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.
- 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.^926
- The ubiquity of Christ’s body involves an important element of truth, but is a dogmatic
hypothesis without sufficient Scripture warrant, and cannot well be reconciled with the fact of the
ascension, or with the nature of a body, unless it be resolved into a mere potential or dynamic
presence which makes it possible for Christ to make his divine-human power and influence felt
wherever he pleases.^927
The illustrations which Luther uses—as the sun shining everywhere, the voice resounding
in a thousand ears and hearts, the eye seeing different objects at once—all lead to a dynamic
presence, which Calvin fully admits.
- The historic argument might prove too much (for transubstantiation and the sacrifice of
the mass), unless we are satisfied with the substance of truth which underlies the imperfect human
theories and formulas. The real presence of Christ with his people is indeed a most precious truth,
which can never be surrendered. It is the very life of the church and the comfort and strength of
believers from day to day. He promised the perpetual presence not only of his spirit or influence,
but of his theanthropic person:, I am with you alway." It is impossible to make an abstract separation
of the divine and human in the God-man. He is the Head of the church, his body, and "filleth all in
all." Nor can the church give up the other important truth that Christ is the bread of life, and
nourishes, in a spiritual and heavenly manner, the soul of the believer which is vitally united to
him as the branch is to the vine. This truth is symbolized in the miraculous feeding of the multitude,
and set forth in the mysterious discourse of the sixth chapter of John.
(^926) I 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. Müller, 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 ἐστι(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 action is symbolical. At that time Christ,
living and speaking to the disciples with his body yet unbroken, and his blood not yet shed, could not literally offer his body to them.
They would have shuddered at such an idea, and at least expressed their surprise. Kahnis, an orthodox Lutheran, came to the conclusion
(1861) that " the literal interpretation of the words of institution is an impossibility, and must be given up."(See the first. ed. of his Luth.
Dogmatik, I. 616 sq.) Dorner says (Christl. Glaubenslehre, II. 853), " That ἐστίmay be understood figuratively is beyond a doubt, and
should never have been denied. It is only necessary to refer to the parables."Martensen, an eminent Danish Lutheran (Christl. Dogmatik,
p. 491), admits Zwingli’s exegesis, and thinks that his " sober common-sense view has a greater importance than Lutheran divines are
generally disposed to accord to it."
(^927) The Lutheran divines were divided between the idea of an absolute ubiquity (which would prove too much for the Lutheran doctrine,
and run into a sort of Panchristism or Christo-Pantheism), and a relative ubiquity or multivolipraesentia (which depends upon the will).
The Formula of Concord inconsistently favors both views. See Dorner’s History of Christology, II. 710 sqq. (Germ. ed.), and Schaff,
Creeds, I. 322, 325 sq., and 348.