3. The scriptural doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

3. The scriptural doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

Three different doctrines of the Lord's Supper are put forward within external Christianity: 1. the doctrine that only the body and blood of Christ are in the Lord's Supper, or, what is the same, that in the Lord's Supper the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation (transsubstantiatio), which has been Roman church doctrine since the Lateran Council of 12151171) and is expressed in particular in the Council of Trent.1172)

2. The doctrine that only bread and wine are in the Lord's Supper, or, what is the same, that bread and wine are only images (symbols) of the absent body and blood of Christ. Thus not only Zwingli, but also Calvin and all the Reformed together with all the Reformed sects. That Calvin "deepened" Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper and assumed a kind of middle position between Zwingli and Luther,1173) is a

1170) The evidence later.

1171) Mansi XXII, 982: (Christi) corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur transsubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem potestate divina. … Hoc utique sacramentum nemo potest conficere nisi sacerdos rite vocatus. [Google]

1172) The Tridentine speaks sess. XIII, can. 2 pronounces a curse on all deniers of the doctrine of conversion: Si quis … negaverit mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini, quam quidem conversionem catholica ecclesia transsubstantiatioem appellat, anathema sit. [Google] The material on the formation of this doctrine (by Paschasius Radbertus, † c. 865, Lanfrank, † 1089) despite rising opposition (Rabanus Maurus, † 856; Ratramnus of Corbie, † after 868; Berengar of Tours, † 1088) in Schmid-Hauck 4, pp. 234-252. 287 ff. Cf. Seeberg, Dogmengesch. II, 10 f. 21 ff. 58 ff. 113 ff. Hase, Ev. Dogmatik 3, p. 446 ff.

1173) Loofs, for example, thinks, RE. 3 I, 68, that Calvin's "view is more easily and genetically correct to be understood as a modification of Luther's than of Zwingl's view."

346 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 295-296]

very popular opinion in modern dogma history, but it is quite incorrect. In the Consensus Tigurinus, edited by Calvin himself,1174) it is said of the body of Christ that it is "as far removed from the Lord's Supper as heaven is from earth",1175) and the literal (literalis) version of the words of the Lord's Supper is judged to be "very perverse".1176)

3. The doctrine that both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ are in the Lord's Supper, or, which is the same thing, that in the Lord's Supper Christ's body is received with the bread and Christ's blood with the wine, in a union which takes place only in the Lord's Supper and is therefore called the unio sacramentalis in distinction from the unio personalis which takes place between God and man in the person of Christ, and in distinction from the unio mystica which takes place between Christ and the believers. This is the doctrine of the Lutheran Church as briefly expressed in Luther's Catechism. To the question, "What is the sacrament of the altar?" is answered here, "It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted for us Christians to eat and drink by Christ himself." Likewise, in the 10th article of the Augsburg Confession, both are mentioned as present: Bread and Wine and Body and Blood of Christ: "Of the Holy Supper of the Lord it is thus taught that the true Body and Blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, and are there distributed and taken." 1177) The 7th article of the Formula of Concord states, "We believe, doctrine, and confess that in Holy Communion the body and blood of Christ are truly

1174) Schmid-Hauck, Dogmengesch.4 , p. 405.

1175) op. cit., XXV; Niemeyer, p. 196: Quia corpus Cliristi, ut fert humani corporis natura et modus, finitum est et caelo, ut loco, continetur, necesse est, a nobis tanto locorum intervallo distare, quanto caelum abest a terra. [Google]

1176) Consensus Tigurinus XXII; Niemeyer, Pastor 196: Qui in solennibus Coenae verbis: Hoc est corpus nieuni, Hic est sanguis meus, praecise literalem, ut loquuntur, sensum urgent, eos tanquam praeposteros interpretes repudiamus. Nam extra controversiam ponimus, figurate accipienda esse, ut esse panis et vinum dicantur id, quod significant. [Google]

1177) M., p. 41. [Trigl. 46, X 🔗] "Under the form" does not mean "under the apparent form", but, as The Apology declares, "with the visible things, bread and wine" (cum illis rebus, quae videntur), Christ's body and blood is presented and taken. (Apol. 164, 54.) [Trigl 247, X, 54 🔗] Cf. F. Bente, L. u. W. 1918, pp. 385 ff: "Does the 10th Article of the Augustana and the Apology Romanize?"

347 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 296-297]

and essentially present, truly distributed and received with bread and wine.We believe, teach, and confess that the words of Christ's testament are not to be understood otherwise than as they are according to the letter (ad literam), that is, that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that it is truly for the sake of sacramental union (propter sacramentalem unionem) the body and blood of Christ."1178)

Which of these three doctrines is the doctrine of Holy Scriptures?

The Roman doctrine of transformation is excluded by the fact that even after "the blessing" (consecration) of bread and wine, bread and wine are still called present, as in 1 Cor. 11:27: "Whosoever eateth unworthily of this bread, or drinketh of the cup of the Lord, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." The Roman objection that only the outward appearance or semblance of bread is present contradicts the scriptural words, which do not refer to the semblance of bread, but of bread. In the Smalcald Articles1179) Luther therefore rightly judges: "Of transubstantiation we pay no attention at all to the pointed sophistries, since they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their natural essence and remain only the form and color of bread and not really bread. For it rhymes best with Scripture that bread is and remains, as St. Paul himself calls it: 'The bread we break' (1 Cor. 10:16), and: 'So he eats of the bread' (1 Cor. 11:28)." 1180) The Roman procedure of substituting a semblance of bread for bread is so arbitrary that, if it were to be applied, all the indications of Scripture could be transformed into a mere semblance. Related to the doctrine of transubstantiation is the multiform mischief that the Roman

1178) M. 539, 6. 7. [Trigl. 809, Epit., 6-7 🔗]<w:t>1179) M. 320, 5. [Trigl. 493, Part III, Art. VI. 🔗]

1180) Luther calls XIX, 1320 the transubstantiation a "monk's dream, confirmed by Thomas Aquinas and confirmed by popes", and adds: "Because they insist so hard on it out of their own sacrilege without scripture, we only want to hold against them and to defy that truly bread and wine remain there beside the body and blood of Christ ...; because the gospel calls the sacrament bread, thus: the bread is the body of Christ. We stand by this; it is certain enough, against all sophists' dreams, that it is bread which it calls bread. Seduce us, let us dare to do so." Some other statements of Luther on transubstantiation: XIX, 25 (very detailed); XIX, 1302 ff. (collation speech that Luther "did of the lousy article transubstantiation by chance"); XIX, 1306 (letter to George of Anhalt).

348 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 297-298.]

church engages in the "Lord's Supper", namely the sacrifice of the Mass, by which Christ's sacrifice on the cross is supposedly repeated continuously without bloodshed, furthermore the keeping, showing, worshiping, carrying around ("Corpus Christi") of the host as the alleged body of Christ, the withdrawal of the chalice with the justification by the doctrine of concomitance. This is to be explained in more detail later. —

The Reformed doctrine of absence is ruled out by the fact that Scripture calls the body and blood of Christ present not merely for faith but also for the mouth of the communicants. Christ, in the words, "Take, eat," λάβετε, φύγετε, invites to eat with the mouth, and of that which is presented for the mouth and received with the mouth, Christ says that it is his body and blood. The assertion of the Reformed that Christ's body and blood are not present for the mouth, but only for faith, deprives the words "eat," "drink," of the object given them by Christ. Chemnitz remarks: "When Christ says: 'Eat, drink,' he prescribes the manner of taking (modum sumptionis), namely, that we take with the mouth (ore sumamus) what is present and presented in the Lord's Supper. No one can deny that the words of eating and drinking are to be understood by such a taking, unless at the same time he wanted to cancel and overthrow the whole external action of the Lord's Supper. … But of what is present in the Lord's Supper, what is offered, what the eaters receive with their mouths, he expressly declares and says: 'This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is poured out for you for the remission of sins.'"1181) To be sure, we also have in the words of the Lord's Supper a very clear request for faith or spiritual eating. But this request follows on from the eating with the mouth and is based on the same. The request to believe is contained in the addition by which Christ describes the body presented for eating as the body "which is given for you." The disciples, then, in receiving Christ's body orally, are to believe that they have a reconciled God or the forgiveness of sins through Christ's body given for them. The request to believe is also contained in the words, "Do these things in remembrance of me." This too is

1181) Fundamenta sanae doctrinae etc. 1623, p. 12.

349 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 298-299]

the purpose of the Lord's Supper, und will be discussed in more detail later on, in particular in the section on the purpose of the Lord's Supper.

The Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper is the doctrine of Scripture, because it allows both the words that speak of the presence of the bread and the words that speak of the presence of the body of Christ to be valid without deduction or addition. With reference to the antithesis, the Lutheran doctrine does not, together with Rome, transform bread into pseudo-bread, nor does it, together with the Reformed fellowships, transform the body of Christ into a pseudo-body, that is, into an image (symbol) of the absent body of Christ. It allows true, essential bread and the true, essential body of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper because the scriptural words from the Lord's Supper read both. But this is to be explained in more detail because of the Roman and the Reformed contrast.

First of all, it is necessary to address the question of the nature of the expression when Christ presents bread and says of the bread presented for eating, "This is my body." As is known, the classification of this phrase has caused much disputation. Before all learned and unlearned investigation, it is clear that the words used by Christ are easily understood. This is irrefutably evident from the fact that Christ, at the institution and first celebration of the Lord's Supper, adds no commentary to his words. If there were any difficulty of understanding or even a possibility of misunderstanding in His words, Christ would have added the necessary exegesis. The absence of any commentary makes it certain that in the words, "Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you," we are dealing with a mode of speech which is understood without comment in mere hearing or reading. In the Lord's Supper Christ makes use of the manner of speaking which is used among all ordinary men in daily intercourse in the presentation of an object, and has therefore terminologically been briefly and appropriately called the locutio exhibitiva. This is the manner of speaking according to which, when presenting an object, even if it is bound to another thing,1182) we name only the object that is important to us in the presentation and to which we want to direct attention. This locutio exhibitiva is in general use

1182) Terminologically expressed: even if the subject is a “complexum".

350 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 299]

both in daily intercourse and in Holy Scriptures. Lutheran theologians rightly remind us that when we present food or drink in a vessel, we do not call both the vessel and the food or drink, but only what is presented in the vessel. We would be taken for oddballs and looked at in amazement if we wanted to say in daily life, for example, when water is presented in a glass: Here is 1. a glass, 2. water, but we are expected to name only the water in the predicate: "This is water." 1183) But this is exactly how Christ speaks when in the words of the Lord's Supper, "Take, eat; this is my body!" he does not mention in the predicate the bread which he took from the table, and which the disciples saw with their eyes as present, but he does mention his body, which the disciples did not see, and to which he wished to direct their attention. If Kirn also makes the remark,1184) that Luther's "exposition" of the words of institution "always remains artificial," Kirn thereby only reveals that he has lost sight of the customary use of language among all normal men and also in his own house. The same is to be judged of all theologians who declare Luther's "synecdoche" to be impossible and therefore give it out.1185) Luther's "synecdoche" factually coincides with what we have just said about the locutio exhibitiva. The woman in the house, the man in the store, the children in the street and at play, in short, all normal men continually make use of the "synecdoche" in their intercourse with other men, although only a few know the word. What Luther says about the "synecdoche" in the words of the Lord's Supper can be summarized thus: Bread and body

1183) So e.g. Haffenreffer (Loci, Tubing. 1606, p. 628): Familiare et usitatum est, non tantum in Scripturis s., sed etiam in omnibus linguis, ut cum duae quaedam res coniunctae porriguntur et demonstrantur, id totum quidem, duobus constans, porrigitur et demonstratur, atque alterum eorum, quod non ita sensibus expositum est, de illo vere enunciatur, ut, si marsupium porrigens dicam: Hic sunt centum floreni, aut dolium monstrans dicam: Hoc est vinum Rhenanum, hoc Italicum, hoc rubellum, aut vitrum tangens dicam: Haec est aqua, haec cerevisia, hoc unguentum etc.. Quibus omnibus exemplis apparet, particulam demonstrativam hoc utrumque sane et vas et potum complecti et propter istam unionem de illo toto, quod demonstratur, verissime enunciari posse alterum, quod sensibus non ita obvium est, alterius autem, quorum unitum aut coniunctum est, interventu verissime monstrari aut exhiberi posse. [Google]

1184) Ev. Dogmatik, p. 130.

1185) Meyer zu Matt. 26:26 ff. Loofs, RE. 3 I, 65. 66.

