The “Real” Presence: Four Interpretations of the Lord’s Supper

Outline:

1. Rome (Transubstantiated Carnal/Corporeal Presence).

2. Luther (Mystical Carnal/Corporeal Presence).

3. Calvin (Mystical/Spiritual Presence).

A. Excursus: Two Views Regarding the Spiritual Presence.

4. Zwingli (Symbolic/Memorial Presence).

B. Excursus: Zwingli’s View of the Lord’s Supper.

5. Appendix: Confessional Examples of the “Real” Presence (Spiritually) of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

C. Excursus: The “Real” Presence Explained.

6. Understanding the Lord’s Supper (Practical/Pastoral Advice from C. S. Lewis).

D. Excursus: The Lord’s Supper and the Unity of the Church.

7. Endnotes (Further Explication).

1. Rome (Transubstantiated Carnal/Corporeal Presence). Return to Outline.

The Roman Catholic view asserts that Christ is carnally/corporeally present in the Lord’s Supper, and that the very elements of the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the carnal/corporeal flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus. 

R. L. Dabney:

According to Rome, when the priest canonically, and with proper intention, pronounces the words in the mass: “Hoc est corpus meson,” the bread and wine are changed into the very body and blood of the living Christ, including, of course, His soul and divinity; which mediatorial person, the priest does then truly and literally break and offer again, as a proper sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead; and he and the people eat Him. True; the accidents, or material qualities of bread and wine remain, but in and under them, the substance of bread is gone, and the substance really existing is Christ’s person. But in this condition of things, it exists without the customary material attributes of locality, extension, and divisibility; for He is none the less in heaven, and in all the ‘hosts,’ all over the world at once; and into however small parts they may be divided, each is a perfect Christ! Hence, to elevate, and carry this host in procession, and to worship it with Λατρεία is perfectly proper.

(Robert Lewis Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, [St Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878], p. 804.)

Cf. Catechism of the Cathoic Church, ##. 1365, 1374-1378.

2. Luther (Mystical Carnal/Corporeal Presence). Return to Outline.

The Lutheran/East Orthodox view generally asserts that Christ is carnally/corporeally present in the Lord’s supper (in a mystical manner), but the elements of the bread and wine remain. Commonly referred to as consubstantiation, although there are some who object to the use of the term.

A. A. Hodge:

     The Lutherans hold… 1st. That the entire person, body and blood of Christ are really and corporeally present in, with and under the sensible elements. 2d. That they are received by the mouth. 3d. That they are received by the unbeliever as well as by the believer. But the unbeliever receives them to his own condemnation. 

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879], p. 639.)

Cf. Edmund Schlink: 

In the Lord’s Supper bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood; in, with, and under the bread and wine Christ’s body and blood are offered and orally received. 

(Edmund Schlink, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions, trans. Paul F. Koehneke and Herbert J. A. Bouman, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961], p. 169.) [1.]

3. Calvin (Mystical/Spiritual Presence). Return to Outline.

The Reformed view (historically held by most classical Protestant Churches) [1.5.] asserts that Christ is really, truly present in the Lord’s supper, spiritually, but not carnally, and that the elements of the bread and wine remain unchanged. 

     Note that a “spiritual” presence is a “real” presence. Many individuals attempting to parse the various aspects of the Lord’s Supper fall prey to a form of philosophical naturalism, i.e., that which is not physical is not real. It is inappropriate to argue that Christ cannot be really present with believers in the supper without being carnally/corporeally (e.g., locally) present. [2.]

Note: Click here for more on the “real presence.”

The Westminster Confession of Faith:

     VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses. 

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, A.D. 1647. Ch. XXIX, §. VII; In: Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Fourth Edition—Revised and Enlarged: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1905], p. 666.) See also: ccel.org. [3.]

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 

     II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other. 

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, A.D. 1647. Ch. XXVII, §. II; In: Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Fourth Edition—Revised and Enlarged: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1905], pp. 660-661.) See also: ccel.org. [4.]

