4. Overview of the relationship of the various communion doctrines to the text of the communion words.
It has become quite common custom to attribute the differences in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper to different "expositions" of the words of the Lord's Supper. This, however, is not quite accurate talk. We speak more correctly when we say that Luther did not "interpret" the words of the Lord's Supper at all, but left them standing as they are. In contrast, however, the Roman and Reformed doctrines are based on extensive and very abundant "exposition" of the words of the Lord's Supper.
Let us realize how much "exegesis" Christ and the Apostle Paul would have had to use to express the Roman doctrine. Even the word "bread" would have required significant exegesis. Christ should have said something like: Though I take bread as you see, I bless it and present it to you to eat. Also, later my evangelists and apostles will explicitly mention bread as present in my Supper. But you do not have to take my and their words as they are. Do not think, therefore, that there is still real or substantial bread in the Lord's Supper. There is only the outward appearance of the bread.
1277) St. L. XVII, 1949 f.; Corp. Ref. I, 1102.
1278) Letter to Joh. Agricola, 12 Oct. 1529. St. L. XVII, 1956; Corp. Ref. I, 1107.
395 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 337-338]
The whole substance of the bread is changed into my body.1279) Further, though I say: "Take and eat, this is my body." By this, however, you could get the idea that my body is really only meant to be eaten in the Lord's Supper. But that would not be the right understanding. My body is not only to be eaten, but also to be kept, to be presented for worship, and especially to be carried around solemnly in processions.1280) Furthermore, although I say: "Drink ye all of it." By this, however, one could get the idea that also the chalice should be given to all participants in the meal ordered by me. But this again would not be the correct conception. The ordinary Christian people have enough at one figure. Also you must consider that there is a "concomitance", whereby my blood is already contained in the offered body, so that the cup becomes really superfluous.1281) Finally, do not forget the following, which is the most important thing about the Lord's Supper: I do say, 'This is my body, which is given for you,' and, 'This is my blood, which is poured out for you.' Therefore, if you were to stick with what I was saying, you would have to come to the idea that you would be completely reconciled to God through the gift of my body and the shedding of my
1279) Trid, De sacrosancto eucharistiae sacramento, can. 2: Si quis dixerit, in sacrosancto eucharistiae sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et sanguine Domini nostri Iesu Christi negaveritque … conversionem totius substantiae pomis in corpus et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat spevorebus panis et vini ...: anathema sit. [Google]
1280) Trid., 1. c., can. 7: Si quis dixerit, non licere sacram eucharistiam in sacrario reservari, sed statim post consecrationem adstantibus necessario distribuendum [scil. to eat]; aut non licere, ut illa ad infirmos honorifice deferatur: anathema sit. Can. 4: Si quis dixerit, peracta consecratione … non esse corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, sed tantum in usu, dum sumitur, non autem ante vel post, et in hostiis,- quae post communionem reservantur vel supersunt, non remanere verum corpus Domini : anathema sit. Can. 6: Si quis dixerit, in sacrosancto eucharistiae sacramento Christ non esse cultu latriae, etiam externo, adorandum … neque in processionibus … solemniter circumgestandum vel non publice, ut adoretur populo proponendum, et eius adoratores esse idololatras: anathema sit. [Google]
1281) Trid., 1. c., cap. 3: Verissimum est tantumdem sub alterutra specie atque sub utraque contineri, can. 3: Si quis negaverit … sub unaquaque specie et sub singulis cuiusque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christ contineri: anathema sit. [Google]
396 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 338-339]
blood, and that the offering of this body and blood of mine in the Lord's Supper would have the primary purpose to assure you of the forgiveness of your sins and to awaken and strengthen faith in my atoning sacrifice offered on the cross. But that would be a completely perverse conception. Notice well and do not pass by the fact that the Lord's Supper is not primarily a means to commemorate my atoning sacrifice and to distribute the forgiveness of sins acquired by me, but my representative on earth, the pope, will make priests, and these priests — only they can do it — will offer in the Lord's Supper continuously my body and my blood "without blood", thus offering a "true and proper" "sacrifice of atonement" for you and thereby giving forgiveness of sins to present and absent, living and dead, and helping in "other needs".1282) These and more "expositions" of the words of the Lord's Supper would have been necessary to convey the Roman concepts of the Lord's Supper.