351 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 299-300]

are and remain distinct in the Lord's Supper according to their essence or substance. The transformation of the bread into the body of Christ is a monk's and sophist's dream. But the bread and the body of Christ are bound together in the Lord's Supper by Christ's word and order into a unity which may be called unio sacramentalis. Because of this unity or binding, we say of the communion bread offered for eating: this is Christ's body. We do not deny the existence of the bread, but we name only the one part, the body of Christ, which is of primary importance. Just as we do not say of a purse that is bound with a hundred florins or filled with a hundred florins: This is a purse and a hundred florins, but call only one part, the hundred florins. But let us let Luther himself speak about his "synecdoche". He writes:1186) "Such a way of speaking of different beings as of one and the same is called the grammatici synecdoche, and is almost common, not only in Scripture, but also in all languages. As when I show or present a sack or bag, I say, 'These are a hundred florins,' the pointing and the little word 'this' come out of the bag; but because the bag and florins are to some extent one being, as one lump, it also applies to the florins.1187) According to the way, I touch a barrel and say: This is Rhenish wine, this is Welsh wine, this is red wine. Again, I touch a glass and say: This is water, this is beer, this is ointment, etc. In all these addresses you see how the little word 'that' points to the vessel, and yet, because the drink and the vessel are to some extent one thing, it is at the same time, indeed primarily, the drink. … If now here a pointed Wiklef [Ed.-Wycliffe] or Sophist should laugh and say: You show me the bag and say: This is a hundred guilders; how can bag be a hundred guilders? Again, if he said: You show me the barrel and say it is wine. Rather, the barrel is wood and not wine, the bag is leather and not gold: even the children would laugh at him as a fool or a joker. For he tears

1186) St. L. XX, 1034.

1187) When Luther here and in the following addresses "one being", which the bread and the body of Christ become in the Lord's Supper, he does not understand it as "one being" through transformation — which he also explicitly rejects here — but "one being" in the relation that the bread and the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper are bound into one unity through Christ's word and order. Hence also the limitation: "to some extent (aliquo modo) one being".

352 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 300-301]

the two united beings from each other and will speak of each one separately, since we are now in such an address, since the two beings have come into one being. For the barrel is no longer bad wood or barrel, but it is a wine wood or wine barrel, and the bag is no longer bad leather or bag, but a gold leather or money bag. But if you want to separate the whole thing and separate the gold and the leather, each matter is of course its own, and then you must address the matter differently, as follows: this is gold, this is leather, this is wine, this is a barrel. But if you leave it completely, then you must also speak of it completely, pointing to the barrel and the bag and saying: This is gold, this is wine, for the sake of the unity of the essence. For one must not pay attention to what such pointed sophists are saying, but look at the language, what kind of way, custom and habit there is to speak. Since such a way of speaking is common to both Scripture and all languages, nothing prevents us from praedicatio identica1188) in the Lord's Supper. There is also none, but it dreams the Wyclif and the Sophists thus. For although body and bread are two different natures, each for itself, and where they are separated from each other, certainly none is the other, but where they come together and become a completely new being, then they lose their difference, insofar as such a new one being concerns, and how they become and are one thing. So they are called and addressed as one thing, so that it is not necessary for the two to perish and become one, but both to remain bread and body, and for the sake of sacramental unity it is rightly said: 'This is my body', with the little word 'this' pointing to the bread; for it is now no longer bad bread in the oven, but flesh-bread or body-bread, that is, a bread which has become a sacramental being and a thing with the body of Christ. So also of the wine in the cup: 'This is my blood,' with the little word 'this' pointed to the wine; for it is now no longer bad wine in the cellar, but wine of blood, that is, a wine which has come into a sacramental being with the blood of Christ."

Therefore, the objection that the literal version of the words of the Lord's Supper, "This is my body", "This is my blood", results in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is quite inaccurate,

1188) Luther's detailed exposition on the praedicatio identica XX, 1026 ff.

353 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 301-302]

because Christ in the predicate does not call bread and body of Christ and wine and blood of Christ, but only Christ's body and Christ's blood. This objection has been raised against the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper not only by the rationalists,1189) but also by old and recent Reformed. So also Hodge says: "If the words of Christ are to be taken literally, they teach the doctrine of transubstantiation." 1190) That this objection is inaccurate becomes apparent when we continue to pay attention to scriptural statements in which the locutio exhibitiva is found. Thus Peter says Matt. 16:16 of the Son of Man: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God," and the angel Luke 1:35 to Mary: "The holy one that is born of you will be called the Son of God." As the Son of Man and the Son of Mary is the Son of God, not by transformation of the Son of Man into the Son of God, nor by image of the Son of God by the Son of Man, but by union — in this case, by unio personalis — so in the Lord's Supper the bread offered is Christ's body, not by transformation of the bread into the body, nor by image of Christ's body by the bread, but by union of the bread with Christ's body, by unio sacramentalis. Hodge errs, then, in giving the following logical and linguistic lesson: "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 at the same time." Hodge himself declares his canon to be in error. He wants, after all, to hold to the Unitarians that the Son of Mary is in the proper sense of the word (literally) the Son of God, that is, "at the same time" both the Son of Mary and the Son of God. He rightly does not admit that in the literal version of the sentence: "The Son of Mary is the Son of God" a transformation of the Son of Mary into the Son of God is taught.

But the Reformed antithesis in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper requires further discussion. It has become customary to see in the difference of Luther and Zwingli concerning the doctrine of the Lord's Supper the reason for the division of the Protestant church at the time of the Reformation. The exposition of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper has been called difficult. Hodge also says: "It is

1189) So also Meyer in the commentary on Matt. 26:26 ff. In the doctrine of the Lord's Supper Meyer did not get rid of his rationalism.

1190) Systematic Theol., III, 662, note.

354 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 302-303]

a very difficult matter to give an account of the Reformed doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper satisfactory to all parties." In justifying this difficulty, Hodge says of the Reformed, among others: "They did all they could to conciliate Luther. They adopted forms of expression which could be understood in a Lutheran sense. So far was this irenical (?) "spirit carried that even Romanists asked nothing more than what the Reformed conceded. Still another difficulty is that the Reformed were not agreed among themselves. 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."1191) But one need not unduly magnify Reformed discord in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper either. Shedd correctly reminds us: "The difference between Zwingli and Calvin upon sacramentarian points has been exaggerated."1192) It is more a discord in the manner of speaking and especially in the attempted justification of the doctrine than in the doctrine itself. In the main, a great agreement among the Reformed can be readily stated. All agree that Christ's body and blood are not present in the Lord's Supper, but are as far removed from it as heaven is from earth. They all agree that Christ's body and blood are not present in the Lord's Supper, but are as far away from it as heaven is from earth.

There is also general agreement on the ultimate justification for the absence of Christ's body, namely that Christ's body can only ever have a spatial and visible presence, that is, a presence that does not exceed the natural body size (mensuram corporis, dimensionem corporis). reach out. All agree, therefore, that the words of the Lord's Supper are not to be grasped actually, but figuratively. Hodge himself convincingly demonstrates that Calvin and the confessional writings influenced by him do not teach "a real presence" in the sense of the Lutheran Church, just as Zwingli did not.1193) The same proof is given by Shedd.1194) The Formula of Concord also testifies to the Reformed that they are united in doctrine despite differences in speech.1195) Calvin occasionally speaks of the fact that in the Lord's Supper the Holy Spirit, overcoming all distances, "pours Christ's "flesh and blood"

1191) Syst. Theol., III, 626.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1192) Dogm. Theol, II, 569.

1193) Systematic Theol., III, 628 sqq.

1194) Dogmatic Theol., II, 569 sqq.; III, 464.

1195) M. 646, 1-8. [Trigl. 971, Sol. Decl., VII, 1-8 🔗]<w:t xml:space="preserve">1196) Inst. IV, 17, 10 and often.

355 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 303-304]

into the believers (transfundit), just as if it penetrated the marrow and bone." But this is not an approximation to the Lutheran doctrine — it does not know such a "transfusion" — but it is 1. an increased enthusiasm, because Calvin thinks of an effect that exists only in his imagination, namely of an immediate spiritual effect; 2. an increased effort to accommodate himself to the way of speaking of Scripture and the Lutheran church and to create the impression as if he also teaches a substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper.1197) Calvin thereby rejects "real presence" in the sense of Lutheran doctrine, as Hodge correctly notes.

True, however, is this: Although all Reformed agree on the doctrine of absence, and therefore let the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper be only images of the absent body and blood of Christ, they do not agree on the part of the sentence "This is my body" in which the image has its seat, whether in the "that" or in the "is" or in the "my body." Carlstadt tried it with the subject of the sentence, with the "that". Christ had pointed with the "that" (τόυτό) not to the bread presented for the meal, but to his body sitting at the table.1198) Luther reports, "Carlstadt made the text thus: 'This is my body' should mean as much: Here sits my body. And the text should stand thus: 'He took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Here sitteth my body, which is given for you.'" 1199) Zwingli disagrees with Carlstadt's exegetical procedure. He rather vigorously declares his dissensus. Although he praises the godly opinion expressed in Carlstadt's address of "that," he adds that this version seems "marvelously sacrilegious," since Christ evidently does not speak of his seated body, but calls what is presented for eating his body. Zwingli therefore advises leaving out the "that" and sticking to the following word, "is", especially since, like "that",

1197) Read, for example, Inst. IV, 17, 19.

1198) Carlstadt's "Dialogus or Booklet of Conversations", St. L. XX, 2325. Peter, the layman who plays the role of Carlstadt: "I have always appreciated it in the way that Christ pointed to his body and thus said: This is the body of mine, which is given for you. For Christ did not point to the bread." Likewise p. 2328.

1199) St. L. XX, 1771 f

356 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 304-305]

it only has three letters, so in this respect the difference is not that great. "Is" stands for "means", in the sense: The bread, which I give you to eat, means (significat) my body. Zwingli writes: "So the whole burden is not on this little pointing word 'that,' but on another, which is not greater according to the letter number, namely, on the little word 'is,' which in Holy Scriptures is taken in not a few places for 'signifies.'" 1200) Ecolampad and Calvin, however, prefer to take the predicate noun "my body" figuratively, in the sense: the bread I give you to eat is signum corporis, "sign of the body," an image or symbol of my body.

Carlstadt has few imitators healthy with his "Tuto," as Luther briefly names this contrast. Schenkel1201) is seriously angry with Carlstadt. He thinks that Carlstadt's "tasteless assertion" so angered and embittered Luther that he could not appreciate the position of his other opponents. Schenkel says: "It was a misfortune that a man like Carlstadt had to annoy and embitter Luther to the utmost by the insipid assertion that with the words of institution 'This is my body' Jesus had pointed to his then bodily present body. In this way Carlstadt managed to completely remove the presence of the body and blood of Christ from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. … Hence Luther's tremendous anger … and the powerful statements in his writing 'Wider die himmlischen Propheten'." Carlstadt's relation of the words "This is my body" to Christ's body sitting at the table, however, is pure arbitrariness.1202)

But it is just as arbitrary to convert "is" into "means" with Zwingli, because the copula "is" in human address does not have this meaning at all. Luther says quite correctly:1203) "This is a certain rule in all languages: where the word 'is' is used in a speech, one is certainly talking about the essence of the same thing, not about its interpretation," that is, where "is"

1200) "Zwinglis Meinung vom Nachtmahl Christi," reprinted St. L. XX, 470. The Latin text is found in De vera et falsa religione, Opp. III, 255: Difficultas universa non in isto pronomine Hoc sita est, sed in voce nihilo, quod ad elementorum numerum attinet, maiore, puta in verbo Est. Nam ea in sacris literis non uno loco pro significat ponitur. [Google]

1201) RE.1 1, 35.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1202) Cf. Luther XX, 210 ff.

1203) St. L. XX, 909 ff.

357 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 305]

is used, one is always talking about what a thing is, not about what it means to another thing. Human language would cease to be a means of communication if "is" were not "is" but meant something else. "Language 'itself would commit suicide if it could tolerate the idea that the substantive verb shall express not substance, but symbol." 1204) That one has meant and still means that the copula "is" stands in the sense of "means" is the consequence of the spiritual weakness that has been attached to us men since the Fall. The fall of man has exerted an evil influence also on the human logic. And all of us, who belong to the sinful humanity, have high cause to check our logic continuously. But if we use the remnant of logic that remained to us after the Fall by God's goodness, we can see that in the passages of Scripture that are chiefly cited by the Reformers in the controversy over the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, "is" does not stand in the sense of "means." Even a part of the Reformed admits this, as we shall see.1205) Admittedly, from Zwingli to the present, one has compiled a longer or shorter catalog of scriptural passages in which supposedly "is" stands for "means."1206) The most important passages are: Joh. 10:9: "I am the door"; Joh. 16:5: "I am the vine"; 1 Cor. 10:4: The rock that followed was Christ. Namely also Luke 8:11: "The seed is the Word of God"; Matt. 13:38: "The field is the world"; Matt. 11:14: "He [John the Baptist] is Elijah"; further Gal. 4:24: "These are the two testaments." Zwingli even thinks that one would become a blasphemer (blasphemus) if one did not take "is" for "means" in these passages.1207) But Zwingli's zeal significantly exceeds the quality of his logic. The very passages cited prove that "is" does not

1204) Krauth, Conservative Ref., p. 619. Also Hollaz says very correctly, Examen, De eucharistia, qu. 7: Copula verbalis "est" non est capax tropi. Si enim copula "est" amiserit suam significationem copulandi vel uniendi praedicatum cum subiecto, ac induerit aliam, tum ipsam quoque propositionem destruxerit, ne amplius sit propositio. [Google]

1205) Likewise Meyer on 1 Cor. 10:16, although he adopts the Reformed doctrine for rationalistic reasons: "εοτί never means anything but est, never significat; it is the copula of being."