Cf. Michael Horton:

     When we receive the bread and the wine, says Calvin, “let us no less surely trust that the body itself is also given to us.” Rather than transform the sign into the signified (Rome), confuse the sign and the signified (Luther), or separate the sign and the signified . . . Calvin affirmed that signs were “guarantees of a present reality: the believer’s feeding on the body and blood of Christ.” …Calvin held that the reality—Christ and his benefits—could be truly communicated to believers through earthly means. Otherwise, he says (appealing to Chrysostom), faith becomes a “mere imagining” of Christ’s presence.[Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.5-6.] 

(Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, [Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008], pp. 127-128.)

A. Excursus: Two Views Regarding the Spiritual Presence. Return to Outline.

Charles Hodge:

But there are two ways in which this was understood. Some intended by it, not the virtue of Christ’s body and blood as flesh and blood, but their virtue as a body broken and of blood as shed, that is, their sacrificial, atoning efficacy. Others, however, insisted that besides this there was a vivifying efficacy imparted to the body of Christ by its union with the divine nature, and that by the power of the Holy Ghost, the believer in the Lord’s supper and elsewhere, received into his soul and by faith this mysterious and supernatural influence. This was clearly Calvin’s idea, though he often contented himself with the expression of the former of these views.

(Charles Hodge, “Review of The Mystical Presence;” In: The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review: For the Year 1848: Volume XX, [Philadelphia: Wm. H. Mitchell, 1848], p. 249.) [5.]

4. Zwingli (Symbolic/Memorial Presence). Return to Outline.

The symbolic/memorial view asserts that the Lord’s supper is “merely” symbolic, although many who hold this view would likely object to the use of the word “merely” as an inaccurate representation of their views. “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” (Mat. 18:20, NASB95).

R. L. Dabney:

There is a sense, in which all evangelical Christians would admit a real presence in the Lord’s Supper. The second Person of the Trinity being very God, immense and ubiquitous, is of course present wherever the bread and Vine are distributed. Likewise, His operations are present, through the power of the Holy Spirit employing the elements as means of grace, with all true believers communicating. (Matt. xviii:20).

(Robert Lewis Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, [St Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878], p. 809.) [6.]

B. Excursus: Zwingli’s View of the Lord’s Supper. Return to Outline.

It should be noted that while Zwingli’s name is often attached to the “merely symbolic” understanding, his own views had much in common with Calvin’s. [7.]

Ulrich Zwingli:

We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord’s Supper; yea, we believe that there is no communion without the presence of Christ [Christum credimus vere esse in cœna, immo non credimus esse Domini cœnam nisi Christus adsit]. This is the proof: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. xviii. 20). How much more is he present where the whole congregation is assembled to his honor! But that his body is literally eaten is far from the truth and the nature of faith. It is contrary to the truth, because he himself says: “I am no more in the world” (John xvii. 11), and “The flesh profiteth nothing” (John vi. 63), that is to eat, as the Jews then believed and the Papists still believe. It is contrary to the nature of faith (I mean the holy and true faith), because faith embraces love, fear of God, and reverence, which abhor such carnal and gross eating, as much as any one would shrink from eating his beloved son. . . . We believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the communion in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the religions, believing, and pious heart (as also St. Chrysostom taught). And this is in brief the substance of what we maintain in this controversy, and what not we, but the truth itself teaches.

(Ulrich Zwingli, “From the Confession sent to King Francis I;” In: Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Volume I, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877], I. Reformed Confessions of Switzerland, §. 52. Zwingli’s Distinctive Doctrines, p. 375. Cf. Hermann Agathon Niemeyer, ed., Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum, [Lipsiae: Sumptibus Iulii. Klinkhardti, 1840], p. 71.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ulrich Zwingli:

The natural substantial body of Christ in which He suffered, and in which He is now seated in heaven at the right hand of God, is not in the Lord’s Supper eaten corporeally, or as to its essence, but spiritually only. . . . Spiritually to eat Christ’s body is nothing else than with the spirit and mind to rely on the goodness and mercy of God through Christ. . . . Sacramentally to eat his body, is, the sacrament being added, with the mind and spirit to feed upon Him. [Quod in coena domini naturale ac substantiale istud corpus Christi, quo et hic passus est et nunc in coelis ad dexteram patris sedet, non naturaliter atque per essentiam editur, sed spiritualiter tantum. . . . Spiritualiter edere corpus Christi, nihil est aliud quam spiritu ac mente niti misericordia et bonitate dei per Christum. . . . Sacramentaliter autem edere corpus Christi, cum proprie volamus loqui, est, adiuncto sacramento, mente ac spiritu corpus Christi edere.]