But the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper also requires a significant amount of "exegesis." Christ would have had to comment on his words like this: It is true that my words, "Take, eat, this is my body," are to the effect that I call for eating with the mouth. But do not think that my body is here on earth in the Lord's Supper and for eating with the mouth (oralis manducatio). As far as heaven is from earth, so far is my body from the Lord's Supper and from your mouth. What I actually mean by the words: "Take and eat, this is my body" is this, that you should lift yourselves up to heaven with the mouth of your faith and there eat my body spiritually by faith.1283) Further, when I say to you, "Take
1282) Trid., 1. c., De sacrosancto euch. sacram., can. 5: Si quis dixerit, praecipuum fructum eucharistiae esse remissionem peccatorum, anathema sit. De sacrificio missae, can. 1: Si quis dixerit, in missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium, anathema sit. Can. 3: Si quis dixerit, missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actionis aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peractum, non autem propitiatorium, vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus offerri debere: anathema sit. [Google]
1283) Consensus Tigurinus, cap. 25: Tametsi philosophice loquendo supra coelos locus non est, quia tamen corpus Christi, ut fert humani corporis natura et modus, finitum est et coelo, ut loco, continetur, necesse est,
397 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 339-340]
and eat, this is my body, which is given for you", this reads, however, as if you do not receive a symbol or image of my body, but the body, which is given away for you. But you must interpret my words according to the axiom that my body can always have only a visible and local presence and does not reach beyond the natural body size. Since you cannot see my body in the Lord's Supper and cannot grasp it with your hands, you must think of the word "my body" only as an "image of my body".1284) The apostle Paul would also have had to comment significantly on his statements about the Lord's Supper if he had wanted to evoke Reformed ideas about the Lord's Supper in his readers. He would have had to declare himself in more detail in this way or in a similar way: True, I say that the cup is the fellowship (κοινωνία) of the blood of Christ, and the bread the fellowship (κοινωνία) of the body of Christ. From the words as they read, however, you might come to think that in the Lord's Supper Christ's body is present with the bread and Christ's blood with the wine, and all who partake of this meal receive Christ's blood with the cup and Christ's body with the bread. To this fellowship between the bread and the body of Christ, and between the wine and the blood of Christ, are also my further words: "Whosoever eateth unworthily of this bread, or drinketh of the cup of the Lord, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." But in order to come to the understanding of my words, you must give room to various thoughts apart from and beside them, such as: "Flesh is
a nobis tanto locorum intervallo distare, quanto coelum abest a terra. Cap. 21: Nam quum signa hic in mundo sint, oculis cernantur, palpentur manibus, Christus, quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in coelo, nec aliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quaerendus est. [Google]
1284) Calvin, Inst. IV, 17, 19: Nos talem Christi praesentiam in coena statuere oportet ..., quae nec mensuram illi suam auferat vel pluribus simul locis distrahat. … Haec enim naturae humanae veritati non obscure repugnant. — Confess. Anglicana. (Niemeyer, Pastor. 598): Cum naturiae humanae Veritas requirat, ut unius eiusdemque hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit, sed in uno aliquo et definito loco esse oporteat, idcirco Christi corpus in multis et diversis locis eodem tempore praesens esse non potest. Et quoniam, ut tradunt sacrae literae, Christus in coelum fuit sublatus et ibi usque ad finem seculi est permansurus, non debet quisquam fidelium carnis eius et sanguinis realem et corporalem, ut loquuntur, praesentiam in eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri. [Google]
398 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 340-341]
no good." 1285) Furthermore, why is it at all necessary for the body and blood of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper, since believers without the Lord's Supper already have everything by faith, and the Church of the Old Testament also had only images of Christ's sacrifice and the grace of God.1286) Also, it would obviously detract from the glory of Christ if he "attached his body to the bread" and thereby left heaven.1287) Nor should we forget the fright that the disciples would have received if they had not immediately applied the necessary exegesis and converted "body" into "sign of the body."1288) At the same time, the general rule must always be kept that Christ's Body can only have a local, and visible presence under all circumstances.1289) On the basis of these thoughts you will understand all my statements, which refer to a presence of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper, from an absence of the same and believe only an image of the body in the Lord's Supper.1290) That the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper is really based on these "expositions" of the words of the Lord's Supper is proven by the enclosed quotations.