1206) A catalog in Zwingli, Opp. III, 256 ff.

1207) Ad Ioh. Bugenhagii Pomerani epistola, Opp. III, 606.

358 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 305-306]

stand for "means". When it is said: Christ is the door, is the vine, was the rock, etc., there is, however, a figurative expression (trope) in these sentences. But not in the copula 'is', but in the predicate noun 'door', 'vine', 'rock'. 'Christ' does not mean the door, but is really the door. Admittedly, not a natural door leading, say, from a street in St. Louis to a house situated on the street, but the spiritual door, namely, the door through which men enter God's kingdom. As Christ immediately declares Himself, "I am the door; if any man enter in by me, he shall be saved." The word "door" has become, as Luther puts it, a "new word." But the copula "is" retains its first and only meaning: it goes "to the essence," to what Christ really is, namely, the spiritual door into the kingdom of God. The same is to be said of the other examples. Christ does not mean a vine, but is the spiritual vine on which the spiritual branches, the Christians, hang by faith. Likewise, Christ did not signify the rock, but was really the spiritual rock (πνευματική πέτρα) that accompanied Israel through the wilderness.1208) Even if they are images, "is" remains is. However, pointing to a picture of Peter, we say, "This is Peter." But we do not mean to say: the picture means Peter, but: That which is depicted in the picture is Peter, or: That is a depicted Peter.1209) Also here Peter has become a "new word". To the category of images now belong all scriptural passages in which parables (parables) and allegories are present. Christ spoke to the people in parables (εν παραβολαϊς, διά παραβολής, Matt. 13; Luke 8) and says in the parable or image, "The seed is the Word of God" (Luke 8:11) and, "The field is the world" (Matt. 13:38). Again, the meaning is not: the natural seed means Word of God, but: That which is represented under the image of the natural seed in the parable is God's Word. Likewise, the field does not mean the world, but that which is represented under the image of the natural field in the parable is the world. "Seed" and "field" have become "negated word'". The apostle Paul says Gal. 4:22 ff. of Hagar, the maid, and her son and of Sarah, the free woman,

1208) Meyer on 1 Cor. 10:3. 4: "That ήν here means significabat (so also Augustine, Bengel and several) is assumed quite arbitrarily."

1209) Luther XX, 988. 990.

359 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 306-307]

and her son: "These are the two testaments," the testament of the law from Sinai and the testament of the promise. But thus Paul speaks of Hagar and Sarah, etc., in allegory or figuratively; άτινά εατιν άλληγορονμενα, that is, speaking allegorically or figuratively.1210) The sense here is also this: That pictured or typically represented by Hagar the maid is the testament of Sinai with its servants, and that pictured and typically represented by Sarah the free woman is the testament of the promise or gospel, which does not give birth to servants but to children.

Luther speaks about the question whether "is" stands in the sense of "means" as follows:1211) "To instruct you, as ours, further, you should know that it is a pure poem who says that this little word 'is' means as much as 'interprets'. No man can ever prove it in any part of Scripture; indeed, I will say further, if the enthusiasts in all the languages that are on earth bring a passage in which 'is' means as much as 'interprets,' they shall have won. But they should leave it alone, for it is lacking in the high spirits that they do not rightly regard the art of speech, grammatica, or as they call it, tropus, which is taught in the children's school. This doctrine teaches how a boy should make two or three words out of one, or how he should give one word new usage and more interpretations. So that I prove with some examples: The word flower, according to its first and ancient interpretation, means a rose, lily, violet and the like, which grows and blossoms from the earth. Now if I would praise Christ with one of his praises and see him coming from the Virgin Mary, such a beautiful child, I might take the word flower and make a trope or give a new interpretation and custom and say: Christ is a flower. Here all grammarians or masters of speech say that flower has become a new word and has a new interpretation and is no longer called the flower of the field, but the child Jesus, and that the word 'is' must not become an interpretation here; for Christ does not mean a flower, but he is a flower, but a different flower than the natural one. For thus says the poet Horatius: Dixeris egregie, notum si callida verbum

1210) Gerhard, De coena, § 95: Non est tropus in copula, sed allegoricus historiae usus ostenditur. Stock in the commentary on this passage: Per historiam hanc Spiritus Sanctus sublimius quid adumbrare voluit. The mentioned historical facts are types of other things.

1211) St. L. XX, 905 ff.

360 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 307-308]

reddiderit iunctura novum [Google] (De arte poetica, v. 47. 48), that is, it is finely spoken when you can well negate a common word. From this one has that one word becomes two or many words, when it gets a different, new interpretation over its common interpretation. For example, flower is another word when it means Christ, and another when it means the natural rose and the like; again, another when it means a golden, silver, or wooden rose. So when one speaks of a miser man: He is a dog; here a dog is called the meager skinflint, and has become a new word from the old word according to the doctrine of Horatii, and one must not make ‘signifies’ out of ‘is’; for the miser is not a figure of a hound. So now one speaks in all languages and negates the words, as if we say: Mary is a dawn; Christ is a fruit of the womb; the devil is a god of the world; the pope is Judas; St. Augustine is Paul; St. Bernard is a dove; David is a woodworm, and so henceforth the Scriptures are full of such talk. And in grammar it is called tropus or metaphor when two things are given the same name for the sake that there is a simile in both of them, and so the same name is one word according to the letter well, but potestate ac significatione plura according to the power, custom, interpretation two words, an old and a new one, as Horatio says, and the children know well. We Germans use to put 'right' or 'other' or 'new' with such negated words and say: You are a right dog, the monks are right Pharisees, the nuns are right Moabite daughters, Christ is a right Solomon. Again, Luther is another Hus, Zwingli is another Korah, Ökolampad is a new Abiram. In such addresses all Germans will bear witness to me and confess that [they] are new words and are the same [as] when I say: Luther is Hus, Luther is another Hus, Luther is a right Hus, Luther is a new Hus. So that one feels how in such addresses according to the doctrines of Horatio a new word is made from the previous one, for it does not work nor sound when I say: Luther means Hus, but he is a Hus. In such passages one speaks of the essence, what one is, and not what he means, and makes over his new essence also a new word. So you will find it in all languages, that I know for sure, and so all grammarians teach, and the boys know in school, and you will never find,

361 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 308-309]

that 'is' may mean 'to interpret'. If now Christ says: John is Elias, no one can prove that John means Elias, because it would also be ridiculous that John should mean Elias, since Elias could much rather typify John. And according to Zwingel's art, Christ would have to turn it around and say: Elias is John, that is, he means John. But Christ wants to say what John is, not what he means, but what kind of being or office he has, and says that he is Elias. Here Elias has become a new word and does not mean the old Elias, but the new Elias, as we Germans say: John is the right Elias, John is another Elias, John is a new Elias. Likewise it is also spoken: Christ is a rock, that is, he has a being and is truly a rock, but yet a new rock, another rock, a right rock. Again: Christ is a right vine. Dear, how does it work if you want to interpret this according to Zwingel's conceit: Christ means the right vine? Who then is the right vine that Christ signifies? So I hear, Christ should be a sign or interpretation of the wood in the vineyard? Oh, that would be fine! Why would Christ not have said it this way: The right vine is Christ, that is, the wooden vine means Christ? It certainly is more fitting that a thing should be an emblem of Christ than that He should be a symbol of a thing, since the thing that symbolizes always is lowlier than the thing of which it is a symbol, and all signs are less than the thing they point to, as even fools and children know very well. But Zwingi does not stand on the word 'vera' in this passage: Christ is the right vine. If he had looked at this, he could not have made an interpretation out of the 'is'. For no language suffers according to reason to say that Christ means the right vine. For no one can say that in this place the right vine is the wood in the vineyard. And so the text forces by power that the vine is here a new word, which means another, new, right vine and not the vine in the vineyard. Therefore 'is' here cannot be an interpretation, but Christ is true and has the nature of a true, new vine. However, even if the text stood thus: Christ is a vine, I do not mean to say that Christ means the vine, but rather that the vine should mean Christ. So also this passage: Christ is the Lamb of God, John 1:29, cannot be understood in this way:

362 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 309-310]

Christ means the Lamb of God, because then Christ would have to be less than a sign than the Lamb of God. But what is the Lamb of God that signifies Christ? Shall it be the paschal lamb? Why doesn't he turn it around and say more fittingly: The Lamb of God is Christ, that is, Paschal Lamb means Christ, as Zwingi interprets? But because the Word of God stands by the word Lamb, it forces by power that Lamb here is another, new word, also means another, new and the right Lamb, which is truly Christ, and not the old Paschal Lamb. And so on, what more examples do they give than: The seed is the Word of God, Luke 8:11 ff; the field is the world etc., Matt. 13:38, they cannot make an interpretation out of the ‘is’ with good reason, but the children in school say that seed and field are tropi or negated words according to the metaphor. For vocabulum simplex et metaphoricum are not one but two words. So seed here is not called grain nor wheat, but Word of God, and field is called the world, because Christ (says the text itself) speaks in parables and not of natural grain or wheat. But he that speaketh in parables maketh of common words nothing but tropos, new and different words; otherwise they were not parables, where he used the common words in the former interpretation. That there is even a foolish, incomprehensible spirit, who wants to take the words in parables according to a common interpretation, is contrary to the nature and manner of parables; he must then gain by interpretation and trickery.” When in the United States the Methodist Apologete became very aggressive with the figurative interpretation of the words of the Lord's Supper, Walther wrote in 1848 in the Der Lutheraner, p. 93 f.: "Because it also happens very often in the Holy Scriptures that certain things or persons are given names which cannot bear them in the proper sense, it certainly seems to those who are ignorant of the rules of language, at first sight, as if the little word 'is' must very often be taken for 'means'. And unfortunately, since Zwingli, even many scholars who are quite well acquainted with the rules of language have nevertheless dishonestly used the ignorance of the people and cited such passages as: "I am the vine, I am the door, the rock was Christ, John is Elijah," etc. as proof of this. They said: Everyone knows that Christ is not really a vine, not really a door, not really a rock, and that John the Baptist was not really

363 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 310-311]

the old prophet Elijah; this they were only meaning-wise; therefore in all these and similar passages 'is' stands for 'means'. But this conclusion is a fallacy. The words, namely vine, door, rock, Elijah and the like, have a double meaning, namely an actual and an inauthentic one (figurative, figurative, tropical). First of all, vine means a growing plant on which vines grow, which it carries, animates and fills with fruit, from which the refreshing wine is pressed; secondly, a vine is also called all such things with which others stand in the most intimate connection, which are carried, animated and filled with fruit by them. When Christ says: "I am the vine", Christ does not mean: "I am a vine" — it would be blasphemy to say that Christ is the image of an ordinary vine, that is, less than an ordinary vine —; no, Christ rather means: "I am a true, the right vine, not one that stands in the garden, but one that has come from heaven; for with me my believers are so intimately united that from me they are enlivened and filled with fruit. — As for the word 'door', it also has a double meaning; first, as is well known, it means the opening through which one enters a house; second, it also means everything by which one enters something. Now when Christ says, 'I am the door,' he does not mean, 'I signify a door,' but: I am the one through whom alone one can enter the kingdom of grace and honor; I am not the image of this door, but precisely the true, the right door of heaven. — As for the word 'rock', it means, first of all, a large, solid mass of stone consisting of the whole; secondly, this word means everything that stands firm without wavering, and on which one can therefore build firmly and trust. Therefore, when Paul writes: 'The rock that followed was Christ,' he does not mean that a rock followed that signified Christ, but that the fathers had a companion through the desert on whom they relied as on a right, solid rock, and from which they could drink the right, bright, clear, refreshing water as a rock, and that was Christ; therefore Paul also calls Christ not only a rock, but the 'spiritual rock'.But who will say that Christ is not a spiritual rock, but only means a spiritual rock?

