Heinrich Schmid · 64 of 78

§ 55. (2.) The Lord’s Supper. · Part 2

[7] HOLL. (1130): “The body and blood of Christ, in the proper administration of the Lord’s Supper, are received, eaten and drank by the communicants, not only by the mouth of faith, but also by the mouth of the body.”

CHMN. (d. c. D., 19): “It is certain that not bread alone is eaten in the Lord’s Supper, for of that which is received and eaten in the Supper, Christ says, ‘This is my body.’ Therefore, in the Holy Supper there is eaten the body of Christ also; but not simply mentally and spiritually, by faith alone. For, if the word eat in those words of the Holy Supper meant that faith ascended above all heavens in its thoughts, the Lord’s Supper might be celebrated without the external oral reception of anything, which no one has ever dared to imagine. The word eat, therefore, in this place, has and retains its literal and natural signification. For Christ commanded a taking in His Supper when He said, ‘Take;’ and He defines the mode of reception to be with the bodily mouth, when He adds, ‘Eat.’ But of that which is taken by the mouth and eaten the Son of God Himself adds, ‘This is my body.’ But it is impossible that one and the same word, in the same proposition, should at the same time have a literal and a figurative meaning.”

But from this oral manducation, which, because it occurs only in the Lord’s Supper, is called sacramental, there is to be distinguished the spiritual manducation. FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 61): “There is a twofold eating of the flesh of Christ; one is spiritual, of which mainly Christ speaks in John 6, which occurs in no other way than in spirit and in faith, in the hearing of and meditation upon the Gospel, not less than when in the Lord’s Supper is received worthily by faith. This spiritual manducation is useful and salutary in itself, and necessary to the salvation of all Christians in all ages, without which spiritual participation the sacramental manducation in the Lord’s Supper, or that which occurs with the mouth only, is not only not salutary, but prejudicial also, and is a cause of condemnation. This spiritual eating, therefore, is nothing else than believing the preached Word of God, in which Christ, true God and man, is offered to us, with all the benefits which He procured by His flesh delivered up to death for us , and by His blood shed for us. These benefits are the grace and mercy of God, the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life. He who hears these things set forth from the Word of God, receives them by faith, applies them to himself, and trusts wholly in this consolation — he spiritually eats the body and drinks the blood of Christ. The other manducation of the body of Christ is oral and sacramental, when, in the Lord’s Supper, the true and substantial body and blood of Christ are orally received and partaken of by all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine.” Thus the spiritual eating is not denied, but in the Lord’s Supper it only follows the sacramental manducation. HOLL. (1130) thus contrasts them: “The former (the spiritual eating) is common to all times; the latter is peculiar to the New Testament. The former is unconnected with the Supper; the latter takes place only in the Supper. The former may occur without the symbols; the latter, only through the medium of external symbols. The former always contributes to our salvation; the latter sometimes may occur to our condemnation. The former apprehends the whole Christ, with all His benefits; the latter apprehends only the body of Christ in and under the bread. The former is metaphorical; the latter is literal, by virtue of a grammatical, not a physical literalness.”

The different senses in which the Lutherans and Calvinists employ these terms are thus stated by GRH. (X, 303): “The Calvinists thus define the sacramental eating: that we receive by the mouth the bread, which is the Sacrament, i.e., only the sign, of the absent body of Christ. We thus describe the sacramental eating: that we receive with the mouth the bread which is the communion of the truly present body of Christ. The Calvinists thus define spiritual manducation: that the soul elevates itself, and its organ, viz., faith, to heaven, and there enjoys the body and blood of Christ, i.e., applies to itself the benefits derived from the giving of His body and the shedding of His blood. We by no means deny the application of the benefits of Christ by faith, i.e., the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, as spoken of in John 6; but we have reference to the fruits and design of the Holy Supper, and therefore distinguish from that the sacramental manducation belonging to the form of the Eucharist. But when the sacramental eating is called spiritual, this is meant to counteract all the carnal and earthly ideas which human reason can conceive with regard to this celestial mystery.”