1285) Thus Zwingli in the above-mentioned words: "We do not put our reason in it" (namely, not in the words of the Lord's Supper), "but in the one word: 'The flesh is not useful at all.'" (St. L. XX, 477.)
1286) Thus Hodge (III, 647) summarizes Calvin's position: "To preserve the consistency of the great Reformer, his language must be interpreted as to harmonize with the two crucial facts for which he so earnestly contends; first, that believers receive elsewhere by faith all they receive at the Lord's table; and secondly, that we Christians receive nothing above or beyond that which was received by the saints under the Old Testament, before the glorified body of Christ had any existence."
1287) Calvin, Inst. IV, 17, 19: Nos talem Christi praesentiam in coena statuere oportet, quae nec panis elemento ipsum affigat, nec in panem includat, nec ullo modo circumscribat, quae omnia derogare coelesti eius gloriae palam est. [Google]
1288) Calvin, Inst. IV, 17, 23: Nisi enim apostolis venisset in mentem, panem vocari figurate corpus, quia symbolum esset corporis, turbati haud dubie fuissent re tam prodigiosa. [Google]
1289) Calvin, 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 affigat! [Google]
1290) Calvin in the explanation of the Consensus. Tig. (Niemeyer, p. 217): Axioma sumimus, quod sine controversia receptum est inter omnes pios: quoties de sacramentis agitur, rei signatae nomen ad signum metonymice solere transferri. [Google]
399 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 341-342]
In contrast, the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper is based on the words of the Lord's Supper themselves, not from a glossing of them. It allows "bread" to be bread, "is" to be is and "body" to be Christ's body, "which is given for us”. The Reformed have objected to this,1291) that Luther, the Lutheran Confession, and the Lutheran teachers speak of a "sacramental union" (unio sacramentalis) in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which takes place between the bread and body of Christ and the wine and blood of Christ. The Scriptures, however, do not address a unio sacramentalis. Admittedly, the expression "unio sacramentalis" does not stand in Scripture. But the thing signified by the expression is as clearly taught in Scripture as, for example, the όμοονσιος. Christ calls the bread which he presents in the Lord's Supper his body, which is given for us. Now because the bread is not transformed but remains bread, as Scripture tells us, and because the untransformed bread is also the body of Christ, as Scripture also tells us, Scripture teaches a binding or unio of the body of Christ with the bread, and this unio Luther and the Lutherans call the unio sacramentalis because it is proper to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The expression is completely adequate. It does not relate factually "accessory" to the words of the Lord's Supper, as has been said quite correctly in modern times, but expresses quite exactly what is said in the words of the Lord's Supper. "This unio," says Majus, "is quite unique and has its incontrovertible foundation in the words of institution, when Christ presents the bread and says: 'Eat, this is my body,' and presents the cup and says: 'This is my blood.'" 1292) The expression "sacramental union" rejects, on the one hand, the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, which substitutes for "bread" a sham, and, on the other hand, the Reformed doctrine of image, which substitutes for "body" a symbol of the body. The expression does not imply a deviation from the words of the Lord's Supper, but documents — in contrast to the contrary behavior of the Roman and Reformed churches — the unbreakable adherence to the words as they read. The Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper is also in exact agreement with the explanation that the apostle Paul gives in 1 Cor. 10 and 11 on the occasion of the celebration of the Lord's Supper in the Corinthian congregation also about the nature of the Lord's Supper.
1291) Cf. also Calvin, Inst. IV, 17, 20.
1292) Synopsis theol. christ. 1708, p. 185.