364 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 311]

— Finally, the word 'Elijah' means, first, the well-known prophet of King Ahab's time, and secondly, a man who rebukes all sin and error with great burning zeal and unusual intrepidity. Now when it is said of John the Baptist: 'He is Elijah,' it is not to say that he signifies Elijah, but that he is a right Elijah, that is, he is a man who with great burning zeal and unusual intrepidity rebukes sin and error. — From this it will hopefully be clear to our readers that from such and similar passages as: 'Christ is the Vine' etc. one cannot prove that the word 'is' in Holy Scriptures ever means so much as 'means'. The main reason, to repeat it briefly, is this, because in those passages there is no address of an actual vine and rock, and no address of an actual door, and no address of the actual Elijah, but all these words are used in a new, changed (tropical), figurative, inauthentic meaning. As certain as it is that Christ is not what the words vine, rock and door indicate in their proper sense, so certain it is that Christ is not merely what these words mean in their tropical sense, but what they really are; namely, that Christ is the divine vine, the door of heaven and the spiritual rock, and John a second Elijah (that is, as Luke 1:17 explains, a man 'in the spirit and power of Elijah'). — The word 'is' therefore always stands firm in Holy Scriptures; therefore, wherever Holy Scriptures say that a thing is this or that, we can also rely on it firmly and without doubt. What would Holy Scriptures be if we could not rely on this little word? Then no truth, not even one revealed in it, would stand firm; in vain would it then stand in the Bible: There is a God, there is a judgment, there is a hell, there is a heaven, Christ is the Son of God, etc.; for if 'is' could be taken for 'means,' who could prevent an unbelieving interpreter of Scripture from also making of God, judgment, hell, heaven, the Son of God, etc., all empty meanings?" In the same vein, another American Lutheran theologian, Krauth, wrote:1212) "A more dangerous falsity in interpretation than the assumption that the word 'is' may be explained in the sense of

1212) The Conservative Reformation, p. 618 f.

365 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 312]

'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 the 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; would no longer be the Door, the Vine, the Good Shepherd, the Bishop of souls, but would be the symbol of a door, the sign of a vine, the figure of a shepherd, the representation of a bishop. This characteristic use of 'is' is essential to the very morality of language, and language itself would commit suicide if it could tolerate the idea that the substantive verb shall express not substance, but symbol. Creation, redemption, and sanctification would all fuse and be dissipated 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. This Socinian and the Pelagian and all errorists of all schools would triumph in the throwing of everything into hopeless confusion, and the infidel would feel that the Book he has so long feared and hated, deprived, as it now would be, of its vitality by the trick of interpreters, could henceforth be safely regarded with contempt. Well might Luther write upon the table at Marburg: 'This is My body'; simple words, framed by infinite wisdom so as to resist the violence and all the ingenuity of men. Rationalism in vain essays to remove them with its cunning, its learning, and its philosophy. Fanaticism gnashes its teeth at them in vain."

Thus we have seen that Zwingli and all who follow him deceive themselves and others when they think that "is" "is not taken for “means” in few places."1213) Therefore, even among

1213) Even in the passage Gen. 41:26: "The seven beautiful cows are seven years", this is not provable. Luther and the Lutherans rightly said that if somewhere in the Scriptures the copula "is" stood for "means", it was still not proven that it must also be taken in this way in the words of the Lord's Supper. Luther (XX, 576 f.): "For it is quite a different thing when I say, That may be called so, and when I say, That must be called so and cannot be called otherwise. Conscience cannot rely on the first; but on the other it can." But with good reason also Gen. 41:26 rejects est for significat. Do not forget that this passage also falls under the category of imagery. It deals with

366 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ (312)-313]

the older Reformed theologians there was no lack of those who rejected the est for significat. Thus Keckermann († 1609) says: "Others want the trope to be in the copula. But this cannot be proved either."1214) A greater stir was caused by his objection to est in the sense of significat by the better-known theologian from Herborn, Johann Piscator († 1625). Piscator had earlier argued very strongly for "is" in the sense of "signifies." He had written, "Metonymy is either in the subject or in the predicate or in the copula of the sentence. Now it is neither in the subject nor in the predicate. So it is in the copula."1215) But when Piscator read the rebuttal of Daniel Hofmann

This is a dream vision, that is, an image that Pharaoh saw in a dream. As we now say of a picture of Luther: "This is Luther", not in the sense: The picture means Luther, but in the sense: The represented in the picture is Luther or a depicted Luther, so we also say of the picture of the seven years, the seven beautiful cows, that they are seven years, namely in the sense: The represented in the picture by the seven cows are the seven years. Luther (XX, 909): "So also the passage from the first book of Moses: Seven oxen are seven years, and seven ears of corn are seven years? Since the text itself says that it speaks of a dream and of a parable or sign of the seven years, the words 'seven oxen, seven ears of corn' must here also be metaphorae and new words and be called the same, that these words 'seven years', that therefore these words 'seven years' according to common interpretation and these words 'seven oxen' according to new interpretation are called one and the same. For seven oxen do not mean seven years, but they themselves are essentially and truly the seven years; for they are not natural oxen that eat the grass in the pasture, which are indeed called 'seven oxen' by old, common words. But here it is a new word, and is seven oxen of hunger and plenty, that is, seven years of hunger and plenty. Summa, they may well lead passages and say, Here is interpretation; but they will never prove it in some." Rodatz, in the Rudelbach-Guericke publication (1843, p. 77): "Parables, visions and dreams fall for our consideration openly under one point of view..... Living, natural cows cannot be years, but dream cows, dream images of cows. What was presented to Pharaoh in the dream image were, according to the appearance" (in the picture) "cows, according to the essence years, symbolized by that image, since periods of time as such cannot come to the imagination to the view. Those cows, of course, were not natural, already expired years, but surely years symbolized by a prophetic dream vision; such years they really were, and that, first of all, says that expression: 'Seven cows are seven years.'"

1214) System. Theol., III, 8, Pastor 444; in Scherzer, Collegium Anti-Calvinianum, Leipzig 1704, p. 573: Alii volunt tropum esse in copula, quod et ipsum non potest probari. In Gerhard, De coena. § 76.

1215) Scherzer, l. c., p. 574.

367 > The Lord's Supper. [ [English ed. ~ 313-314]

of Helmstedt († 1611), he openly confessed that he had been mistaken in his earlier assertion and declared "that in the copula 'ist' cannot be a tropus" (in copula est non posse esse tropum). He therefore retracted his earlier opinion before fighting further, although he clearly felt (persentisco) that with this retraction he was inflicting a small wound on himself for the further struggle.1216) Schenkel thinks that Zwingli has probably correctly recognized "the tropical" in the words of the Lord's Supper, but in such a way that "he attaches it somewhat awkwardly exclusively to the copula and proves it with partly very inappropriate biblical examples".1217)

But also the transfer of the trope into the predicate noun "body", according to which "body" is supposed to stand for "sign of the body", is based merely on arbitrariness. First of all, Christ does not say: Take, eat; this is my body sign, but: "This is my body" (τό οώμά μον). So unanimously do all the sacred writers from whom we have an account of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Matthew: τοντό εοτι τό οώμά μον; Mark: τοντό έστι τό οώμά μον; Luke: τοΰτό έοτι τό οώμά μον; Paul: τοντό μον εοτί τό οώμα. No one employs "bodily sign" for Leib. Luther certainly urges this fact rightly when he writes:1218) "Because the evangelists all so unanimously put these words 'this is my body' in the most simple way, one can assume that there must be no figurative address nor some trope in them. For if there were some trope in it, someone might have touched it with a letter, so that there might have been another text or understanding. Just as they do in other things, where one puts in what the other leaves out. Secondly, Luke describes the body that Christ presents for eating in the Lord's Supper in more detail by adding "which is given for you". But it is not a sign of the body, but Christ's body itself, the body which He took to Himself from the Virgin Mary, that has been given for us.1219) Therefore, there has been no lack of reformers who have

1216) op. cit.<w:t>1217) RE4 I, 26.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1218) St. L. XX, 1046 f.

1219) Hollaz, Examen, qu. 7: Neque cadit tropus in "corpus" aut "sanguinein" propter προδιορισμόν, quod pro nobis traditum. Nam id designatur voce corporis et sanguinis, quod pro nobis in mortem est traditum, et in remissionem peccatorum pro nobis effusum est. Iam vero non signum corporis, non tropicum, non figuratum, sed verum et proprium Christi corpus pro nobis in mortem est traditum, et non tropicus, non figuratus, sed verus et proprius Christi sanguis pro nobis in peccatorum remissionem est effusus. [Google]

368 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 314-315]

have declared the version "body" in the sense of "sign of a body" to be quite impossible. Even "the other Calvin", namely Beza, opposes Oekolampad's and Calvin's "signs of the body". He says that if "body" was to be taken for "sign of the body," it should have been pronounced so as to avoid deception.1220) Beza is arguing here just like Luther and the Lutherans. He expressly says that "body" cannot stand for "sign of the body," but must designate the true, substantial, or essential body, because in the words of the Lord's Supper itself "body" is more closely described as the body which is given for you, and likewise the blood is more closely designated by the addition: which is shed for you. Beza also opposes — to mention this immediately — those who, like Calvin and other Reformed theologians, allow themselves to use "the fruit and effect of Christ's death" for Christ's "body" and "blood". Hodge also does this: "Therefore, 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."1221) Even against this substitute Beza says: "It would certainly be too absurd to construe the words body and blood from the fruit and effect of the Lord's death." The absurdity of this version Beza aptly takes thus, "Well, let us put in for these words 'body' and 'blood' that exposition, saying, 'This is the effect of my death which is given for you, and this is my Spirit which is shed for you!' Can there be anything more inconsistent (ineptius) than this address? For those words, 'which is given for us,' certainly urge you (adigunt) necessarily to understand this of the substance of the body and blood of Christ." 1222)

1220) Beza, Hom. 2. do coen. (in Gerhard, L. de coena, § 76): Confiteor, hic nullum tropum esse, quia signum proprie exponi necesse fuit, ne falleremur. [Google]

1221) Syst. Theol., III, 646.

1222) Epist. 5. ad Alemannum, p. 57, ed. Genev. (in Gerhard, § 76): Nam certe verba illa: "quod pro vobis datur", necessario te huc adigunt, ut de ipsa corporis et sanguinis substantia hoc intelligere cogaris. [Google] Cf. Heppe under "Beza," RE.2 II, 363, and Dogmatik d. ref. K., p. 469. In his writing against Flacius (Adv. Illyricum, p. 127) Beza says: Non dubitamus, quin per corporis appellationem id ipsum pro nobis assumptum et crucifixum corpus declaretur. Gerhard adds l. c.. still adds: Idem agnoscunt Zanchius, Grynaeus, Pezelius, Sadeel, Crellius et Paraeus. [Google]

369 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 315-316]

Admittedly, the majority of the reformed teachers think that it is a usage beyond all doubt to use the image or the sign for the thing depicted or signified, and one can allow oneself this trope (signum pro signato or signatum pro signo) without exposing oneself to the suspicion of deception. They disagree on this point with Beza, who says that if "body" should stand for "sign of the body," this should have been said; otherwise the address would amount to deception. Böhl calls out the oriental usage. He says:1223) "The Oriental treats the image or symbol completely equal to the concept itself expressed by it. The symbol lives before him, and no such sharp distinction takes place between the symbol and what it is supposed to mean as with the Occidental." But Böhl does injustice to the Oriental. As flourishing as the imagination of an Oriental may be, he no more puts the picture in the place of the thing depicted than the Occidental and the rest of mankind. If someone says to an Arab, for example, "This is a date," this Oriental thinks of a real, substantial date, because he, like all other people, always first takes the words of human address in their proper meaning. If, after the words: "This is a date", a picture of a date or an illustrated date were held up to him, he would immediately recognize and also say that this was a different thing from what he was first told. And if one wanted to instruct him with Böhl to the effect that the Oriental treats "the picture or symbol completely equal to the concept itself expressed by it", he would consider this either a joke or an insult. He would say that one wanted to deceive him either in jest or in earnest. If we do not want to deceive ourselves and others, we must hold fast: According to the content, there are two completely different statements, if I use the same words: "This is a date", but with "date" I mean a real date on one occasion and the image of a date on the other occasion. Luther countered this to Ocolampadius when he wrote:1224) "Therefore Ocolampadius cannot stand with his trope, that he wants to let these two speeches be equally valid: 'This is my body' and 'This is my body's likeness'; for that suffers, no language." Against this it has been objected from the Reformed side that it is,

1223) Dogmatik, p. 568.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1224) St. L. XX, 990.