[8] CHMN. (de c. Dom., 20): “If the union or presence of the body of Christ in the bread were physical, constituted in a natural way and after the manner of the things of this world, then the evident and manifest manner of the sacramental manducation could be reasonably asked for and could also be shown. For the manducation is the same in kind as the union or presence of Christ in the Supper. But that union or presence is not physical, constituted after the manner of the things of this world. It is therefore more easy to show what sacramental eating is not than what it is. It is plainly not physical, which consists in the mastication, deglutition, and digestion of the substance which is eaten, because the presence of Christ in the Supper is not natural, constituted after the manner of the things of this world; yet nevertheless not figurative or feigned, but true and substantial, although it is effected by a supernatural, celestial, and inscrutable mystery.” Accordingly, there is indeed assumed an oral manducation of bread and wine, as of the body and blood; but, because these substances are in their nature so different, the mode of manducation in each is also distinguished. In the bread and wine, as physical and earthly things, the mode assumed ins physical; in the case of the body and blood, as heavenly things, the mode of manducation assumed is hyperphysical. HOLL. (1130): “The sacramental eating and drinking is an undivided single action, by which at one and the same moment we eat the eucharistic bread and the body of Christ sacramentally united to it. But the mode of this one eating and drinking is twofold. For, although he terrestrial and celestial object is received by one and the same organ, yet this is not done in the same way. Bread and wine are received by the mouth immediately and naturally; the body and blood of Christ are received mediately and supernaturally.” The physical and hyperphysical mode are thus described by HOLL. (1130): “The former is that by which food, taken into the mouth, is passed into the stomach, digested, and ejected. The latter is that by which food that is offered is, indeed, received through the mouth into the body, but is not digested and ejected in a natural way. Angels ate (Gen. 18:8), and Christ ate after His resurrection; but it was not an ordinary, natural eating, nor was the food digested in a natural manner. But as the earth absorbs water in one way and the sun in another, so also was that food not digested in a natural way.”

QUEN. (IV, 204): “We must distinguish between the manducation itself, with its form, definition, and properties, on the one hand, and the accidents and consequents of manducation on the other. We cannot say: ‘The body of Christ is literally eaten, therefore it is masticated by the teeth,’ etc. For it is not essential to literal eating and drinking, in general, that the meat and drink should pass by means of deglutition into the stomach, since the above stated accidents and consequents pertain only to the physical mode of manducation and not to the hyperphysical.” The physical mode of eating the body and blood is rejected, under the name also of Capernaitic manducation (according to John 6:26). FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 64): “That command of Christ (‘take, eat’), when all the circumstances are rightly considered, must be understood of an oral, and yet not of a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but of a supernatural and incomprehensible manducation of the body of Christ.”

[9] GRH. (X, 116): “The sacramental presence and union is effected in such a way that, according to the appointment of our Saviour Himself, the body of Christ is united to the consecrated bread, as a divinely appointed medium; and, to the consecrated wine as a medium also divinely appointed, the blood of Christ is united in a manner incomprehensible to us. Thus in a sublime mystery, with the bread, by one sacramental eating, we take and eat the body of Christ, and with the wine, in one sacramental drinking, we take and drink the blood of Christ.” Ib. (302): “We teach, therefore, that in the Holy Supper we do not receive the bread, alone and by itself, nor the body of Christ, alone and by itself; . . . but, that with the wine the blood of Christ is received, and this in consequence of the mystical and sacramental union of the bread and the body and of the wine and the blood of Christ,, which has its origin in the appointment of the true and omnipotent Christ, but which cannot be understood, nor should it be investigated by human reason.”

HFRFFR. (517): “The sacramental union is such a real and true conjunction of the consecrated bread with the body of Christ, and of the consecrated wine with His blood, in which, by virtue of the institution and ordination of Christ, in the administration and reception of the Holy Supper, the true body and blood of Christ are taken, eaten, and drank together with the bread and wine.”