400 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 342]
The apostle, as we saw above in another connection, very emphatically inculcates upon the Corinthians, who treated the Lord's Supper lightly, that for the partakers of the Supper the blessed cup sets "the fellowship (κοινωνία) of the blood of Christ," and the broken bread "the fellowship (κοινωνία) of the body of Christ."1293) so that everyone who unworthily eats or drinks becomes guilty of the Lord's body and blood, because he does not distinguish the Lord's body (μη διακρίνων το σώμα τον Κυρίου). Even in these apostolic exhortations about the right disposition in which Christians should drink "the cup of the Lord" (ποτήρων Κυρίου) and partake of the "table of the Lord" (τράπεζα Κυρίου), the Lutheran doctrine of the "Real Presence" is so clearly expressed that the rationalist Rückert is right when he says that one can deny the Real Presence only by rejecting the authority of the apostle Paul.1294) Admittedly
1293) The first meaning of κοινωνία is of course fellowship (communio). Whether in the New Testament it can also mean communication (communicatio), which some affirm (Ebeling), others deny (Cremer), need not be examined here. Here, at any rate, it is "fellowship," as Luther translated it. This is what the context demands. Just as fellowship with demons is present through participation in the sacrificial meals of the heathen, so fellowship with the blood of Christ is present through partaking of the cup of the Lord's Supper. Incorrectly Meyer remarks on 1 Cor. 10:16, that Luther takes κοινωνία not as "fellowship" but as "communication." Where Luther translates, he grasps κοινωνία as "fellowship," as his Bible translation and e.g. XX, 236 prove. That he also addresses the communication of the body of Christ in the exposition of the meaning of the passage, is due to the fact that he who holds to the communio corporis, thereby also teaches the communicatio corporis. If the bread is the fellowship of the body of Christ for all who partake of the Lord's supper, for worthy and unworthy alike, then of course the body of Christ is communicated through the bread.
1294) The Lord's Supper. Its nature and history in the ancient church. 1856. p. 236. 241 f. 297. Luther's words on 1 Cor. 10:16 are well known: "On top of these four mighty passages we have another, 1 Cor. 10:16, which reads thus: 'The cup of consecration which we consecrate, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ?' The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?' This is indeed, I think, a passage, indeed a thunderbolt on Dr. Carlstadt's head and of all his rabbles. The passage has also been the living remedy of my heart in my contestation over this sacrament. And if we had no more passages than this one, we could strengthen all consciences sufficiently with it and strike all opponents mightily enough." (St. L. XX, 235.) In positive exposition, Luther says on 1 Cor. 10:16: "Notice that Paul has made bright and clear
401 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 343]
Luther also confesses that he was tempted according to his flesh to interpret the words of the Lord's Supper differently than they read, because he saw that he "could have given the papacy the biggest trouncing with it. "But," he adds, "I'm trapped, can't get out, the text is too powerful there and won't let words tear it out of my mind." 1295) "The word they shall let stand" characterizes Luther's position not only toward Rome but also toward the Reformed fellowships. Both opponents, in spite of the difference in the results, form one front against Luther and the Lutheran church in principle also in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, insofar as both do not let the scriptural words of the Lord's Supper come into effect. This fact has been rightly pointed out by the Lutherans. Also Krauth writes:1296) "It is worth noticing that, widely as Romanism with its Transubstantiation, and Rationalism, with its Symbols, differ in their results, they run into their error by the same fallacious principle of interpretation, each applying it with the same arbitrariness, but to
saying: ‘The same bread which we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ’. Do you hear, my dear brethren? The bread that is broken or distributed with portions is the fellowship of the body of Christ: it is, it is, it is (he says) the fellowship of the body of Christ. But what is the fellowship of the body of Christ? It cannot be otherwise than that they which take the broken bread, every man his portion, take in the same the body of Christ." (If one adds what Luther says to the four accounts of the Lord's Supper (232 ff.) and later (240 ff.) about Paul's warning that those who eat and drink unworthily become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, because they do not distinguish the body of the Lord, one will have to judge that already in these remarks of Luther against Carlstadt all Reformed interpretations of the words of the Lord's Supper are clearly shown as reinterpretations of them. If Meyer thinks in regard to 1 Cor. 11:27 that Paul's words about becoming guilty of the body and blood of Lord prove neither the absence nor the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and even speaks of "sophistry" on Luther's part, he (Meyer) forgets that Paul's very words, according to which those who eat and drink unworthily become guilty of the body and blood of Christ, refer to the presence of the body and blood of Christ. And what the words refer to can also be proved from them. Meyer would also admit this if he had not decided with himself that the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper was impossible. But it is decidedly going too far when Meyer expects other people to interpret the words of the apostle Paul according to his (Meyer's) opinion.
1295) De Wette II, 577; St. L. XV, 2050.
1296) The Conserv. Ref. p. 626 sq.