370 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 316-317]

in order to avoid misunderstandings, not necessary to announce each time that one speaks in the picture or tropically.1225) And this has been further justified in this way: If we show someone the picture of a certain person, for example of "Karl", and at the same time say: "This is Karl", then everyone immediately recognizes that it is not about the substantial or real Karl, but about a depicted Karl.1226) However, in this case any misunderstanding is impossible. But this comes from the fact that we present and show Karl's picture and thus announce from the outset by showing the picture that it is a question of a picture of Karl, not of the real Karl. If it did not stand by the presentation of the picture that it is a question of a depicted or painted Karl, then everyone would think of the real, substantial Karl at the words: "This is Karl". Therefore, when the Reformed teachers — and they all do this — operate with examples of images (such as: "This is Peter") and bring into the field against the actual version of the words of the Lord's Supper: "This is my body" such passages of Scripture in which one speaks in parables, types and allegories (such as: "The field is the world"), they make use of a method of proof which is based 100 percent on self-deception and deception of others. They commit a petitio principii, that is, they assume as a foregone conclusion that the Lord's Supper is an image of the body and blood. They assume as proven what they first want to and should prove.1227)

1225) Thus Zwingli in his answer to Bugenhagen, Opp. III, 606. Bugenhagen had pointed out that the words of the Lord's Supper were not a dream image or a parable.

1226) Thus Zwingli says in his Subsidium, Opp. III, 345: Although we say of an image or statue of Peter, "This is Peter," everyone immediately recognizes that this is not the real Peter, but only an image of Peter. And Zwingli regrets that this argument had not already occurred to him when he wrote his Commentarius. He thinks that if he had incorporated this argument into his Commentarius, he would have made such an impression that the war would have been over and he would have been recognized as the victor. Haec sunt, quae vel exciderunt, cum Commentarium acceleraremus, vel postea succurrerunt. Quae si tunc fuissent addita, forsan impressionem sic iuvissent, ut profligato bello nunc tranquille degeremus. [Google]

1227) So says Riissen, Turretini compendium auctum et illustratum, XVIl, 51 (in Heppe, Dogmatik der ref. K., p. 468): Modus loquendi

371 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 317-318]

In order to expose this deception, we find in the Lutheran teachers the following linguistic exposition, which has been called tedious, but which is nevertheless very necessary: Every word is to be taken in its first, that is, proper, meaning until circumstances present in the context of the address or an explicit explanation compels us to substitute for the proper meaning the figurative or transferred one. Without observance of this principle, human speech would cease to be a medium of communication. Indeed, we would always remain in doubt as to whether a statement was to be taken actually or figuratively, that is, we would not know what the speaker or writer actually meant. Like the interchange of "means" with "is," the interchange of the image with the thing depicted (signum pro signato ober signatum pro signo) involves a "suicide" of language. This is why Luther says against Oecolampadius, who wanted to use signum corporis for corpus: "On the other hand, it is also not true that such a trope of Oecolampadius is in some common address or language in the whole world, and whoever brings me a constant example of this, I will give him my neck."1228) In fact, all men, the "Oriental" and the "Occidental," also deal with each other on the principle that they take each word in its first or proper meaning until obviously present circumstances or an explicit explanation compels the figurative version. When we hear the word "door," we think of an opening leading into a house. But when we hear Christ say of himself, "I am the door," we know from Scripture that Christ is not

in omnibus linguis est usitatissimus, quo signatum praedicatur de signo et nomen illius isti datur. [Google] And now Riissen cites all the passages of Scripture in which Scripture speaks in images and parables, and thus believes to have proved that also the words of the Lord's Supper: Hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus are to be understood figuratively. He cites the examples common to the Reformed: Septem vaccae dicuntur septem anni (Gen. 41:26). Ossa dicuntur domus Israel (Ezek. 37:11). Quatuor animalia sunt quatuor reges et decem cornua sunt decem reges (Dan. 7:17. 23. 24; 8:20. 21). Sic (Matt. 13:38. 39) ager est mundus; bonum semen Sunt filii regni, inimicus est diabolus, messis est finis mundi, messores sunt angeli etc.. Et (Apoc. 1:20) septem stellae sunt septem angeli, septem candelabra sunt septem ecclesiae, et cap. 17:9 .septem capita sunt septem montes, decem cornua sunt decem reges, v. 12. Mulier, quam vidisti, est magna civitas, v. 18, etc... [Google]

1228) St. L. XX, 988.

372 > The Lord's Supper. English ed. ~ 318]

a natural door leading into a house, but the spiritual door through which men are to enter God's kingdom. The same is true of all scriptural statements in which Christ is called the vine, a rock, the way, the light of the world, etc. Further, when we hear the word "temple" we think of a building of stone, wood, etc. But when Christ says to the Jews, "Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again," the Scripture itself adds by way of explanation, "But he spake of the temple of his body."1229) When we hear the word "seed," "field," "harvest," etc., we always think first of natural seed, of a natural field, of a natural harvest. But when we hear from the Scriptures that Christ spoke in parables of seed, field, harvest, etc., we are told that this is not the case. the Scripture itself tells us that these words are used as images or signs to represent other things than they denote in their true meaning. If we apply this to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, we must say that Christ's words, "This is my body which is given for you," must be understood by us in their proper meaning of the body of Christ and not of an image of it, unless Scripture itself told us to think in the Lord's Supper not of Christ's body itself but of an image of his body. Such scriptural statements, however, do not exist. Rather, as we have already seen, the situation is this: 1. All biblical reporters on the institution of the Lord's Supper call what Christ presents with his mouth for eating and drinking in the Lord's Supper Christ's body and blood; no one speaks of an image or sign of Christ's body and blood. 2. We also have in Scripture an authentic apostolic explanation as to whether the words of the Lord's Supper are to be taken actually or figuratively. The apostle Paul also, like Matthew, Mark and Luke, records the institution of the Lord's Supper and the words used in it. But in the apostle Paul there is more. In rebuking the frivolities that had occurred in the Corinthian congregation during the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and in exhorting them to the proper seriousness that befits this celebration, he powerfully confirms that the words "body of Christ" and "blood of Christ" are to be taken in their proper and first sense. He does not call the blessed chalice a sign or

1229) John 2:19-22.

373 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 318-319]

image, but the fellowship of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break, not a sign or image, but the fellowship of the body of Christ, and further says of everyone who eats of the bread or drinks of the cup of the Lord unworthily, that he becomes guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eats and drinks God's judgment to himself, because he does not distinguish the body of the Lord. In view of this explanation of the apostle concerning the gift of the Lord's Supper, the Reformed can only maintain their doctrine of images in such a way that they allow themselves to use the image for the matter, namely, for the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ, the fellowship of the image of the body and blood of Christ or the fellowship of the fruit and effect of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli freely says, "The tropes must be known by the light of faith," tropos fidei lumine deprehendi oportet.1230) But "faith" in spiritual things is a relative term. It must always have a Word of God as its correlate. Where this is missing, there is not Christian faith, but a human imagination. What kind of "faith" is this, stemming only from one's own intuition, which causes Zwingli and all Reformed teachers to assume tropes in the words of the Lord's Supper, although Scripture does not show any tropes in them, would now have to be shown in order to clarify the whole situation.

First, however, for the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that there has been no lack of such representatives of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper who do not want to understand individual words, i.e. neither "that" nor "is" nor "body", figuratively at all, but who would like us to think of the whole or the sense of the whole sentence as a symbol. Thus Keckermann thought that in the sentence "This is my body" each individual word must be allowed to stand in its proper sense, but then the whole sentence must be understood in a non-proper sense or as a picture. First of all, this is a great imposition from a logical point of view. If all the individual words of the sentence are to be taken actually, i.e., "bread" is bread, "is" is and "Christ's body" is the body that is given for us, then no man, Keckermann included, can bring himself to grasp what is said in the whole sentence as a mere image.1231)

1230) Opp. III, 606.

1231) Cf. Dannhaüer's criticism of Keckermann's trope in Qneustedt II, 1197: Absurdus denique etiam ille Keckermanni (quem repetit Combachius, De Euch., c. 11) tropus in tota propositione, ita tamen, ut

374 > The Lord's Supper. English ed. ~ 319-320]

Furthermore: If one looks more closely, it soon becomes clear that Keckermann is not serious about the actual version of the individual components of the sentence. Keckermann addresses at the same time a "union of meaning" (unio significationis), which takes place between the bread and the body of Christ. So he actually takes either "is" for "means" or "body" for "bodily sign"; for otherwise his "unio of signification" or likeness would not come out. Here the reminder is in place that Luther is right when he says:1232) is certain that Zwingli and Oecolampadius are united in understanding, although the words are different. For the Zwingli says: 'This means my body', is tantamount to Oecolampadius’ saying: 'This is a sign of my body'. The German language also exists, and all languages, that it is the same when I say: laughter means joy, and laughter is a sign of joy; that it has no question nor doubt, 'to mean' and 'to be a sign' are one and the same." "Oecolampadius has figuram corporis, Zwingli has significans corpus; that is one thing." So it certainly is. Even those among the Reformed who say with Oecolampadius and Calvin that the trope is not in the copula but in the predicate noun, who say, therefore, that we must not take "is" for "signifies," but "body" for "sign of body," mean exactly the same thing as Zwingli and comrades meant. Both parties, despite the difference in words, think of the relationship between bread and the body of Christ in such a way that the bread is an image or symbol of the body of Christ. In general it is to be said that all the Reformed pay homage to the so-called "subject trope," no matter where they nominally take the trope, whether in the subject "that," or in the copula "is," or in the predicate noun "body," or even in the whole sentence: "This is my body." All grasp the bread as an image or symbol of the absent body of Christ. Thus, despite the feuds among them, they eventually agree on the words. As Zwingli declares his significat thus: symbolum est, figura est,1233) namely, the bread is a symbol, an image of the body of Christ, so Calvin also says that the bread is called Christ's body

singula verba maneant propria: totum se. enuneiatum est tropicum, totum enunciati proprium, cuiusmodi monstrum in nulla unquam Rhetorica auditum est. [Google]

1232) St. L. XX, 782 f. 1086.

1233) Opp. III, 607: Sic docuimus, est pro symbolum est, figura est, significat hic positum esse.

375 > The Lord's Supper. English ed. ~ 320-321]

because the bread is a sign or symbol (signum aut symbolum) of Christ's body.1234) Also those who, like Keckermann, Zanchi, Bucanus and others, want to transfer the trope into the whole sentence, declare explicitly that they mean: Panis est symbolum sive signum corporis Christi. This is especially clear in Bucanus. He says: "The figurative address is not found in the individual words, considered separately and by themselves. For the bread is bread in the proper sense, and the body is not an allegorical, not a tropical, not a figurative, much less an illusory body or phantasm, nor a mystical body, which is the Church, nor a sign of the body, nor the merit of Christ, but body denotes the proper body of Christ (proprium Christi corpus); the true body of the Lord is certainly said of the true bread. But the figurative address is found in the whole statement (attributione), because the copula binds two things (disparata) distinct in essence, which [statement] may be thus resolved: The bread is a symbol or sign of the body of Christ (panis est symbolum seu signaculum corporis Christi)."1235) We only remind you that with the imposition to figuratively grasp the whole sentence: "This is my body", stops all argumentation again. In the imposition there is a petitio principii. That which is first to be proved is assumed to be proved. And then here again the question arises, which we already dealt with earlier: Why, if it is permissible to take a part of the words of the Lord's Supper figuratively, and that in any case the most important part: "This is my body" — why stop halfway and not take all the words and the whole action of the Lord's Supper figuratively? Why not also entirely dismiss bread and the eating of it, and wine and the drinking of it, as external things and external acts, and, like the Quakers, let only the inward, spiritual enjoyment of Christ in the hearts of the believers be pictured by the external process of the first supper? But this has already been pointed out under the section on "The Divine Order of the Lord's Supper." We add here that also

1234) In the commentary to 1 Cor. 11:24: Cur hic negemus similem esse metonymiam nomenque corporis pani tribui, quia eius signum sit aut symbolum? [Google] Calvin also cites for his "sign of the body" the same writers with which Zwingli proves his "means", Inst. IV, 17, 21. 22.

1235) Bucanus, loc. 48, p. 693. In Gerhard, L. de coena, § 85.

376 > The Lord's Supper. English ed. ~ 321-322]

Luther already points out this inconsistency. He says: "Dear, why are the other words not also taken figuratively, and does the trope only go over the word 'is' or 'body'? Or where is there a rule that teaches us which and which do not have to be taken figuratively? For on such doctrine I will also make the words, 'Take, eat, such do in remembrance of me,' tropos, and say: 'take' means to hear, 'eat' means to believe, 'do such things' means to think in the heart."1236) Krauth also recalls, "The Word ΤΑΚΕ these interpreters [the Reformed] have usually construed literally, though why an imaginary body or the symbol of a body might not be taken mentally, they cannot say. … The Word EAT they 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." 1237)

But we now turn our attention to the "faith" which causes the Reformed to deny the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper and therefore to take the words of the Lord's Supper figuratively. There is a great self-deception on the part of the Reformed and a deception of others when they refer to Scripture for their doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper has its basis not in Scripture, but in a fixed human idea. This is the idea, held against the clear testimony of Scripture1238) , that Christ, according to his human nature, thus also according to his human body, can have no other than the local and visible presence (localis et visibilis praesentia). Not only Luther says: "All their reason stands on the fact that Christ's body must be alone in one place, bodily and understandably", "as a peasant is in doublet and pants" or "as straw in sackcloth".1239) Calvin, too, repeatedly affirms that the reason for his dissent from Luther lies on the point stated by Luther. In order to thoroughly refute Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Calvin wants above all "to refute that foolish

1236) St. L. XX, 1006.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1237) The Conserv. Ref., p. 608 sq.