QUEN. (IV, 181): “The complex subject [viz., the τουτο in the words of the institution signifies that a terrestrial and a celestial object are conjointly given to be eaten and drank. But what are conjointly given, in a real presentation, these are also united after their own peculiar manner. Now, in the Holy Supper the eucharistic bread and the body of Christ, and also the wine and the blood of Christ, are conjointly given in a real presentation. Therefore they are also really joined in a sacramental union.”

HOLL. (1120): “The sacramental union of the terrestrial and the celestial object implies the mutual presence and communion of the bread and the body,, also, that of the wine and the blood of Christ, so that the consecrated bread is the vehicle of the body, and the consecrated wine is the vehicle of the blood of Christ.”

In order to avoid all misconception, it is added with special emphasis, that only the body and blood of Christ, and not the whole Christ, body and soul, are united with the bread and wine; hence there is a difference between the presence of Christ and the participation of the body and blood of Christ.

QUEN. (IV, 200): “It is one thing that the whole Christ is present in the Holy Supper, and another that the whole Christ or the celestial object is united with the element of bread and wine, and thus also the whole is sacramentally eaten. The former we affirm, the latter we deny. For we say that the body of Christ only is united with the bread, and the blood with the wine, and sacramentally received by the mouth of the body, but that the whole Christ is received spiritually by the mouth of faith.”

For the difference in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper between the Lutheran and the Reformed, see FORM. CONC., VII, 2-9.

GRH. (X, 184) states the difference as follows: “Our opponents contend (1) that the body of Christ is substantially present only in heaven; hence they draw an argument against the presence of His body in the Supper from the article of His ascension; (2) that Christ in His human nature is not present on earth, but that He was taken to heaven, and will remain there until the last day; (3) that presence in many places is opposed to the nature of a true body; hence they argue against our opinion from the properties of a true body; (4) that the body of Christ was as much present to Abraham and to the godly of the Old Testament as He is to us in the sacrament of the Eucharist; (5) that the eating of His body can be performed alone by faith soaring to heaven; (6) that the body of Christ is communicated and united to us by the operation of the Holy Spirit; yet it remains in heaven, where it is received until the last day; (7) that the presence is asserted not on account of the bread, but on account of man (according to which they oppose the means to the end, which, nevertheless, are subordinates); (8) that the sacramental union consists in a mere form and analogy; which they thus explain, that the bread is a sign, figure, and representation of the body, which is absent, according to its essence; (9) that those eating unworthily do not receive the body and blood of Christ, but only the external symbols, viz., bread and wine; (10) besides the natural eating of the bread, and the spiritual eating of the body of Christ by faith, there is no sacramental eating of the body of Christ; (11) that the body of Christ is neither locally nor illocally present; (12) that the body of Christ is neither visibly nor invisibly present; (13) that the body and blood of Christ, before His return to judge the world, is neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily present on earth, where the Supper is administered. But how or in what manner may these false hypotheses be reconciled with the true opinion of the true, real, and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper? How great must be their effrontery, to assert that the question is only concerning the mode of the presence, and not of the presence itself, when we have always protested that we will not dispute with any one about the mode, for that is unknown to human reason.”

[10] HFRFFR. (517): “The sacramental union is not (1) a transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, for to a union at least two things are necessary; (2) it is not a consubstantiation or commixture of the substances, but in both the bread and wine the substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed; (3) nor is it a local or durable adhesion or conjunction to the bread and wine apart from the use of the Supper; (4) nor the inclusion of some small corpuscle lying hid under the bread (impanation); (5) nor is it, finally, a personal union of the bread and body of Christ, such as exists between the Son of God and the assumed humanity.”

