rationalistic as is Unitarianism; the difference between the two is only that, while Unitarianism unfortunately is consistent, denying the entire supernatural content of Scripture, Calvinism fortunately is inconsistent and does not draw all the conclusions which its rationalistic premises demand.
Against the Calvinists, who charged the Lutherans with teaching a local extension of Christ's body (ubiquitas localis, extensio localis), our dogmaticians declared: "We indeed affirm the communicated omnipresence of Christ's human nature (ubiquitas personalis et supernaturalis, i.e., omnipraesentia), but no local extension (ubiquitas localis). The doctrine of the (local) ubiquity, which the Calvinists ascribed to the Lutherans, is a Calvinistic figment, fabricated for the purpose of ridiculing and disproving the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence.
Since the Calvinists cannot prove their erroneous doctrine against the real presence, to which they cling so tenaciously, from the words of institution, they resort to John 6, 53-56. Their argument is: Since the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ in this passage must be understood spiritually, or of faith, the same is true also of the words of institution. nut that the two passages are not parallel and do not treat of one and the same matter is obvious from the fact that Christ in John 6, 53-56 guarantees eternal life to all who "eat His flesh and drink His blood," while in the Holy Supper the body of Christ may be eaten to damnation, 1 Cor. 11, 29.
The Lutheran dogmaticians therefore teach that in John 6, 53-56 Christ indeed speaks of faith (this against the Romanists, who use this passage to support their error of transubstantiation), while in Matt. 26, 26-28 and all parallel passages He speaks of a true sacramental eating (this against the Reformed). Cp. Christl. Dogmatic, III, 384 ff.
Against the claim that, since the words of institution have led to so much controversy, they cannot be regarded as adequate to determine the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, we reply that this principle in the final analysis would render impossible the use of all Scripture, since the entire Bible has always been in controversy. The argument therefore does not hold. Against the charge that the words of institution are too difficult to be a sedes doctrinae, we reply that they are difficult only if one refuses to believe what they say. Our dogmaticians have always emphasized the fact that the words of institution are clear in themselves and that only the conceited reason of unbelieving men makes them obscure.
That the Calvinists, in spite of their violent opposition to the Lutherans, were not sure of their ground is shown by their unionistic spirit. Calvin, on the one hand, condemned the Lutheran doctrine as an "incantation of Satan" (diaboli incantatio); yet he as well as Zwingli demanded that the Lutherans regard them as brethren and maintain Christian fellowship with them. Of this Melanchthon writes: "They urged us very much to call them brethren. But behold their folly! Although they condemn us (as false teachers), they nevertheless desire that we should regard them as brethren." (St. L., XVII, 1956.) Such unionism wantonly discards the Word of God and proposes to establish agreements suitable to reason, but condemned by Scripture, Rom. 16, 17; Titus 3, 10. It is therefore just as rationalistic as is the rejection of the Scriptural doctrine of the real presence.
Against the misconstructions which the Reformed have put on the Lutheran doctrine of the sacramental union our dogmaticians have said (Hafenreffer): "_The sacramental union is a) not a transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ; b) it is not a consubstantiation, or commixture of the two substances, but in both the bread and the wine the substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed; c) nor is it a local or durable adhesion or conjunction to the bread and wine apart from the use of the Supper; d) nor is it an impanation, that is, the inclusion of some small corpuscle lying hid under the bread; e) nor is it, finally, a personal union of the bread and body of Christ, such as exists between the Son of God and the assumed humanity." Doctr. Theol., p. 571.
Quenstedt adds another thought to clear up the Scriptural doctrine of the sacramental union. He writes: "We say that only the body of Christ is united with the bread, and only the blood is united with the wine, and (both are) sacramentally received by the mouth of the body. But the whole Christ is received spiritually, by the mouth of faith." Doctr. Theol., p. 570.