1238) Cf. the detailed exposition in the doctrine of Christ's person, II, 192 ff.

1239) St. L. XX, 950. 953. 1776.

377 > The Lord's Supper. English ed. ~ 322]

fiction "stultum illud commentum", that the body of Christ has, besides the visible and local presence, also an invisible, non-spatial and supernatural presence. He says: The Lutherans "prate of an invisible presence",1240) and asserts in all seriousness that according to human nature no presence may be ascribed to Christ which extends beyond his natural body length (mensuram corporis, dimensionem corporis) and allows him to be present in several places at the same time (pluribus simul locis distrahit).1241) Otherwise there would be a calamity. The true humanity of Christ would necessarily be lost. To the true body of Christ belongs necessarily and under all circumstances, "that it is enclosed by space, that it does not reach beyond its dimensions" (i.e. not beyond six feet) "that it is visible. Therefore, away with that stupid fiction which attaches both the spirit of men and Christ to the bread!” 1242)

In order to clarify the situation between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, it must always be remembered that within Reformed theology, precisely with regard to the main doctrines of Scripture, humanly devised principles appear outside of Scripture, according to which the statements of Scripture are "interpreted". We encountered this in the doctrine of God's grace. Reformed theologians from Calvin on down to Hodge and Böhl answer the question of whether God intends to make all men saved or only a part of them according to the principle that God's intention regarding the salvation of men is to be judged by the result. They argue: From the fact that not all men are saved, it must be concluded that God does not want to have all men saved

1240) Inst. IV, 17, 30: Garriunt deinvisibili praesentia. [Google]

1241) Inst. IV, 17, 19.

1242) Inst. IV, 17, 29: Haec est propria corporis veritas, ut spatio contineatur, ut suis dimensionibus constet, ut suam faciem habeat. Facessat igitur stultum illud commentum, quod tam mentes hominum quam Christ pani affigit! Quorsum enim occulta sub pane praesentia etc. [Google] In the translation of John Allen the words read: "It is essential to a real body to have its particular form and dimensions, 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. For what is the use of this invisible presence," etc. (Institutes, etc.)? Translated from the original Latin, and collated with the author's last edition in French, by John Allen. London. 1813. vol. III, p. 426.)

378 > The Lord's Supper. English ed. ~ 323]

and that Christ's merit does not extend to all men.1243) According to this human idea, they then exegete all scriptural statements that read gratia universalis. Likewise in Christology. The question whether the divine and the human nature can have real fellowship (realis communio) with each other in Christ, they decide according to the principle: Finitum non est capax infiniti. According to this axiom, they reinterpret all scriptural statements that refer to the fellowship of natures and the communication of attributes. Likewise with the doctrines of the means of grace. The question whether God works the faith in the gospel or the rebirth through the means of grace arranged by him or without them and beside them, they decide according to the principle: Because the rebirth is an effect of the divine omnipotence, so there is "no place for the use of means" in the rebirth. Thus we also heard from Hodge: "Volumes have been written on the contrary hypothesis; which volumes lose all their value if it be once admitted that regeneration, or effectual calling, is the work of omnipotence." 1244) From this human idea, the scriptural statements that faith or regeneration come through the means of grace and from the means of grace are reinterpreted into their opposite, as if they read: without the means of grace and apart from them. The same is true here with the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The tyrant with which the Reformed theologians tyrannize the Scriptures and themselves is the fixed idea that according to his human nature only a visible and spatial presence is ever to be ascribed to Christ, and therefore the body of Christ cannot be invisible and non-spatial in the Lord's Supper. Everything that the Reformed object to the presence of Christ's body and blood as expressed in Christ's words is ultimately based on that preconceived idea. That is why Carlstadt thought that when Christ said, "This is my body," he could only have been pointing to his body visibly seated at the table. That is why Zwingli thought that in the words of the Lord's Supper "is" could not be "is" but must mean "means." That is why Oecolampadius and Calvin thought that "body" could not be "body" but must necessarily be taken for "bodily sign." And when the Reformed theologians say of "Christian faith",

1243) Calvin, Inst. III, 24, 15. Hodge, Syst. Theol., II, 323.

1244) Syst. Theol., II, 683.

379 > The Lord's Supper. English ed. ~ 323-324]

that it does not permit the essential presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, they always mean their article of faith about the only visible mode of being of the body of Christ. Oecolampadius writes against Luther:1245) "How may you ascribe to us many heads for the sake of such exposition" (namely "whether one interprets the hoc thus, anoither takes the est to mean and another seeks another way") ? "As far as I know, the reason of us all is one, that Christ went to heaven with a true body." "Our reason is that the body of Christ is in heaven; it is now certain and not lacking." "Christian truth is that the body of Christ is in heaven with honor and glory." In other words, all the arguments of the Reformed against the essential presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper finally resolve themselves into this "single reason" that only a spatial and visible presence is possible for Christ according to human nature.

Under the dominion of this fixed idea, Calvin, as we already saw with the doctrine of Christ's person, wreaks true murder among the scriptural passages that contradict his idea. Thus, he claims that Christ did not come to the disciples through closed doors (John 20), but through an opening,1246) and that Christ did not become invisible (non factus est invisibilis) before the Emmaus disciples, but only covered their eyes.1247) At the same time, on this occasion, a number of scriptural teachings come to life. The right hand of God, to which Christ was exalted after his exaltation through the Ascension, is reinterpreted as a circumscribed place, through which Christ, after his exaltation, is now shut off from his church all days until the end of the world.1248) Thus, the scriptural teachings of Christ's ascension and His sitting at the right hand of God are reinterpreted into the very opposite.1249) Further, Calvin indirectly ascribes infinity to the world and local extension to God. Only with the presence of these ideas in his mind

1245) Response to Luther's Preface to the Syngramma, St. L. XX, 591 ff.

1246) Inst. IV, 17, 29.<w:t>1247) op. cit.

1248) Calvin explicitly states in Inst. IV, 17, 30 that the promise: "I am with you always, even to the end of the world" does not refer to Christ even after humanity.

1249) Cf. the sections "The Ascension of Christ" and "Sitting at the Right Hand of God" II, 382 ff.

380 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 324-325]

can Calvin so persistently assert that through the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence Christ's body is made "infinite" 1250) and "spread out through heaven and earth" (diffundi).1251) Yes, even the greatest and highest thing in Christianity is sacrificed to the delusion of the only spatial and visible mode of being of Christ's body: the incarnation of the Son of God. This is especially clear in Calvin. In order to be able to keep Christ's body and blood out of the Lord's Supper, he declares it to be a quite frightening doctrine that the Son of God everywhere has his human nature with him.1252 This is the crossing over into Unitarian territory, because with it the unique union that exists between God and man in Christ, the unio personalis, is reduced to the unio mystica that takes place between God and all believers.1253) As a result of the reduction of the unio personalis to the unio mystica, Calvin, in disputing the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, also continually allows himself the following argument: Just as the body of other men cannot be in several places at the same time, neither can this be granted to the body of Christ. Calvin virtually establishes the axiom — misusing scriptural passages such as Hebr. 2:14; 4:15 — that, with the exception of sinlessness, we are not allowed to say anything different or more about Christ according to His human nature than we are about

1250) Inst. IV, 17, 30: "If we give them (the Lutherans) credit for what they say about the invisible presence, this does not yet prove the infinity (immensitas), without which they vainly try to include Christ under the bread. Luther (XX, 965), on the other hand, says: "If the world itself is not infinitum or infinite, how can it follow that Christ's body is infinite if it were everywhere?"

1251) Inst. IV, 17, 19. In contrast, Luther (XX, 1009): "Oecolampad spins the same sackcloth that Zwingli spins, namely, that Christ's body should be as great as heaven and earth. .... Is God Himself not so great and wide" (i.e. in local extension), "who is everywhere." Cf. the detailed exposition under the section "The manner of Christ's omnipresence according to human nature," II, 192 ff.

1252) Inst. IV, 17, 30: Quosdam [the Lutherans are meant] ita abripit contentio, ut dicant, propter unitas in Christo naturas, ubicunque est divinitas Christi, illic quoque esse carnem, quae ab illa separari nequit. [Google]

1253) Compare here what has been said about the Christological "suicide" that Reformed theology commits by denying in Christology the fellowship of natures and the communication of attributes, specifically the communication of the divine omnipresence to the human nature of Christ, II, 184 ff. 136 ff. 141 ff. 171 ff.

381 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 325-326]

every other man. If this happens, the true human nature of Christ is lost. Calvin writes: "It pleased God that Christ should become like his brethren in all matters, sin excepted. But what is the nature of our body? Is it not part of its nature to have its certain extent, to be enclosed, grasped, and seen from one place? They [the Lutherans] say, why God cannot cause one and the same body to be in several and different places, not to be enclosed by the place, to lack the visible mode of existence? Insane man, what do you demand from God's power, that he causes a body to be a body and not to be a body at the same time! … A body must be a body, a spirit a spirit, every thing must remain in the condition in which it was created by God. But this is the constitution of a body, that it is only in a certain place and exists in its extension and in its visible form."1254) So vigorously does Calvin insist here that we ascribe to Christ according to his human nature nothing else and no more than to any other man! This truly thoroughly nullifies the incarnation of the Son of God and the whole work of redemption. According to Calvin's axiom we would have to say: No other man is God, therefore also not the Son of Mary. No other man is the mediator between

1254) Inst. IV, 17, 24: Placuit [Deo], Christ fratribus per omnia similem fieri, excepto peccato. Qualis est nostra caro? Nonne, quae certa sua dimensione constat, quae loco continetur, quae tangitur, quae videtur? Et cur, inquiunt, non faciat Deus, ut caro eadem plura diversaque loca occupet, ut nullo loco contineatur, ut modo et specie careat? Insane, quid a Dei potentia postulas, ut carnem faciat simul esse et non esse carnem! … Carnem igitur carnem esse oportet; spiritum, spiritum; unumquodque qua a Deo lege et conditione creatum est. Ea vero est carnis conditio, ut Uno certoque loco, ut sua dimensione, ut sua forma constet. [Google] John Allen translated these words as follows: "It pleased God for Christ to become in all respects like His brethren, sin excepted. What is the nature of our body? Has it not its proper and certain dimensions? Is it not contained in some particular place, and capable of being felt and seen? And why, say they, may not God cause the same flesh to occupy many different places, to be contained in no particular place, and to have no form or dimensions? But how can they be so senseless as to require the power of God to cause a body to be a body, and not to be a body, at the same time? … Therefore body must be body, spirit must be spirit, everything must be subject to that law, and retain that condition which was fixed by God at its creation. And the condition of a body is such that it must occupy one particular place, and have its proper form and dimensions."

382 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 326-327]

God and man, therefore not even the man Christ Jesus. No other man has redeemed mankind through the offering of his body and the shedding of his blood, thus also not the man Christ. Calvin thus thoroughly clears up Christ's person and work. And he does this, as said, in order to keep Christ's body and blood out of the Lord's Supper. For to this end he establishes and seeks to support the proposition that Christ's body can only ever have a spatial and visible mode of being.1255) The same proposition further entails that the Reformed polemic against the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper is a thoroughly untrue one. Because the Reformed, as soon as they hear of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, always have in mind only their visible and spatial presence, "as the peasant is in his doublet and pants," they allow the Lutherans to teach a local inclusion (localis inclusio) of the body of Christ in the bread, or a local coexistence (consubstantiatio), or even a physical mingling (permixtio) of the bread and the body of Christ. From the same point of view, they give the Lutherans

1255) Cremer, RE. 3 I, 37: "Admittedly, if Christ is nothing other than any other man, distinguished only by calling and vocational activity, there can be no talk of fellowship with the body and blood of Christ, and the view present in all accounts [of the Lord's Supper] is invalid." But the "view" is different if we hold to the incarnation of the Son of God. If Christ is indeed like every other man, because he also has and retains a true human nature, he is at the same time something else than every other man, namely, the man who is God, who is bound with God into an I, in whom the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, whose body is God's own body, whose blood is God's own blood, whose blood has this unique quality of being the ransom for the whole world's sin, — if the matter stands thus, we must give to the man Christ, and especially also to his body and blood, the foregoing predicates — they are the predicates of Holy Scriptures —: then the Reformed assertion that the Son of God cannot be with His body and blood in the Lord's Supper appears to be an adventurous assertion. It can only be explained by the fact that thus the "theologizing subject" has forgotten the incarnation of the Son of God, separates the man Christ in his person and in his work from the Son of God, as is the case with Calvin when he asserts of Christ's merit that it does not have sufficient value as the merit of a man, but only receives this value through predestination. (Inst. II, 17, 1.)

