the word " local " in a sense in which it characterizes the presence of a body which is present exclusively, t. e., both in the sense of excluding all other bodies from the same portion of space, being bounded by it, and of being nowhere else. The Reformed say that it is contrary to the nature of such a body as that which be- longs to man, that it should be in many places at the same time, much less that it should nil all space. The idea that the flesh and blood of Christ are omnipresent, seems to involve a contradic- tion. It is in vain to appeal to the omnipotence of God. Contra- dictions are not the objects of power. It is no more a limitation of the power of God to say that He cannot do the impossible, that He cannot make right wrong, or the finite infinite, than it is a lim- itation of his wisdom that He cannot teach the untrue or the un- wise. All such assumptions destroy the idea of God as a rational Being. If the body and blood of Christ ,be everywhere present, then they are received in every ordinary meal as well as in the Lord's Supper. The answer which Lutherans give to this objec- tion, namely, that it is one thing for the body of Christ to be om- nipresent, and another for it to be accessible, or everywhere given, is unsatisfactory ; because the virtue resides in the body and blood, and if they are everywhere present and received they are everywhere operative, at least to believers. If this omnipresence of the body of Christ was actual only after his ascension, then, as Miiller * argues, the Apostles must, at the institution of the Lord's Supper, have partaken of his body and blood in a manner pecul- iar to that one occasion, and Christ, so far as other Christians are concerned, only foretold that his body would be ubiquitous and therefore present in the eucharist. Luther, therefore, says, " If Christ at the Last Supper had not uttered the words ' this is my body,' yet the words, Christ sits at the right hand of God, prove that his body and blood may be in the Lord's Supper as well as everywhere else." 2 As Christ in his human nature and therefore in his human body sits at the right hand of God ; and as the right hand of God is everywhere, his body must be everywhere, and therefore in the bread as used in the sacrament. The cur- rent representations, however, of the Lutheran theologians on this point are, that the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper is peculiar, something which occurs there and no- where else. This presence is due, not to the words of consecra- tion as uttered by the minister, but to the almighty power which
1 Dogmatische Abkandlungen, Bremen, 1870, p. 455, note.
* Das diese Worte, etc., § 118 ; Works, edit. Walch's, vol. xx. p. 1011.
672 PART m. Ch. XX. — THE MEANS OF GRACE.
attended the original utterance of the words, This is my body, and continues to operate whenever and wherever this sacrament is administered.
This presence of the body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine has been generally expressed by non- Lutherans by the word consubstantiation, as distinguished from the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. The propriety of this word to express the doctrine of Luther is admitted by Phil- ippi, if it be understood to mean, what in fact is meant by it when used by the Reformed, "das reale Zusammensein beider Substanzen," i. e., the real coexistence of the two substances, the earthly and the heavenly. But Lutherans generally object to the word because it is often used to express the idea of the mixing two substances so as to form a third ; or the local inclusion of the one substance by the other.1
The Lutheran doctrine of the mode of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, is thus carefully stated by Ger- hard : 2 " Quam vere in sacra ccena praesens est res terrena, panis et vinum : tarn vere etiam praesens res ccelestis, corpus et sanguis Christi : proinde credimus, docemus et confitemur in eucharistiae sacramento veram, realem et substantialem corporis et sanguinis Christi praesentiam, exhibitionem, manducationem et bibitionem, quae praesentia non est essentialis conversio panis in corpus et vini in sanguinem Christi, quam transubstantionem vocant, neque est corporis ad panem, ac sanguinis ad vinum extra usum ccenae local- is aut durabilis, neque est panis et corporis Christi personalis unio, qualis est divinae et humanae naturae in Christo unio, neque est localis inclusio corporis in panem, neque est impanatio, neque est incorporate in panem, neque est consubstantio, qua panis cum corpore Christi, et vinum cum ipsius sanguine in unam massam physicam coalescat : neque est naturalis inexis- tentia, neque delitescentia corpusculi sub pane, neque quidquam hujusmodi carnale aut physicum ; sed est praesentia et unio sa- cramentalis, quae ita comparata est, ut juxta ipsius salvatoris nostri, veracis, sapientis, et omnipotentis institutionem, pani benedicto tanquam medio divinitus ordinato corpus : et vino bene- dicto tanquam medio itidem divinitus ordinato, sanguis Christi modo nobis incomprehensibili uniatur, ut cum illo pane corpus Christi una manducatione sacramentali et cum illo vino sangui- nem Christi una bibitione sacramentali in sublimi mysterio suma-
1 Philippi, ut supra, vol. v, p. 356, and Krauth, ut mpra, pp. 130, 339.
2 John Gerhard, Loci Theologici, xxn. x. § 69; edit. Tubingen, 1769, vol. x. pp. 116, 117.