ception is not by the mouth, but by faith, then the thing re- ceived is not the material body and blood, but the body and blood as a sacrifice, i. e. their sacrificial virtue. Hence all Re- formed churches teach (and even the rubrics of the Church of England), that the body and blood of Christ are received elsewhere than at the Lord's table, and without the reception of the bread and wine, w^hich in the Sacrament are their sym- bols and the organs of communication, as elsewhere the word is that organ. Another point no less clear as to the Refonned doctrine is, that since the body and blood of Christ are re- ceived by faith, they are not received by unbelievers.
Romanists answer the above question by saying, that the mouth is the organ of reception ; that the thing received is the real body and blood of Christ, into the substance of which the bread and wine are changed by the act of conse- cration ; and consequently, that believers and unbelievers are alike partakers. Lutherans teach, that although the bread and wine remain unchanged, yet, as the body and blood of Christ are locally present in the sacrament, in, with, and under the bread and wine, the organ of reception is the mouth ; the thing received is the real body and blood of Christ ; and that they are received alike or equally by believers and unbe- lievers ; by the latter, however, to their detriment and con- demnation ; by the former, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. Lutherans and Romanists further agree in teaching, that there is a reception of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, which is elsewhere impossible.
These are the three great forms of doctrine which have prevailed in the Church on this subject ; and this passage is interpreted by each party in accordance with their peculiar views. The passage decides no point of difference. If the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation can be elsewhere proved, then, of course, this passage must be understood in accordance with it. And if the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation can be established by other declarations of the Word of God, then this passage must be explained in accordance with that doctrine. But, if it can be clearly demonstrated from Scrip- ture and from those laws of belief which God has impressed upon our nature, that those doctrines are false, then the pas- sage must be understood as teaching a spiritual, and not a cor- poral participation of Christ's body and blood. All that the passage asserts is the fact of a participation, the nature of that participation must be determined from other sources.