[11] GRH. (X, 261): “The form of this Sacrament consists in an action, and in one which Christ and the apostles observed in its administration, and, not only by their own example, but also by a precept, commanded to be observed. The three sacramental acts belonging to the form and integrity of this Sacrament are gathered from the description of the Evangelists: (1) Christ took the bread and blessed it; (2) He gave and distributed the broken bread to the disciples; (3) the disciples received and ate the consecrated bread . . . . There are then three sacramental acts: (1) The consecration of the bread and cup; (2) the distribution of the consecrated bread and cup; (3) the sacramental eating and drinking of the distributed bread and cup.” FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 83): “But this consecration, or recitation of the words of the institution of Christ, does not alone constitute the Sacrament, if the whole action of the Supper, as ordained by Christ, be not observed, e.g., when the consecrated bread is not distributed, received, or partaken of, but is shut up, or offered as a sacrifice, or carried about in procession. For the command of Christ (do this) which embraces the whole action, must be wholly and inviolably observed. Rule: Nothing can be called a Sacrament unless administered as instituted by Christ, or according to the manner divinely appointed.”

From what has been said it follows that the practice of the Roman Catholic Church in excluding the laity from the participation of the cup, is utterly rejected, and it is maintained “that as eating is an essential part of the Sacrament, so also is drinking; he who receives it in one kind only does not partake of the whole Sacrament, but only a part.” QUEN. (IV, 226, 227). And yet QUEN. himself remarks (IV, 225): “The laity in the papacy do not on this account sustain injury to their souls, because they are deprived of the cup of the Lord; for the sin belongs to the priests, and only the suffering of injury to the people: and although the laity do not derive the benefit of the cup by partaking of the cup, because it is denied to them, yet God will make amends for this in some other way, and relieve their misery.”

QUEN. (IV, 179): “The consecration consists (a) in the separation of the external elements, the bread and wine, from a common and ordinary use; (b) in the benediction, or setting them apart for sacred use, as appointed in the Holy Supper, by solemn prayers and thanksgiving; (c) in the sacramental union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, so that the consecrated bread becomes the communion of the body, and the consecrated wine becomes the communion of the blood of Christ.” (For “by virtue of the Word the element becomes a Sacrament, without the accession of which it remains a mere element.” CAT. MAJ., V, 10.) But “this sacramental union itself does not take place except in the distribution; for the elements, bread and wine, do not become portative media (προσφερομενα) of the body and blood of Christ, until during the distribution they are eaten and drank.” HUTT. (Loc. Com., 726): “The Romanists, ancient as well as modern, insist upon it that there is a hidden magical power in the pronunciation of these four words, Hoc est corpus meum, by the force of which the bread is essentially changed into the body, and the wine into the blood of Christ. So there are even some among ourselves who dream that, when the words of the institution have been recited, there results a permanent sacramental union of the bread with the body and of the wine with the blood . . . Both errors result from the false premise, in which it is assumed that the sacramental union depends upon the force and efficacy of the recitation of the words of the institution. The purified Church, correcting this error, teaches that no sacramental union takes place until the external use is added, which consists in eating and drinking; so that if the words of the institution were recited a thousand times, and this use, i.e., the eating and drinking, were not added, there would still be no sacramental union of the bread with the body or of the wine with the blood of Christ. Therefore there is no reason for the anxious inquiry, Where are the consecrated wafers to be kept, if there be no use for them? or what is to be done if there be more consecrated wafers than communicants? For they are to be stored away and kept for use upon a subsequent occasion, and in the same place where the other unconsecrated wafers are kept; and this for the reasons already assigned.”

GRH. (X, 270): “But since Christ, in the institution of the Holy Supper, expressly commanded us to do in its administration what He did, it follows that the minister of the Church, in celebrating the Supper, should repeat the words of the institution, and consecrate the bread and wine in this manner, and distribute it to the communicants . . . . This consecration of the Eucharist is (1) not a magical incantation, essentially transmuting, by the power of certain words, the bread into the body and the wine into the blood of Christ; nor (2) is it only the historical repetition of the institution; . . . but it is (3) an efficacious αγιασμος (sanctification) by which, according to the command, ordination, and institution of Christ, sanctification is, as it were, carried over from the first Supper to the Supper at the present day, and the external elements destined to this sacred use, so that with these the body and blood of Christ are distributed.”