402 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 343-344]
different objects. The Romanist wishes to do away with Scripture testimony in regard to the bread and wine; and, although they bear their name before the Lord's Supper, during the Lord's Supper, and after the Lord's Supper, he insists that there is neither bread nor wine there, but only their accidents. While our Lord says: 'This is My body/ the Romanist, in effect, makes it: This seeming bread is no longer bread, but has become, has been transubstantiated into, My body. He deserts the letter and reaches transubstantiation. The Rationalist wishes to retain the bread and wine, and therefore holds that what the Scripture calls bread and wine is bread and wine; but he wishes to do away with the Scripture testimony in regard to the body and blood; and although the Scripture says that of that which the Savior tells them to 'Take, eat,' He declares most explicitly, 'This is My body'; and of that which He tells them to drink, He says, 'This is My blood/ — though it says that the bread is the communion of His body and the cup the communion of His blood, — though it declares that the guilt of the heedless communicant is that he does not 'discern the Lord's body,' and that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ; in the face of all this he insists that there is in the Lord's Supper only the shadow, image, or sign of the body and blood of Christ, not the true body and true blood. With what face can a Rationalist meet a Romanist, or a Romanist meet a Rationalist? No wonder that the Rationalist, after all, is less violent against Romanism than against the pure doctrine of our Church.1297) There is the secret affinity of error between them; and Romanism does not so hate Rationalism, Rationalism does not so hate Romanism, as both hate unswerving fidelity to the Word of God, that the Romish and rationalizing modes of interpretation are nearer to each other than either is to the Lutheran is admitted by both Rationalists and Romanists. The rationalizing interpreters make it one of the commonplaces of objection to the Lutheran view that it has less in a literal
1297) Thus Calvin explicitly says in his polemic against the Lutheran doctrine (Inst. IV, 17, 30): "I am not addressing the Papists, whose doctrines are more tolerable or at least more modest (tolerabilior vel saltem magis verecunda est). But some people" (the Lutherans are meant) "are carried away by the controversy, that because of the union of natures in Christ they say: Wherever the divinity of Christ is, there is also his flesh, which cannot be separated from the divinity."
403 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 344-345]
interpretation of the Scripture to sustain it than the Romish view has: that is, the Romish view is less decisively opposed than the Lutheran is to rationalistic modes of literal interpretation."
But what about the objection of the Reformed that the Lutherans do not keep you to the words of the Lord's Supper as they read? This objection is found throughout both the old and the newer Reformed theologians. Calvin takes peculiar pains at this point to portray the Lutherans as participes criminis.1298) Hodge also says in regard to "giving up the literal sense," "That is done by one part as well as by the other." 1299) The following examples are primarily cited as evidence for this assertion:
1. The Lutherans understand by the "cup" not the vessel, but the wine contained in the cup, thus metonymically contentum pro continente. Hodge says, "When Christ says, 'This cup is the New Testament,' it is admitted that the cup is used metonymically for the wine in the cup." To be sure, the Lutherans admit this. But in doing so they stay exactly with the Scripture words about the Lord's Supper, because Christ is said to drink from the cup—not the vessel of the cup—"Drink ye all of it," πίετε έξ αυτόν πάντες.1300) And it is also still explicitly reported that the disciples followed Christ's instruction and drank not the vessel but from the vessel: καί εηιον εξ αντου πάντες.1301)
2. The Lutherans use the expressions "in, with, and under the bread" to designate the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Hodge also opines1302) following the procedure of the old Reformed: "That makes the language figurative, and the literal interpretation, the main, if not the only, prop of the Lutheran doctrine, is given up." 1303) This objection is quite unobjective, because it entirely brushes aside the point at issue. It does not include — even the Reformed admit — any change of the text and no abandonment of the
1298) Inst. IV, 17, 20. Further in the explanation to the Consensus Tig.; in Niemeyer, p. 216.
1299) Syst. Theol., III, 662.<w:t>1300) Matt. 26:27.
1301) Mark. 14:23.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1302) op. cit., p. 662.
1303) Calvin, Inst. IV, 17, 19: Quamquam praecise urgent literam; ,,Hoc est corpus meum", postea tamen deflectunt a rigore ac tantundem valere dicunt atque corpus Christi esse cum pane, in pane et sub pane. [Google]
.