(Ulrich Zwingli, Praesentia Corporis Christi in Coena; Hermann Agathon Niemeyer, ed., Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum, [Lipsiae: Sumptibus Iulii. Klinkhardti, 1840], pp. 44, 47, 47; trans. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874], p. 627.) See also: ccel.org.

5. Appendix: Confessional Examples of the “Real” Presence (Spiritually) of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Return to Outline. 

Swiss Reformed: The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith:

     Spiritual Eating of the Lord. There is also a spiritual eating of Christ’s body; not such that we think that thereby the food itself is to be changed into spirit, but whereby the body and blood of the Lord, while remaining in their own essence and property, are spiritually communicated to us, certainly not in a corporeal but in a spiritual way, by the Holy Spirit, who applies and bestows upon us these things which have been prepared for us by the sacrifice of the Lord’s body and blood for us, namely, the remission of sins, deliverance, and eternal life; so that Christ lives in us and we live in him, and he causes us to receive him by true faith to this end that he may become for us such spiritual food and drink, that is, our life. 

(The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, A.D. 1536, Ch. XXI; In: Arthur C. Cochrane, ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966], p. 285.)

Dutch Reformed: The Belgic Confession of Faith: 

In the mean time we err not when we say that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body and the proper blood of Christ. But the manner of our partaking of the same is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit through faith. Thus, then, though Christ always sits at the right hand of his Father in the heavens, yet doth he not, therefore, cease to make us partakers of himself by faith. This feast is a spiritual table, at which Christ communicates himself with all his benefits to us, and gives us there to enjoy both himself and the merits of his sufferings and death, nourishing, strengthening, and comforting our poor comfortless souls, by the eating of his flesh, quickening and refreshing them by the drinking of his blood. 

(The Belgic Confession of Faith, A.D. 1561, Art. XXXV; In: Arthur C. Cochrane, ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966], p. 216.)

Presbyterian: The Westminster Confession of Faith:

     VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses. 

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, A.D. 1647. Ch. XXIX, §. VII; In: Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Fourth Edition—Revised and Enlarged: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1905], p. 666.) See also: ccel.org.

Anglican: The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England: 

     The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

     Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

     The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean, whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

     The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. 

(The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, A.D. 1571, Article XXVIII; In: Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal: The Fourteenth Edition, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1894], p. 677.) See also: ccel.org (Schaff).

Episcopalian: Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America:

     The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

     Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, can not be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

     The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

     The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped. 

(Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, A.D. 1801, Article XXVIII; In: Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Fourth Edition—Revised and Enlarged: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1905], pp. 505-506.) See also: ccel.org.

Reformed Baptist: The London Baptist Confession of Faith:

     7. Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.

(The London Baptist Confession of Faith, A.D. 1689, Ch. 30.7; In: The Baptist Confession of Faith: 1689: With Scripture Proofs: Updated With Notes, ed. Peter Masters, [London: The Wakeman Trust, 1989], p. 85.)

Methodist: Methodist Articles of Religion.

     The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

     Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, can not be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

     The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

     The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped. 

(Methodist Articles of Religion, A.D. 1784, Article XVIII; In: Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Fourth Edition—Revised and Enlarged: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1905], p. 811.) See also: ccel.org. 

Presbyterian: The Scots Confession of Faith:

…we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ’s body, and of wine into his natural blood, as the Romanists have perniciously taught and wrongly believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by means of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, once broken and shed for us but now in heaven, and appearing for us in the presence of his Father. Notwithstanding the distance between his glorified body in heaven and mortal men on earth, yet we must assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body and the cup which we bless the communion of his blood. Thus we confess and believe without doubt that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus that he remains in them and they in him; they are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone that as the eternal Godhood has given to the flesh of Christ Jesus, which by nature was corruptible and mortal, life and immortality, so the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ Jesus does the like for us. We grant that this is neither given to us merely at the time nor by the power and virtue of the sacrament alone, but we affirm that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, have such union with Christ Jesus as the natural man cannot apprehend. Further we affirm that although the faithful, hindered by negligence and human weakness, do not profit as much as they ought in the actual moment of the Supper, yet afterwards it shall bring forth fruit, being living seed sown in good ground; for the Holy Spirit, who can never be separated from the right institution of the Lord Jesus, will not deprive the faithful of the fruit of that mystical action. Yet all this, we say again, comes of that true faith which apprehends Christ Jesus, who alone makes the sacrament effective in us.

