δ 111. THE EUCHARISTIC THEORIES COMPARED. 673
are by no means to be omitted, but are to be publicly recited, as it is written (1 Cor. 10: 16), ‘ The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?’ etc. And this benediction takes place by the recitation of the words of Christ.
““V. Now the foundations on which we rest in this controversy with the Sacramentarians are the following, which, moreover, Dr. Luther has laid down in his Larger Confession concerning the Supper of the Lord: —
‘The first foundation is an article of our Christian faith, to wit: Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man in unity of person, inseparable and undivided. )
“Secondly: That the right hand of God is everywhere; and that Christ,
in respect of his humanity, is truly and in very deed seated thereat, and therefore as present governs, and has in his hand and under his feet, as the Scripture saith (Eph. 1: 22), all things which are in heaven and on earth. At this right hand of God no other man, nor even any angel, but the Son of Mary alone, is seated, whence also he is able to effect those things which we have said.
*‘ Thirdly: That the Word of God is not false or deceiving.
‘*Fourthly: That God knows and has in his power various modes of being in any place, and is not confined to that single one which philosophers are wont to call local or circumscribed.
“VI. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are taken with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith, but also by the mouth, nevertheless not Capernaitically, but after a spiritual and heavenly manner, by reason of the sacramental union. For to this the words of Christ clearly bear witness, in which he enjoins us to take, to eat, to drink; and that this was done by the Apostles the Scripture makes mention, saying (Mark 14: 23), ‘And they all drank of it.’ And Paul says, ‘The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ;’ that is, he that eats this bread eats the body of Christ.
*““To the same, with great consent, do the chief of the most ancient doctors of the church— Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo the First, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustin — bear witness.
‘“VII. We believe, teach, and confess that not only true believers in Christ, and such as worthily approach the Supper of the Lord, but also the unworthy and unbelieving receive the true body and blood of Christ; in such wise, nevertheless, that they derive thence neither consolation nor life, but rather so as that receiving turns to their judgment and condemnation, unless they be converted, and repent (1 Cor. 11: 27, 29).
“For although they repel from them Christ as a Saviour, nevertheless they are compelled, though extremely unwilling, to admit him as a stern Judge. And he no less present exercises his judgment over these impenitent guests than as present he works consolation and life in the hearts of true believers and worthy guests.
674 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 1530.
“VIII. We believe, teach, and confess that there is one kind only of unworthy guests: they are those only who do not believe. Of these it is written (John 3: 18), ‘He that believeth not is condemned already.’ And this judgment is enhanced and aggravated by an unworthy use of the holy Supper (i Cor. 11: 29).
““TX. We believe, teach, and confess that no true believer, so long as he retains a living faith, receives the holy Supper of the Lord unto condemnation, however much weakness of faith he may labor under. For the Lord’s Supper has been chiefly instituted for the sake of the weak in faith, who nevertheless are penitent, that from it they may derive true consolation and a strengthening of their weak faith (Matt. 9:12; 11: 5, 28).
“We believe, teach, and confess that the whole worthiness of the guests at this heavenly Supper consists alone in the most holy obedience and most perfect merit of Christ. And this we apply to ourselves by true faith, and are rendered certain of the application of this merit, and are confirmed in our minds by the sacrament. But in no way does that worthiness depend upon our virtues, or upon our inward or outward preparations.”’
The three great arguments for the Lutheran theory are the words of institution taken in their literal sense, the ubiquity of Christ’s body, and the prevailing faith of the church before the Reformation.
1. As to the literal interpretation, it cannot be carried out, and is surrendered, as inconsistent with the context and the surroundings, by nearly all modern exegetes.}
11 may mention among commentators (on Matt. 26: 26 and parallel passages), De Wette, Meyer, Weiss (in the seventh ed. of Meyer on Matt., p. 504 sq.), Bleek, Ewald, Van Oosterzee, Alford, Morison, etc.; and, among Lutheran and Lutheranizing theologians, Kahnis, Jul. Miiller, Martensen, Dorner. The Bible, true to its Oriental origin and character, is full of parables, metaphors, and tropical expressions, from Genesis to Revelation. The substantive verb ἐστί (which was not spoken in the Aramaic original) is simply the logical copula, and may designate a figurative, as well as a real, identity of the subject and the predicate ; which of the two, depends on the connection and surroundings. I may say of a likeness of Luther, ‘‘ This is Luther’s,”’ i.e., a figure or representation of Luther. It has a symbolical or allegorical sense in many passages, as Matt. 13: 38 sq.; Luke 12:1; John 10. 6, 14: 6; Gal. 4: 24; Heb. 10: 20; Rev. 1:20. But what is most conclusive, even in the words of institution, Luther himself had to admit a double metaphor; namely, a synecdoche partis pro toto (‘*This is my body” for ‘* This is my body, and bread ;’’ to avoid transubstantiation, which denies the substance of bread), and a synecdoche continentis pro contento (‘* This cup is the new covenant in my blood,’’ instead of ‘‘ This wine,”’ etc.). The whole