383 > The Lord's Supper. [ed. ~ 327]

the predicate flesh-eater, blood-drinker and man-eater1256) and call the Lord's Supper instituted by Christ, with the Real Presence of the Body of Christ given for us, and with the Real Presence of the Blood of Christ shed for us, a "cyclopean meal" and "thyestial meal"1257) All this is the consequence of making the proposition of the only visible and local mode of being of the Body of Christ the principle of Scripture interpretation.

We would be misjudging the situation if we thought that the disagreement which unfortunately exists concerning the doctrine of the Lord's Supper has its reason in some obscurity of the words of the Lord's Supper. These words are of such a nature that in all men, "whether they hear them Christian or heathen, Jew or Turk", they evoke exactly the

1256) So also Zwingli. Zwingli is particularly crude in De vera et falsa religione. Opp. 11, 555. He proves the absence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper not only from the words: "Flesh is of no use," but also from Peter's miraculous draught of fishes. (Luke 5:8) Because Peter, in the knowledge of his sinfulness, says: "Lord, go out from me," Zwingli ties to this the following instruction concerning the Lord's Supper: "And we should have an appetite to eat Christ naturally like man-eaters (anthropophagi)! As if someone loved his children so much that he wished to devour (devorare) them! Or as if among all men those who eat human flesh are not considered the most savage." Oecolampadius, who is said to have a worthy way of fighting Luther (RE.2 X, 722), also uses the above-mentioned expressions in his answer to Luther's preface to the Syngramma, St. L. XX, 588 ff. The crudest Reformed polemicist was perhaps Beza. Even Heppe, a great admirer of Beza, says RE.2 II, 361: To the defender of Lutheran doctrine, Tilemann Heßhusius, "Beza countered in 1560 with two dialogues, one of which he called 'The Carnivores' (κρεωφαγία) or ,Cyclops', the other the 'Räsonnierender Esel' (όνος σνλλογιζόμενος) or 'Sophisten', but unfortunately both of them were full of the most immoderate scorn and derision." To Beza primarily also the Formula of Concord refers when it (662, 67 [Trigl. 997, Sol. Decl., VII, 67 🔗]) points out "how unrighteously and poisonously the sacrament revelers mock the Lord Christ, St. Paul and the Church, who have called this oral and unworthy use of duos pilos caudae equinae et commentum, cuius vel ipsum Satanam pudeat, as well as the doctrine of the majesty of Christ excrementum Satanae, quo diabolus sibi ipsi et hominibus illudat, that is, they speak so terribly of it that even a pious Christian should be ashamed to interpret the same".

1257) The mythical generation of the Cyclopes was said to be man-eaters. (Cf. Homer, Od. IX, 287 ff.; Virgil, Aen. III, 623 ff.) Thyestes ate the flesh of his own son, which his brethren Atreus had set before him. (Cf. Cicero, Tusc. III, 12, 26.)

384 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 327-328.]

same ideas.1258) They are also as clear to the Reformed as they are to the Lutherans. Christ's words: "Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you" generated not only in Luther's, but also in Zwingli's, Oecolampadius's and Calvin's mind the idea — not of an image of Christ's body, but — of the true, essential body which Christ gave in death. The difference between Luther on the one hand and Zwingli and comrades on the other hand is only that the former say yes to Christ's words, the latter say no to Christ's words. They justify their "no" with the impossibility of the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper and the impossibility with the idea, generated without Scripture and against Scripture, that according to human nature no other than the local and visible presence can be given to Christ. The same is to be said of more recent theologians who teach essentially Reformed doctrines of the Lord's Supper. Also for Meyer's Reformed position1259) it is decisive that he thinks that the presentation and reception of the essential body and blood of Christ at the first supper sets the "absolutely impossible". After he has decided the matter for the reason of the "impossibility", "is" has to put up with the "symbolic version".

By the way, the Reformed themselves actually admit in more than one way that they do not have their doctrine of the Lord's Supper from Scripture. This concession lies first in the explanation that the Lord's Supper words are to be interpreted according to the passage John 6.1260) Since John 6 is not about the Lord's Supper at all, as most of the Reformed themselves admit,1261) , so is the

1258) Luther XX, 1005.

1259) Cf. commentary on Matt. 26:26 ff. Likewise Nitzsch-Stephan, Ev. Dogmatik, p. 668.

1260) Hodge, III, 622, cites John 6 as an explanation of the words of the Lord's Supper, 1 Corinthians 10:16, and only includes passages that do not deal with the Lord's Supper but with the spiritual union (unio mystica) of the believers with Christ.

1261) Cf. Strong, Syst. Theol., p. 965; David Brown in Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on Joh. 6; Calvin in Commentary on Joh. 6:54. Zwingli, Opp. III, 241: Deprehendimus eos penitus errare, qui Christ toto isto capite putant quicquam de sacramentali cibo loqui. But he insists that after the words not dealing with the Lord's Supper, the words of the Lord's Supper must be expositioned. Thus already in the much-mentioned letter to Matthew Alberus of 1524, Opp. III, 593, but especially Opp. II, 1, 447.

385 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 328-329]

use of this passage to determine the doctrine of the Lord's Supper an actual explanation that the doctrine thus formed is not taken from Scripture, but from one's own thoughts. This is in the nature of things. Because in the passages which do not deal with the Lord's Supper nothing stands about the Lord's Supper, the thoughts which we form about the Lord's Supper on the basis of such passages are merely our own thoughts. And if we now interpret the scriptural passages that deal with the Lord's Supper according to these thoughts, we are actually substituting our own thoughts for the teaching of Scripture. And if we still maintain that the doctrine we present is the doctrine of Scripture, we speak the untruth and deceive ourselves and the audience. It has been rightly pointed out that the procedure of wanting to take a doctrine from the passages of Scripture that do not deal with this doctrine belongs to the area of the devil's temptations, as we can clearly see from the temptation of Christ. The issue between Christ and the devil was whether it was scriptural for Christ to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple.1262) The devil said yes and gave the scriptural proof from Ps. 91:11: "It is written: He shall command his angels over thee, that they may keep thee in all thy ways." Christ said no and proved his no with Deut. 6:16: "Again, it is also written: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." The difference between the devil's and Christ's proof of Scripture is that Christ cites a passage that deals with the fall that occurred, while the Scripture passage cited by the devil does not refer at all to throwing oneself down from the temple, but to walking in the ways ordered by God.

Since John 6 has become so prominent in the proceedings on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, a few words about this passage are in order.1263) According to text and context it is completely impossible to understand John 6 of the Lord's Supper. The whole communion apparatus is missing in this passage, which all biblical reporters (Matthew, Mark, Luke and St. Paul) do not fail to describe. In John 6 Christ does not take bread, give thanks, break it and give it to the people and says: Take, eat, this is my body,

1262) Matt. 4:6: βάλε σεαντόν κάτω.

1263) For the history of the exposition of this passage, one can read Luthardt in Zöckler's commentary, further Keil on this passage, Harleß, Zeitschr. für luth. Theol. 1867, p. 115 ff., Calov in Biblia Illustr. on this passage

386 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 329-330]

which is given for you. Neither is John 6 mentioning a cup that Christ takes, gives thanks, gives to the people and says: "Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood of the New Testament, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. But that Christ in John 6 speaks with such a strong emphasis of the eating of his body and the drinking of his blood is explained by the context. Christ fed the people, the five thousand, with five barley loaves and two fish. The Jews have a desire for such a Messiah. They want to make him king, and when he eludes them, they follow him to the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. They seek earthly bread from Christ. Christ rebukes them with the words: "Verily, verily, I say unto you: Ye seek me not because ye saw signs, but because ye did eat of the bread, and were filled." He tells them to seek that bread that is for eternal life. Then he very definitely calls himself the life-giving bread that came down from heaven, and he describes faith in himself as what God wants above all things from men. This faith in his person Christ represents under the image of eating and drinking: "He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." It does not occur to the Jews that Joseph's son, whose father and mother they know, should be the bread of life come down from heaven. Christ, however, does not take back his address, but increases it to the effect that his flesh, which he will give for the life of the world, is the living bread. When the Jews murmured about this and said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ finally increased his address to the point that he denied life to anyone who would not eat his flesh and drink his blood. He thus inculcates the truth, so necessary to the Jews and to all of us, that he is the Savior of the Jews and of the world, not by offering bodily food and earthly goods in general, but by his suffering and death for the redemption of man's guilt of sin. John 6 is one of the most powerful passages of Scripture in which faith in Christ's satisfactio vicaria is inculcated as necessary for the attainment of salvation. At the end, Christ directs the address back to the beginning: "This" (namely, Christ in his vicarious satisfaction) "is the bread that came down from heaven; not as your fathers

387 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 330-331]

ate manna and died. Whoever eats this bread will live forever." Luther reminds us that1264) these words [John 6] should not be forced upon the sacrament of the altar, for whoever interprets it in this way does violence to the gospel. There is no letter in this gospel that would grant the sacrament of the altar.1265) Why should Christ remember the sacrament here, if it was not yet instituted? The whole chapter from which this gospel is taken speaks of nothing else than spiritual food, namely faith. For the people followed after the Lord, and wanted to eat and drink again, as the Lord himself indicates: so he takes a cause from the bodily food they were seeking, and speaks throughout the whole chapter of spiritual food, as he said: 'The words that I speak are spirit, and are life.' Thus signifying that for this reason he fed them [bodily], that they should believe in him; and as they have partaken of bodily food, so they also should partake of spiritual food." What Christ says in John 6 about the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood should provoke us to believe "that this bread, his flesh and blood, taken from Mary the Virgin, was given to us so that he might taste death and suffer hell in our place, and the sin which he had never committed as his own sin. "Of this spiritual supper" — Luther continues — "the whole New Testament addresses, and especially here John in the 6th chapter." The sacrament of the altar, however, does not become unnecessary because of this, as especially Oecolampadius thought, but serves in a special way the spiritual meal through faith. In the sacrament of the altar Christ gives his body and blood also for oral eating and drinking, so that the faith in the heart of the Christian may be the more certain that Christ's body is also given for him and Christ's blood is also poured out for him. It is a part of the untrue polemic of the Reformed that they present the matter as if the Lutherans by the oral reception of the body and blood of Christ were making the spiritual meal more difficult. Just the opposite is the case. The Lutherans teach the oral doctrines so that the spiritual meal is thereby

1264) St. L. XI, 1143.

1265) It is also a completely useless question (Bengel etc.) whether Christ Joh. 6 did not at least think about the Lord's Supper. We can only judge Christ's thoughts when he reveals them to us in his words.

388 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 331-332]

awakened and strengthened. As Luther answers in the Small Catechism to the question: "How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? 'Given and poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins.' Which words are next to bodily eating and drinking as the principal thing in the sacrament, and he who believes the same words has what they say and what they are, namely, forgiveness of sins." In the "Christian Questions with Their Answers," Luther asks the question, "Why do you want to go to the sacrament?" and his answer is, "That I may learn to believe that Christ died for my sin out of great love, as has been said; and after that also learn from him to love God and my neighbor." 1266)

That they do not take their doctrine of the Lord's Supper from Scripture is further revealed even more clearly by those among the Reformed theologians who partly declare that the words of the Lord's Supper are not to be particularly taken into account in determining the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and partly downright assert that the words of the Lord's Supper are not to be used at all as proof of the right doctrine of the Lord's Supper, because these words are disputed. Thus Zwingli, after struggling with the interpretation of the words of the Lord's Supper in the sense of the absence of the body and blood of Christ, says: "But we here desire that no one be annoyed in the anxious inquiries of the words" (namely, the words of the Lord's Supper); "because we do not put our foundation in it, but in the one word: 'The flesh is not at all profitable'; which word alone is firm enough to compel that ‘is’ be put in the place for 'signifies' or 'signifies' or ‘is a sign’."1267) But because John 6 does not speak of the Lord's Supper at all

1266) Shedd, however, thinks (Dogm. Theol., III, 464) that if Luther in the Small Catechism insists so energetically on the belief in the words: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins", then this is a proof that Luther and the earlier Lutheran confessions "substantially adopted this spiritual view of the Supper", namely the view of the merely spiritual enjoyment of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. Only in later times — the Saxon Visitation Articles of 1592 are mentioned — had the Real Presence been so strongly emphasized and the merely spiritual enjoyment by faith rejected. This is proof that Shedd's view of Luther's position in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper has no connection with historical reality.

1267) Zwingli's Opinion of the Night Supper of Christ, St. L. XX, 477. The Latin text Opp. III, 260: Volumus autem in his anxiis verborum.