(The Scots Confession of Faith, A.D. 1560, Ch. XXI; In: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Part I Book of Confessions, [Louisville: The Office of the General Assembly, 1996], p. 22.)

C. Excursus: The “Real” Presence Explained. Return to Outline.

(a) Christ does not need to be carnally present to be truly present. (Cf. Mat. 18:20, 28:20; Rev. 3:20, etc.)

(b) Christ truly dwells in believers, spiritually not carnally. (Cf. 1Co. 6:19; Rom. 8:1, 10; 2Co. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; 4:19; Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:27; 3:16, etc.)

(c) Believers are truly the body of Christ, in a spiritual sense not a carnal sense. (Cf. Rom. 12:4-5; Mat. 28:20; Col. 1:18, 24; 2:18-19; 3:15; Eph. 1:22-23; 3:6; 4:16; 5:23, 30; 1Co. 6:15-17; 12:12-14, 27, etc.)

G. B. Caird:

…the sentence ‘this is my body’ . . . must be one of the most ambiguous in the New Testament. …The statement cannot be one of identity, since Jesus cannot be supposed to have identified the bread in his hands with the living body of which those hands were part; and if it be claimed that the word ‘body’ in this instance has a different referent, then it is being used metaphorically… But if we conclude that ‘is’ here stands for ‘represents’ or ‘symbolises’, the traditional riposte is that the eucharistic elements are not to be regarded as ‘mere symbols’. The fallacy in this objection lies in the assumption that symbols are invariably substitutes for the reality they signify, bearing the same relation to it as a still-life painting to real fruit and fish, whetting but not satisfying the appetite. But many symbols, such as a kiss, a handshake and the presentation of a latchkey, are a means, or even the means, of conveying what they represent. The most natural way of taking the copula in the eucharistic saying, therefore, is ‘represents’, with the understanding that Jesus intended the gift of bread to convey the reality it symbolised.

(G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, [London: Duckworth, 1980], pp. 101-102.) [7.1.]

Tony Lane:

A paperback is composed of no more than paper and ink. A sceptic could send it to a laboratory and announce that the scientists had discovered no words there, that it was ‘nothing but’ paper and ink. A sceptic could read Paul’s letters and say that there was no word of God there, just the words of Paul. Christians accept that all the words are Paul’s – but also claim that it is (not symbolizes) God’s word. We all accept that paperbacks are just paper and ink – but also recognize that they contain words. A credit card is ‘nothing but’ plastic and metal – and yet it is a lot more. A banknote is ‘nothing but’ paper and metal, but it also has a value because of the promise written on it. We must not fall into the trap of what Donald McKay called ‘Nothing buttery’. Paper and metal are not what a banknote is, but what it is made of.

Monopoly money, by contrast, is purely symbolic. There is the amusing story of how a boy in New Zealand took a 10,000 yen Monopoly note to his local bank – and they cashed it. The newspaper report was appropriately entitled ‘Boy passes Go!’ We should not regard the bread and wine as being like Monopoly money.

(Tony Lane, Exploring Christian Doctrine: A Guide to What Christians Believe, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014], p. 257.) [7.2.]

James Bannerman:

Such promises as these—“Lo, I am with you alway[s], even unto the end of the world”; “Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of you”; “Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me”; and such like—plainly give us ground to affirm that Christ, through his Spirit is present in his ordinances to the faith of the believer, imparting spiritual blessing and grace. But there is nothing that would lead us to make a difference or distinction between the presence of Christ in the Supper and the presence of Christ in his other ordinances, in so far as the manner of that presence is concerned. The efficacy of the Savior’s presence may be different in the way of imparting more or less of saving grace, according to the nature of the ordinance, and the degree of the believer’s faith. But the manner of that presence is the same, being realized through the Spirit of Christ, and to the faith of the believer.