We do not, indeed, attribute to the recitation of the words of the institution such power as to make the body and blood of Christ present by some hidden efficacy inherent in the words, much less essentially to change the external elements; but we sincerely believe and profess that the presence of the body and blood of Christ depends entirely upon the will and promise of Christ, and upon the perpetually enduring efficacy of the original institution: nevertheless we also add, that the repetition of the primeval institution, made by the minister of the Church, is not merely historical and doctrinal, but also consecratory; by which, according to the appointment of Christ, the external symbols are truly and efficaciously set apart to sacred use, and in the very act of distribution become the communion of the body and blood of Christ.” . . . FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 77): “It is not our doing, nor our pronouncing, but the command and appointment of Christ, that cause the bread to become the body and the wine to become the blood of Christ, and this is continually taking place from the first institution of the Supper to the end of the world: and by our ministry these things are daily distributed.”

It was also a matter of dispute between the Lutherans and Romanists whether the consecrated host should be adored. GRH. says, in regard to this (X, 353): “When the matter of the adoration of the host is discussed with the Romanists, the question, properly speaking, is not (1) whether Christ, the Godman, who is really present in the administration of the Holy Supper, and distributes to us His body and blood by means of the bread and wine, is to be adored; for this we not only gladly admit, but also urge and inculcate; . . . (2) nor is the question strictly this, whether very special reverence is to be paid to this Sacrament, according to the rule of the divine Word; for we ourselves teach that the body and blood of Christ, which are presented to us in this Sacrament by means of external symbols, are to be distinguished from common food and drink; . . . and (3) there is properly also no question here as to the external reverence which is shown in the distribution and reception of the Eucharist; for we ourselves teach that profound reverence should be shown by the external deportment, and he who truly and heartily believes that Christ Himself, truly present in the administration of the Eucharist, feeds us with His body and blood, will manifest his profound faith and devotion by bowing his knee, and yielding external reverence . . . . Concerning these matters, therefore, there is no question between us and the Romanists; but the three points in controversy are particularly these: (1) The Romanists maintain that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or the whole of that which was appointed by the Lord to be received, is to be adored with the worship of latria. On the other hand, since the Eucharist consists of two things, a terrestrial and a celestial, we teach that adoration is not to be addressed to the terrestrial elements of bread and wine, lest we worship the creature as well as the Creator, but unto Christ, who is God and man, and who, being truly present in the administration, distributes to us His body and blood. (2) The Romanists, when they contend for the worship, adoration, and veneration of the Sacrament, do not particularly refer to this, that Christ, who is God and man, should be adored in the administration of the Holy Supper, or in its use as divinely appointed; but they labor to establish the adoration of the bread aside from the use instituted and commanded by Christ, when, namely, the bread is carried about in processions. But we maintain that the bread, when not used as appointed by Christ, is not the body of Christ, and so artolatry (bread-worship) is committed when bread is adored in those solemn processions. (3) The Romanists are particularly solicitous about the external worship of the Eucharist, as that it be honored by being kept in a splendid repository, etc . . . . But we are particularly solicitous in the use of the Eucharist as appointed by Christ concerning the inner and spiritual worship, upon which genuine external indications or internal reverence spontaneously follow.”