389 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 332-333.]

and also specifically in the words v. 63: "The flesh is of no use", Zwingli's explanation that he does not find the "reason" for his doctrine in the words of the Lord's Supper, but in the words: "The flesh is of no use", is factually equivalent to the explanation that his doctrine is not taken from the Holy Scriptures, but comes from his own imagination.1268) We have the same admission in Zwingli's confession that he had entertained the opinion of the figurative version of the words of the Lord's Supper before he knew in which word of the sentence the image was to be placed.1269)

excussionibus, ut nemo se offendi patiatur, non enim eis nitimur, sed hoc uno verbo: ,,Caro non prodest quicquam", quod verbum firmum satis est ad evincendum, quod est hoc loco pro significat vel symbolum est ponitur. [Google]

1268) In reference to the words Joh. 6:63: "It is the spirit that makes alive; the flesh is of no use" Beza says in a kind of despair: Quantopere sit hic locus variis expositionibus exagitatus, vix credibile est. But the fault is not in the words of Christ, which are truly clear enough in their meaning determined by wording and context. In these words "flesh" cannot be understood of the flesh of Christ, since by the contrast in which it stands to "spirit" it is fixed in the meaning of the "carnal nature" of man, and in what immediately follows unbelief is described to the words of Christ as an expression of the flesh: "The words that I speak, they are spirit, and are life. But there are some among you who do not believe." The reference to Christ's flesh further contradicts the broader context, since Christ previously refers to his flesh as so useful that he declares it to be the right food, v. 55, without which no one can have life. Cf. also Hengstenberg on this passage That it was possible to think of Christ's flesh in the words "flesh is of no use" is evidence that party fanatism sets aside all rules underlying the understanding of human address. Luther (XX, 823. 824. 826): "So their other best matters is the passage Joh. 6:63: 'Flesh is of no use', which Oecolampadius praises as being his iron wall. … Christ, whenever he speaks of his flesh or body in the Scriptures, adds the word 'my' and says: 'My flesh', 'my body', as he says in the same chapter, John 6: 'My flesh is the right food'. Again: 'If you do not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man', etc. … So the iron wall is surrounded by a little word, which means: 'mea', 'my'. For since it does not stand, My flesh is of no use, but absolutely, Flesh is of no use, we have gained that it cannot be understood of Christ's body. For since he himself does not add, 'My flesh,' it is forbidden to amend his words and add anything to them, even if we do not understand it of his flesh. Secondly, that they may not prove by some letter that flesh here is called Christ's flesh."

1269) Opp. III, 606: Videbam τροπικώς (lictum esse: Hoc est corpus meum, sed in qua voce tropus lateret, non videbam. [Google] Zwingli reports here

390 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 333]

Finally, it should be mentioned in this context that Zwingli also refers to a heavenly dream apparition for his est in the sense of significat.1270) He reports that he could not find any examples for his "is" in the sense of "signifies" except in the parables. "There still remained," he says, "an exceedingly difficult enterprise (conatus), namely, to furnish examples which would not be bound by any parable.1271) We therefore began to reconsider everything, to consider everything anew. Nevertheless, nothing presented itself as an example other than what had already been presented in the Commentary" (meaning the Commentarius de vera et falsa religione) "or what presented itself was similar to it. But when the thirteenth day came — I tell true things, and such true things that, if I want to conceal them, conscience compels me to pour out (effundere) what the Lord communicated to me, although it is not hidden from me how great opprobrium and laughter I expose myself to —, When, I say, the thirteenth of April dawned, I seemed to be fighting anew with an enemy writer in a dream with great annoyance, and to have become so dumb that I could not say what I knew to be true, because my tongue failed me. … Then, as if from a machine" (από μηχανής, a device from a theater stage) "a counselor seemed to be there — whether he was black or white, I do not remember, because I am recounting a dream — who said: weakling (ignave), why do you not answer him what is written Ex. 12:11: It is Passover, that is, the passing of the Lord (est enim Phase, hoc est transitus Domini). Immediately at this appearance I become lively and jump out of my camp. First I carefully examine the passage in the Septuagint and preach about it powerfully (pro virili) before the whole congregation. This sermon … dispelled all fog among all candidates of the Holy Scriptures [students], who until then still doubted because of the hindrance from the parable, and it happened that … the number of those who were looking for garlic and the

also that he had become acquainted with "this precious pearl" est pro significat through the writing of a Dutchman (Honius is meant). Only it had remained hidden to him to which word this pearl was to be attached.

1270) Subsidium de eucharistia, Opp. III, 341 sqq.

1271) In parables it is declared from the outset that one speaks in images. "The kingdom of heaven is like (ώμοιώϑη) a man," etc. Matt. 13:24.

391 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 334]

fleshpots of Egypt looked back, probably became much smaller." These latter words give us exclusion about how Zwingli came to the new deception. He was looking for weapons against Luther. For when he addresses people who looked back after the garlic and flesh pots of Egypt, he meant to mock Luther's alleged Roman leaven in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. So God let it happen that his imagination or his black, respectively white guest deceived him. Zwingli uses his significat Ex. 12:11 just as arbitrarily as in the passages discussed earlier.1272)

1272) The words Ex. 12:11 belong to the passage in which the divine institution of the Passover meal is reported. The words read: "So you shall eat it: Around your loins you shall be girded, and your shoes shall be on your feet, and staves in your hands, and you shall eat it as those who hasten away" (בְּחִפָּז֔וֹן [HEBREW], in hasty flight, hastening); "for it is the Lord's Passover" (פֶּ֥סַח ה֖וּא לַיהוָֽה [HEBREW]). Zwingli refers "it" to the Passover Lamb, פֶּ֥סַח [HEBREW] to the sparing passing over of the children of Israel (which it can also denote), gains the phrase, "The Passover Lamb is the (sparing) passing over of the Lord," and then takes it in: The Passover lamb signifies the sparing passing of the Lord. (Opp. III, 343: Est aliter quam dictum est accipi nequit, videlicet pro symbolum est aut figura. Ut sit sensus: Comeditis festinanter! Est enim symbolum sive figura praeteritionis Domini. [Google]) Luther remarks on the same passage (St. L. XX, 786): "When Moses says: 'Eat quickly, it is the Lord's Passover,' Zwingel cannot prove that it means the paschal lamb. Because one answered soon thus: 'Eat hastily, it is the Lord's Passover', as we say in German: Eat flesh, because it is Sunday; drink water, it is Friday. Here no one will force out of me that flesh means Sunday, or water means Friday. So also here: 'Eat in haste, for it is the Lord's Passover,' that is, it is the day the Lord went into Egypt," etc. Also Krauth says of "It [is] the Lord's Passover": "The 'it' does not refer to the Lamb, but to the whole transaction which takes place with girded loins and the eating of the lamb. The 'it' is used indefinitely, as we would say, 'Let us gather round the cheerful hearth, let us light up the children's tree, for it is Christmas.' The reason of the name 'Passover' follows in the twelfth verse: 'It is the Lord's Passover. For I will pass through the land.' " (Conserv. Ref., p. 617.) So by more recent exegetes also Keil in the commentary on this passage. But even if we refer with Zwingli the words, "It is the Lord's Passover," not to the Passover meal or feast, but to the Passover lamb, Zwingli's significat does not come out. The saying: "The Passover lamb is the (sparing) passing of the Lord" is then analogous to Joh. 11:25: "Christ is the resurrection and the life." Christ does not mean the resurrection and the life, but Christ is really the resurrection and the life. In Christ, or where Christ is, there is the resurrection and the life for men

392 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 334-335]

As to the assertion, further, that the words of the Lord's Supper, because they have become the subject of dispute (τό κρινόμενον), are no longer usable for the determination of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper,1273) one should hardly think that such an assertion could ever be made in earnest. Apart from the fact that Christians are hereby expected to renounce the whole of Scripture as the source and norm of Christian doctrine, because all passages of Scripture dealing with a certain doctrine have in fact been drawn into dispute, imagine a number of theologians who wish to negotiate the right doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but who undertake from the outset not to cite the Scriptural words concerning the Lord's Supper as proof of the right doctrine of the Lord's Supper. This goes even further than the pope, who has all doctrines "in the shrine of his heart", but still refers to the Scriptures for the sake of appearances. According to the rule, however, that the words of the Lord's Supper are not to be cited as proof of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, one also renounces the pretense that the doctrine thus formed is scriptural. Rather, the rule is a direct demand that Scripture be set aside entirely and that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper be drawn merely from the "inwardness" of man, as Luther puts it. Luther presents the naive character of the demand to renounce the Scriptural words of the Lord's Supper in a picture like this: The scriptural words,

so that whoever believes in Christ lives and does not die. So we would also have the statement in Exodus 12:11: The Passover lamb is the sparing or passing of the Lord. The meaning is then this: With the Passover lamb the children of Israel were spared God's judgment, so that when God saw the blood of the Passover lamb on the houses of the children of Israel, he passed them by with his judgment.

1273) Cf. the quotations in Gerhard, De sacra coena, § 79: Bullingerus et Tigurini in libro contra Iacobum Andreae, fol. 45, postulant, verba coenae non amplius pro fundamento allegari, quia sint τό κρινόμενον. Idem repetunt Calvinus in admonit. ult., p. 240, consid. commonef., p. 15 et 188, Witakerus, De script. qu, 5, c. 9, Orthod. consensus, c. 7, f. 161: Manifestus est abusus verborum coenae in probando eo, quod ex verbis in quaestione vel controversia est. Daniel Burenus, Consul Bremensis, anno 1560 in conventu publico dicebat, Lutheranos pro sua sententia nihil quidquam proferre posse praeter tria impotentia verba. Quod dubio procul ex Peter Martyre didicit, qui in dialogo de natura human., f. 127, hisce verbis nos alloquitur: Semper visi estis minus, quam par est, sapere, cum pro dogmate absurdo et mutili sic laboretis, ned pro eo tuendo quidquam habeatis nisi Christi τό ρητόν: "Hoc est corpus meum." [Google]

393 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 335-336]

which deal with a certain doctrine, are for the Christian, as the only source of knowledge for this doctrine, so also the only weapon in the fight against the false teachers. If, in a dispute over the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, the Christian is not to use the scriptural words dealing with the Lord's Supper as evidence, the situation is as if, in a worldly war, the enemy asks me before the battle begins to hand over my weapons.1274)

Finally, the following fact should be remembered: Although the Reformed, Zwingli and Calvin included, declare the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper to be an appalling and pernicious abomination — they call the Lutherans carnivores, etc., as we unfortunately had to remind1275) , and Calvin ascribes to them "a bewitchment of the devil" (diaboli incantatio) —1276) , they nevertheless wanted and still want to unite with Luther and the Lutheran church, even in the face of unresolved differences. This fact irrefutably proves that they were not certain of their doctrines from Scripture. But they lacked certainty because

1274) Luther writes XX, 780. 782: "It is the arrogance of the wretched devil who mocks us by such enthusiasts in this great matter, that he pretends to be instructed with Scripture, so far as to put Scripture out of the way beforehand or to make his conceit of it. It is as if I were to strip a man of his weapons with cunning words, and in exchange give him painted weapons made of paper like his own, and then offer him defiance, so that he would strike me with them or defend himself against me. O that would be a bold hero, whom one should spit at and throw out with lungs to the village, where he would do it seriously, or would only be a good carnival laughter, where it would be shame. Likewise, these enthusiasts do the same to us, wanting to change the Scriptures from natural words and meaning into their words and meaning, and then boast that we do not have Scriptures, so that the devil may have his laughter at us, or rather that he may safely strangle us as the defenseless. But against this only one word serves out of measure, that is, no; so they stand like butter in the sun. Let us now judge between us, not only Christians, but also heathens, Turks, Tartars, Jews, idols and all the world, to which part it should be due that he proves his text. … This, then, is the sum of it, that we have for ourselves the clear, bare scripture, which thus saith, Take, eat; this is my body: and it is not needful for us, neither shall it be enjoined upon us, to write upon such a text (though we may do it abundantly), but let them bring up scripture, which thus saith, This signifieth my body, or, This is the sign of my body."

1275) p. 345, 383.

1276) Calvin, Inst. IV, 17, 23. Likewise IV, 17, 19: Horribili fascino Satan dementavit eorum mentes.

394 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 336-337.]

they based their doctrine not on Christ's words but on a human interpretation of them. Melanchthon reports about the conversation in Marburg:1277) "The opponents did not want" (in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper) "to depart from their established faith, but desired that Dr. Luther should accept them as brethren. Dr. Martin did not want to agree to such a thing in any way, and he also spoke harshly to them, saying that he was very surprised how they could consider him a brethren, if they otherwise considered their doctrine to be right; it was a sign that they did not greatly respect their cause." Melanchthon expresses his own opinion in the following words:1278) "They have been very anxious to be called brethren by us. Behold their folly! Although they condemn us, yet they desire to be thought brethren by us. We have not wished to oblige them in this matter. I am entirely of the opinion that if the matter had not yet been brought in, they would not raise such a great tragedy."