404 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 345-346]
literal version of the words of Scripture if we express the meaning expressed in the words of Scripture in other and more words. This is "exegesis" in the right sense of the word. Even the Reformed do not admit that they abandon the literal version when they paraphrase the meaning of a Scripture statement in more and different words. Hodge himself1304) paraphrases the sense of "is" (ό ών) in the words John 1:18: "He who is in the bosom of the Father" thus: He who is, was, and ever shall be in the bosom of the Father, i. e., most intimately united with Him." In this, however, Hodge is by no means willing to admit that he understands the scriptural passage "figuratively" by this paraphrase. He has borrowed the assertion that the Lutherans, with their "in, with, and under the bread," make "figurative language" of the Lord's Supper words from Calvin and others, without testing it for its truth. Luther already addressed the objection appropriated by Hodge. He writes:1305) "But that the false spirit blames us for not remaining on the words and one mind ourselves, because we say that the words 'This is my body' are to be understood thus: under the bread is my body, or: in the bread is my body, etc., I answer: The lying spirit knows well that he does us wrong here. … I have well said in my booklet that those who say in common speech: under the bread is Christ's body, or: in the bread is Christ's body, are not to be condemned, because with such words they confess their faith that Christ's body is truly in the Lord's Supper. But by this we do not make another, new text; neither do they want such their words to be the text, but remain on the one text. For Paul says: 'Christ is God,' Rom. 9:5, but 2 Cor. 5:19: 'God was in Christ,' and yet both places are each in his mind simple and certain, and to that end not contrary." Likewise, the dogmatists speak out about the "in," "with," and "under."1306)
1304) Syst. Theol., I, 473.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1305) St. L. XX, 899 f.
1306) Quenstedt II, 1201 sq: Nulla sequela: : „Ubi explicatio τον ρητόν est, ibi ρητόν esse desinit.“ Sic enim nullus interpres, nullus commentator Scripturae το ρητόν servaret; τω ρητώ non derogant aequipollentia, synonyma grammatica, paraphrases oratoriae et interpretationes theologicae. Is vero το ρητόν relinquit, imo literae contradicit, qui simplicem literae sensum in oppositum figuratum transformat. [Google] Whoever makes “symbol of body” out of “body” changes the "text", because body and symbol of the body are two different things.
405 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 346-347]
3. To prove that Lutherans also abandon the literal sense, Hodge continues: "If the words of Christ are to be taken literally, they teach the doctrine of transubstantiation. And, "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" (should read: the body of Christ) "at the same time." Hodge thus suggests that because Lutherans reject transubstantiation, they too thereby abandon the literal meaning of the words of the Lord's Supper. This argument has already been discussed in detail in the description of locutio exhibitiva.1307) It has also already been shown that Hodge himself declares this argument null and void, because he wants to hold on to the doctrine of Christ's person, that the Son of Mary is literally and without all transformation and at the same time the Son of God (Luke 1:35). So he refuses the argument: If the words of Luke 1:35 are taken literally, they teach the transubstantiation of the Son of Mary into the Son of God, and he does not accept the argument: If the Son of Mary is literally the Son of God, then at the same time he is no longer the Son of Mary. Rather, Hodge wants to hold with the Christian Church that one and the same subject can be Mary's Son and God's Son "at the same time." The Reformed theologians make it very difficult to understand the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper even in a historically correct way. We find in connection with the point just discussed in Hodge the remark, "Lutherans themselves cannot avoid saying and admitting that the bread in the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ." He proves his remark from Luther's Small Catechism and with a quotation from Krauth's Conservative Reformation. The proof is entirely correct. But that the bread in the Lord's Supper is Christ's body is not merely admitted by the Lutherans; it is precisely what they teach and hold against the Reformed. The bread in the Lord's Supper is really Christ's body not by transformation but by virtue of sacramental union (propter unionem sacramentalem), that is, because by Christ's word: "This is my body given for you" Christ's body is bound to the bread in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Just as the Son of Mary is the Son of God not by transformation of the
1307) p. 352 ff.