(James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church: Vol. II, edited by his son, [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1868], pp. 158-159.)

The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith:

     The Presence of Christ in the Supper. We do not, therefore, so join the body of the Lord and his blood with the bread and wine as to say that the bread itself is the body of Christ except in a sacramental way; or that the body of Christ is hidden corporeally under the bread, so that it ought to be worshipped under the form of bread; or yet that whoever receives the sign, receives also the thing itself. The body of Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father; and therefore our hearts are to be lifted up on high, and not to be fixed on the bread, neither is the Lord to be worshipped in the bread. Yet the Lord is not absent from his Church when she celebrates the Supper. The sun, which is absent from us in the heavens, is notwithstanding effectually present among us. How much more is the Sun of Righteousness, Christ, although in his body he is absent from us in heaven, present with us, not corporeally, but spiritually, by his vivifying operation, and as he himself explained at his Last Supper that he would be present with us (John, chs. 14; 15; and 16). Whence it follows that we do not have the Supper without Christ, and yet at the same time have an unbloody and mystical Supper, as it was universally called by antiquity. 

(The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, A.D. 1536, Ch. XXI; In: Arthur C. Cochrane, ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966], p. 287.) [8.]

Michael Horton: 

Typical of Reformed confessions, the Westminster Larger Catechism points out that the mode, not the substance, was spiritual. Furthermore, it is crucial to bear in mind that “spiritual” here refers to a person—the Holy Spirit—and not to a merely intellectual or imaginary mode of feeding. Christ is not spiritually present as opposed to being bodily present in the sacrament, but gives himself as our food and drink by the agency of the Spirit. …Because of the agency of the Spirit, who unites us to Christ in the first place, there can be a real communication of Christ’s person and work to the church (pace Zwingli), yet without bringing Christ down to an earthly altar (pace Rome and Luther). It is not simply Christ’s divinity but also the Spirit who makes Christ’s reign universally present, so that even Christ’s true and natural body and blood can be communicated to believers. …Reformed orthodoxy reiterated the patristic view that the sacrament consists of earthly signs and heavenly realities, without separation or confusion. The rival positions forced one either to locate Christ’s true presence in (or as) the elements or deny such presence altogether. Yet in the Reformed view, a sacrament encompasses the earthly signs and the heavenly reality. 

(Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, [Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008], pp. 128, 129, 131.) [9.]

6. Understanding the Lord’s Supper (Practical/Pastoral Advice from C. S. Lewis). Return to Outline.

C. S. Lewis:

…the very last thing I want to do is to unsettle in the mind of any Christian, whatever his denomination, the concepts—for him traditional—by which he finds it profitable to represent to himself what is happening when he receives the bread and wine. I could wish that no definitions had ever been felt to be necessary; and, still more, that none had been allowed to make divisions between churches. …The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand. Particularly, I hope I need not be tormented by the question “What is this?”—this wafer, this sip of wine. That has a dreadful effect on me. It invites me to take “this” out of its holy context and regard it as an object among objects, indeed as part of nature. It is like taking a red coal out of the fire to examine it: it becomes a dead coal. To me, I mean. All this is autobiography, not theology.

(C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, [New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964], Letter XIX, pp. 101-102, 104-105.) [10.]

D. Excursus: The Lord’s Supper and the Unity of the Church. Return to Outline.

G. W. Bromiley:

…it must be seen that the sacraments are genuinely dominical sacraments, attesting and promoting the unity which there is in Christ. It is not merely that they derive from the one Lord and are therefore common acts of obedience, though this is also significant. The real point is that they are witnesses to the one baptism and cup of the cross which gives an underlying and unshakable unity to our many baptisms and cups. The real point is that, whatever the form and understanding, we are baptized into Christ and are nourished by Him. We obviously make unity impossible if or to the extent that we abstract the sacraments from Christ Himself. But when we see them in relationship to Him, they can serve as means and foci of unity because they attest the one Christ and His one work, thus drawing us to Him and in Him to one another.