QUEN. (IV, 233): “The Lord’s Supper consists in a sacramental action, viz., in the consecration, distribution, eating and drinking; and so we deny that, aside from the use of distribution, eating, and drinking, the body and blood of Christ are permanently united under the forms of bread and wine after the consecration, and we teach that the elevation, carrying about, and adoration of the consecrated wafers is not the worship of Christ (κριστολατρεια), but the worship of bread (αρτολατρεια).” (234): “That the sacrament of the Supper is not a permanent thing, but a temporary action, is proved (1) From the description which Christ gives of it. Whatever is described by Christ Himself as to its form, by means of actions, and has its complement and perfection in them, that is not a permanent thing, but an action. But the sacrament of the Eucharist is described by Christ Himself, as to its form, by actions, such as blessing, distribution, eating, drinking, and has its complement and perfection in these. Therefore, etc. (2) From the assertion of Paul, 1 Cor. 10:16. ‘The bread which we break,’ i.e., which we distribute to be eaten, ‘is the communion of the body of Christ.’ Whatever bread, therefore, is not broken or distributed, that is not the communion (κοινωνια) or participation of the body of Christ.

(3) From the nature of the Sacrament. No Sacrament, aside from its use as divinely appointed, is truly a Sacrament, therefore the Eucharist is not. The reason is, an institution is not observed except in its use; but where an institution is not observed, there there is no Sacrament. A Sacrament is entire through aggregation; if, therefore, one of the aggregates or connected parts be wanting, there is no Sacrament.”

[12] GRH. (X, 397): “Faith does not belong to the substance of the Eucharist; therefore, it is not on account of the faith of those coming to the Lord’s Supper that the bread is the communion of the body of Christ, nor does the bread cease to be the communion of the body of Christ on account of their unbelief.” Hence, “hypocrites and the unworthy also partake of the substance of the Sacrament, although they do not receive its benefits. 1 Cor. 11:27.” The sacramental manducation is theirs, but “not the spiritual, for this occurs through faith to eternal life;” rather, they partake of the Holy Supper unto condemnation, while believers receive a blessing.

FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 63): “The godly receive the body and blood of Christ as a certain pledge and confirmation that their sins are surely pardoned; . . . but the wicked receive the same body and the same blood of Christ also with their mouth unto judgment and condemnation.” QUEN. (IV, 250): “The antithesis of the Calvinists, who maintain that the unworthy and hypocrites receive only the half of the Sacrament, viz., the external signs, but not the whole Sacrament, i.e., they are not made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but receive only the mere and empty signs.”

FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VII, 68): “But it must also be distinctly declared who are the unworthy guests in this Holy Supper; those, namely, who come to the Table of the Lord without true penitence and contrition, without true faith and a serious determination to amend their lives. These bring upon themselves condemnation, i.e., temporal and eternal punishment, by their unworthy oral manducation, and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ . . . . But the worthy guests in the Holy Supper are those Christians, weak in faith, timid, desponding, who, while they revolve in their minds the greatness and multitude of their sins, are alarmed; who, in reflecting upon their great impurity, judge themselves unworthy of this most precious treasure and of the benefits of Christ; who feel and deplore the infirmity of their faith: these are the worthy guests . . . . Their worthiness, therefore, consists neither in the greatness nor in the weakness of their faith, but in the merit of Christ.” The question here naturally arises, whether all who live in the Church are to be admitted to the Holy Supper? GRH. (X, 381): “Nor are all Christians promiscuously to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper; but, according to the rule of Paul, only those who examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11:28; i.e., those who condemn themselves, v.31; those who distinguish the body of the Lord from other ordinary food, v.29; and who show forth the death of the Lord, v. 26. Therefore all those are excluded who are either unwilling or unable to examine themselves, as (1) those who are defiled with heresy, i.e., who pertinaciously and refractorily persevere in error concerning the foundation of the faith, neglecting all kinds of admonition; for, since by their heresy they cut themselves off from the fellowship of the true Church, they also cannot at all be admitted to the Sacraments, which are the blessings peculiar to the Church: such are, e.g., those who pertinaciously deny the true and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, Matt. 7:6; Phil. 3:2; 1 Cor. 11:29 . . . . (2) Notorious sinners . . . . (3) The excommunicated . . . . (4) The possessed, maniacs, the demented . . . . (5) Infamous persons.”