406 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 347-348]
man into God, but because of the personal union (propter unionem personalem). This and nothing else is also inculcated by Krauth in the words quoted by Hodge. But Hodge does not deal with the quotation in an entirely factual way. He cites from Krauth the words, "Just as it would be blasphemy to say, 'Man is God,' and is yet literally true of Christ, 'This man is God,' so would it be blasphemy to say, 'Bread is Christus body,' and yet it is literally true, 'This bread is Christus body.' "1308) What Krauth is saying, and really saying, is this: Outside the Personal Union of God and Man in Christ, however, it would be blasphemous to say, "Man is God," but within the Personal Union of God and Man in Christ it is right to say, and on the basis of Scripture we must say, "This man is God." Likewise, outside the sacramental union of bread and body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, however, it would be blasphemous to say, "Bread is Christ's body," but within the sacramental union of bread and body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, it is literally (literally) true: "This bread is Christ's body." But Hodge blurs this relation to the personal union in Christ and the sacramental union in the Lord's Supper in two ways. First, he omits Krauth's words immediately following, "This man is God. personally because of the personal union, and This bread is the body of Christ sacramentally because of the sacramental union." Second, Hodge erases from Krauth's words he quotes the underlining by which Krauth sharply marks the relation to personal union in Christ and sacramental union in the Lord's Supper. Krauth thus underlines, "This man is God," namely, this one certain man Christ, and "This bread is Christ's body," namely, the bread in the Lord's Supper. Hodge erases these underlinings. Thus he destroys the clarity of Krauth's exposition and prepares an obstacle for himself to understand the Lutheran doctrine even historically correctly.
4. Perhaps most widely held is the claim that Luther and the Lutheran Church do not prove the Real Presence both from the words of the Lord's Supper and from the doctrine of Christ's Person, specifically from the communication of the divine omnipresence to Christ's human
1308) Conserv. Ref., p. 609.
407 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 348-349]
nature.1309) That the very opposite is historical truth has already been explained in detail in the doctrine of Christ's person under the special section "The Communicated Omnipresence and the Holy Supper".1310) The proof was led both from Luther and from the very emphatic explanation in the preface to the Book of Concord. There it was further demonstrated whence it came that Luther, in the controversy over the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, treats so extensively and thoroughly the doctrine of Christ's Person and especially of Christ's omnipresence according to the human nature. This came from the fact that Zwingli and comrades claimed that the doctrine of Christ's person, especially the articles of the Ascension and of sitting at the right hand of God, made it necessary to think not of the presence but of the absence of Christ's body in the words of the Lord's Supper: "Take, eat, this is my body," because Christ, according to his human nature, could have no other presence than the visible, spatial one, not extending beyond his visible and spatial body length. Luther and the Lutheran Confessions then prove against this strange Christology that on the part of the Reformed a falsification of the Scriptural doctrine of the Person of Christ also comes to light. They take it that not men but the Holy Scriptures ascribe to Christ, according to human nature, at least a threefold mode of being: the visible or spatial (praesentia localis, circumscriptiva), the invisible (praesentia invisibilis, definitiva) and the non-spatial divine (praesentia divina et repletiva). We add here only that at this point it is quite unseemly to speak of “subtleties” ["finesses"] which are beyond the faith of Christians, If Christians do not know the expressions praesentia localis, praesentia definitiva, praesentia divina sive supernaturalis, yet they know and believe the thing signified by these expressions. When they read Scriptures like Joh. 4:4: "Christ had to travel through Samaria", they think of the praesentia localis. On the other hand they read Joh. 20:19 ff. that Christ came through closed doors (τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων) to the disciples,
1309) So also the Admonitio Neostadiensis, p. 94; in Gerhard, L. de s. coena, §79: Illi [the Lutherans], postquam diu verba, verba, verba sonuerunt, cum urgentur, ut reddant rationem suae glossae, confugiunt ad ubiquitatem [Google].
1310) II, 210 ff.<w:t>1311) Loofs, RE. 3 .S I, 66.
408 > The Lord's Supper. [ [English ed. ~ 349-350]
they think of the praesentia illocalis sive definitiva. When they finally hear or read Eph. 4:10: "He ascended above all heavens to fill all things" and Matt. 28:20: "I am with you always, to the end of the age", they think of the praesentia divina sive supernaturalis. All the theologians who address here "subtleties" that are incomprehensible or unbelievable to Christians, transfer their own deficit in Christian knowledge to the knowledge of Christians who simple-mindedly believe God's Word.