     …In respect of inter-communion, it is sometimes argued that this is the goal of practical unification. But if they are really to achieve unification in orientation on the one cup (I Cor. 10:21), those who speak in this way have also to learn two lessons: first, that unity is already the true actuality of the church in Christ; and second, that the one cup is a means to its practical expression. To perpetuate a divided cup is both to deny that the body is really one until we make it so, and to turn one of the means and foci of unity into its opposite. To be sure, inter-communion is not to be abused either by the uneasy flitting from table to table or its prostitution as a mere manifesto. Nor is it to be regarded as a substitute for the genuine effort at integration which is demanded between denominational churches in the one country or locality. But the fact remains that on the basis of the true unity of the church, and in accordance with its necessary pattern, there can be no justification for its refusal.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], pp. 84-84, 88-89.)

Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17:

Is the cup of blessing which we bless not a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is the bread which we break not a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     In this loaf of bread you are given clearly to understand how much you should love unity. I mean, was that loaf made from one grain? Weren’t there many grains of wheat? But before they came into the loaf they were all separate; they were joined together by means of water after a certain amount of pounding and crushing. Unless wheat is ground, after all, and moistened with water, it can’t possibly get into this shape which is called bread. In the same way you too were being ground and pounded, as it were, by the humiliation of fasting and the sacrament of exorcism. Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.

     Notice it, when the Acts of the Apostles are read; the reading of that book begins now, you see. Today begins the book which is called the Acts of the Apostles. Anybody who wishes to make progress has the means of doing so. When you assemble in church, put aside silly stories’ and concentrate on the scriptures. We here are your books. So pay attention, and see how the Holy Spirit is going to come at Pentecost. And this is how he will come; he will show himself in tongues of fire. You see, he breathes into us the charity which should set us on fire for God, and have us think lightly of the world, and burn up our straw, and purge and refine our hearts like gold. So the Holy Spirit comes, fire after water, and you are baked into the bread which is the body of Christ. And that’s how unity is signified.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 227; trans. WSA, III/6:254-255.)

7. Endnotes (Further Explication). Return to Outline.

[1.] Cf. Martin Chemnitz:

Therefore it is manifest on the basis of the words of institution that there is a threefold eating in the Lord’s Supper. 

     First, there is the eating of the bread, which is rightly and properly called a physical eating. 

     Second, there is the eating of the body of Christ, which although it does not take place in a physical or gross way, yet (according to the words of Christ) takes place orally, for He says: “Take, eat; this is My body.”

     Third, there is the spiritual eating of the body of Christ. 

(Martin Chemnitz, The Lord’s Supper, trans. J. A. O. Preus, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979], p. 58.) Return to Article.

[1.5.] A. A. Hodge:

     III. Alter all hope of reconciling the Lutherans with the Reformed branches of the church on this subject was exhausted, Calvin drew up the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549 for the purpose of uniting the Zurich-Zwinglian with the Genevan-Calvanistic party in one doctrine of the Eucharist. It was accepted by both parties, and the doctrine it presents has ever since been received as the consensus of the Reformed churches. It prevails in the “Second Helvetic Confession,” by Bullinger, 1564; the “Heidelberg Cathechism,” by Ursinus, a student of Melanchton, 1562; the “Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,” 1562; and the “Westminster Confession of Faith,” 1648. 

     These all agree—1st. As to the “presence,” of the flesh and blood of Christ. (1) His human nature is in heaven only. (2) His Person as God-man is omnipresent everywhere and always, our communion is with his entire person rather that with his flesh and blood (see above, Ch. XIII., Ques. 13 and 16). (3) The presence of his flesh and blood in the sacrament is neither physical nor local; but only through the Holy Spirit, affecting the soul graciously. 2d. As to that which the believer feeds upon, they agreed that it was not the “substance” but the virtue or efficacy of his body and blood, i.e., their sacrificial virtue, as broken and shed for sin. 3d. As to the “feeding,” of believers upon this “body and blood,” they agreed—(1) It was not with the mouth in any manner. (2) It was by the soul alone. (3) It was by faith, the mouth or hand of the soul. (4) By or through the power of the Holy Ghost. (5) It is not confined to the Lord’s Supper. It takes place whenever faith in him is exercised.—“Bib. Ref:,” April, 1848.

(A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879)], pp. 640-641.)

