The Lord's Supper.
(De coena sacra)
1. The divine order of the Lord's Supper.
Like the sermon of the Gospel and baptism, the Holy Communion is not merely a church, but divine order (institutio divina). Christ instituted the Lord's Supper and at the same time commanded that it be celebrated in His Church until the Last Day, which command is repeated by the Apostle Paul.1153) This is how the first Christians understood it. Like baptism, we find the Lord's Supper in use in the apostolic church.1154)
Consistent enthusiasts like the Quakers reject not only baptism but also the Lord's Supper as a divine ordinance to be followed in the church. The Quakers are also more consistent on this point in rejecting the "useless external things" than the great majority of the Reformed. Whereas most of the Reformed want to figuratively grasp only that part of the words of the Lord's Supper which refers to the body and blood of Christ, and therefore reject only the oral partaking (manducatio oralis) of the body and blood of Christ, but want to let the oral partaking of the bread and wine stand, the Quakers consistently go one step further. They also understand bread and wine figuratively and therefore want Christians who are truly spiritually minded to enjoy bread and wine not with the mouth, but only with faith. They also have a "scriptural proof" for this. Just as most Reformed Christians refer to the scriptural words: "Flesh is of no use"1155) for their rejection of the oral consumption of the body and blood of Christ, so the Quakers refer to scriptural words such as: "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking"1156) and: "Let no one therefore make you conscience about food or about drink".1157) According to Revelation 3:20, the true Lord's Supper is enjoyed in the heart. The external action that Christ once performed with his disciples "for the sake of the weak" has no more validity for the later church than the
1153) Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:25: "Do this in remembrance of me."
1154) 1 Cor. 10:16-22; 11:17-34.<w:t>1155) Jn. 6:63.
1156) Rom. 14:17.<w:t>1157) Col. 2:16.
341 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 291]
washing the feet, anointing the sick with oil, and abstaining from blood and asphyxiation.1158) In more recent times, theologians of a critical trend1159) have denied the divine endowment of the Lord's Supper and the command to repeat it. Against it Cremer says:1160)
1158) The detailed evidence from Barclay's Apology is found in Baumgarten, Theol.-Streitigk. III, 362 sqq, reprinted. Günther, Symbolik 4, p. 318, quotes from Barclay's Catechism: "What other scriptural passages show that it is not necessary that the commandment of bread and wine should continue? The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. … Let no man therefore make you conscience of meat or of drink." On the value and meaning of the act which Christ once performed with his disciples, and which also passed into the use of the apostolic church, Barclay says, Apol., thes. 13: Fractio panis per Christ cum discipulis erat figura [namely, of the spiritual and inward enjoyment of the body and blood of Christ], qua aliquando in ecclesia etiam utebantur illi, qui rem figuratam receperunt, imbecillium causa, sicut abstinere a rebus strangulatis et a sanguine, lavare invicem pedes, infirmos oleo unguere, quae omnia iussa sunt non minore autoritate et solennitate, quam priora illa duo (namely baptism and the Lord's Supper), sed cum tantum fuerint umbrae meliorum, illis cessant (they cease for those), qui substantiam (the essence, the Lord's Supper in the heart) assequuti sunt. [Google]
1159) B. Weiß, Jülicher, Spitta.
1160) RE. 3 I, 33. When deniers of the divine order of the Lord's Supper plead that only the accounts in Paul and Luke have the words, "This do in remembrance of me," it must first be said that the testimony of two witnesses has validity according to divine and human order. But even apart from the direct command in Paul and Luke, it is an unthought that only for the disciples, and not for the whole Church, should be intended the supper in which Christ presents his body and blood given in the atoning death, "the blood of the New Testament shed for many." From this Cremer also points out, RE. 3 I, 33 f.: "It is also not in the case of Mark and Matthew that the suggestion of a foundation for the following time is missing. Once both have the designation of the contents of the cup as 'my blood of the covenant,' το αΐμά μου τής διαθήκης, Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24, and then Mark adds: το εκχννόμενον νπερ πολλών, Matthew: το περί πολλών εκχννόμενον είς άφεσιν αμαρτιών. But if Christ presents his 'blood of the covenant' to the disciples, it is impossible that this presentation should be thought of as confined to the disciples, and this is strengthened by the mention of the ‘many' (πολλοί) in the following addition." Cremer also correctly adds that the real reason for rejecting the divine order of the Lord's Supper lies elsewhere than in the alleged difference in the accounts. "While for Rückert the difficulty lies in the danger of alienation, which is unavoidably bound up with the 'rite,' and which could not possibly have been hidden from Christ" (the rationalists are as decidedly opposed to all "legal alienation" as the enthusiasts), "Spitta, in particular, rejects the institution as a
342 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 291-292]
"No fact can be better attested at all than the provision of the Lord's Supper for His Church, originating from Jesus Himself."
The relationship between the Lord's Supper and baptism is correctly described when the ancient theologians call baptism sacramentum initiationis and the Lord's Supper sacramentum confirmationis. The reception of baptism precedes the use of the Lord's Supper. On the first Pentecost, converts are invited to be baptized, not to celebrate the Lord's Supper. This is to be noted for church practice. If it turns out that such persons who desire Holy Communion with us have not yet been baptized, we perform baptism on them beforehand.1161)
The names of Holy Communion are partly given in the Scriptures,1162) partly formed in the church usage in imitation of the words, nature and circumstances of Holy Communion.1163) One should not start a dispute about the names — not even about the name "Mass" (missa) — as long as with the
foundation for the Church because he declares the relationship of the Lord's Supper from Christ's death impossible." This class of theologians does not want to know anything about the divinity of Christ and the satisfactio vicaria.
1161) Walther, Pastorale, p. 190. Walther also refers to the "analogy of the Passover meal", to which according to Ex 12:48 only those were admitted who were already received into the covenant of grace through circumcision.
1162) 1 Cor. 11:20: meal of the Lord, κνριακόν δεϊπνον; 1 Cor. 10:21: table of the Lord, τράπεζα Κυρίου.
1163) Like Eucharist, following εύχαριστήσας, Mark. 14:23; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24; communion according to κοινωνία, 1 Cor. 10:16; supper or night meal according to 1 Cor. 11:23: ό Κύριος Ίησοϋς εν τff νυκτί κτλ. Gerhard, L. de s. coena, § 3-9, distinguishes biblical and church designations. As biblical he designates coena dominica, mensa et calix Domini, communicatio corporis et sanguinis Christi (with the remark: ubi tamen potius definitio rei quam nominis proposita dici posset), novum testamentum (quia instante mortis agone a Christo instituta est et quidem in memoriam mortis testatoris), fractio panis (with the remark: Sed quia evidenter et apodictice demonstrari nequit, oportere in illis locis, Act.. 2:42; 20:7, per fractionem panis intelligi administrationem coenae, ideo quidam de vulgaribus epulis phrasin accipiunt, qxio sensu usurpatur Luc. 24:35, Act. 27, 35 atque alibi passim)... [Google] As ecclesiastical expressions Gerhard mentions ευχαριστία, σύναξις, αγάπη, λειτουργία, ϑυσία and προσφορά, μυστήριον, sacramentum altaris, missa. Gerhard offers much historical material to explain these names.
343 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 292-293]
name is not binding doctrines contrary to the Scriptures.1164) In our time, perhaps the name "Lord's Supper" is most commonly used among Protestants. Newer theologians of different trends like to use the term "Herrnmahl".1165)