Cf. A. A. Hodge:

     They rejected the Romish view which regards the efficacy of the sacrament as inhering in it physically as its intrinsic property, as heat inheres in fire. They rejected also the Lutheran view as far as it attributes to the sacrament an inherent supernatural power due indeed not to the signs, but to the word of God which accompanies them, but which, nevertheless, is always operative, provided there be faith in the receiver. And, thirdly, they rejected the doctrine of the Socinians and others, that the sacrament is a mere badge of profession, or an empty sign of Christ and his benefits. They declared it to be an efficacious means of grace; but its efficacy, as such, is referred neither to any virtue in it, nor in him that administers it, but solely to the attending operation of the Holy Ghost (virtue Spiritus Sancti extrinsecus accedens), precisely as in the case of the word. It has indeed the moral objective power of a significant emblem, and as a seal it really conveys to every believer the grace of which it is a sign, and it is set apart with especial solemnity as a meeting point between Christ and his people; but its power to convey grace depends entirely, as in the case of the word, on the cooperation of the Holy Ghost. Hence the power is in no way tied to the sacrament. It may be exerted without it. It does not always attend it, nor is it confined to the time, place, or service.—“Bib. Ref.,” April, 1848; see “Gal. Confession,” Arts. 36 and 37; “Helv.,” ii., c. 21; “Scotch Conf:,” Art. 21; 28th and 29th “Articles of Church of England”; also our own standards, “Confession of Faith,” Chapter XXIX., section 7.

(A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879], p. 643.)

Cf. Charles Hodge:

     According to the standards of the Reformed Church, therefore: The Lord’s Supper is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; as a memorial of his death, wherein, under the symbols of bread and wine, his body as broken and his blood as shed for the remission of sins, are signified, and, by the power of the Holy Ghost, sealed and applied to believers; whereby their union with Christ and their mutual fellowship are set forth and confirmed, their faith strengthened, and their souls nourished unto eternal life.

     Christ is really present to his people in this sacrament, not bodily, but in spirit; not in the sense of local nearness, but of efficacious operation. They receive Him, not with the mouth but by faith; they receive his flesh and blood, not as flesh, not as material particles, not its human life, not the supernatural influence of his glorified body in heaven; but his body as broken and his blood as shed. The union thus signified and effected is not a corporeal union, not a mixture of substances, but a spiritual and mystical union due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The efficacy of this sacrament, as a means of grace, is not in the signs, nor in the service, nor in the minister, nor in the word, but in the attending influence of the Holy Ghost.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874], pp. 649-650.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Charles Hodge:

     The extracts from the symbols of the Reformed Church enable us to answer, First, the question in what sense according to that Church, Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. The Reformed theologians are careful to explain what they mean by the word presence. Anything is said to be present when it operates duly on our perceiving faculties. A sensible object is present (præ sensibus) when it affects the senses. A spiritual object is present when it is intellectually apprehended and when it acts upon the mind. It is said of the wicked, “God is not in all their thoughts.” They are without God. They are “far off.” On the other hand, God is present with his people when He controls their thoughts, operates on their hearts, and fills them with the sense of his nearness and love. This presence is not imaginary, it is in the highest sense real and effective. In like manner Christ is present when He thus fills the mind, sheds abroad his love in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us; and not only communicates to us the benefits of his sufferings and death, that is, the remission of our sins and reconciliation with God, but also infuses his life into us. Nothing is plainer from Scripture than that there is this communication of life from Christ to his people. It is not only directly asserted as when Paul says, “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” (Gal. ii. 20); and, He “is our life” (Col. iii. 4); but it is also illustrated in every way. As the body derives life from this head (Col. ii. 19) and the branches from the vine, so do believers derive their life from Him: on this point there is no dispute among Christians. This, again, is a presence to us and in us which. is not imaginary, but in the highest sense real and effective.

     But what is meant by the word Christ when He is said to be thus present with us? It does not mean merely that the Logos, the eternal Son of God, who fills heaven and earth, is present with us as He is with all his creatures; or, simply that He operates in us as He operates throughout the universe. Nor does it mean merely that his Spirit dwells in believers and works in them both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Something more than all this is meant. Christ is a person; a divine person with a human nature; that is with a true body and a reasonable soul. It is that person who is present with us. This again does not mean, that Christ’s human nature, his body and soul are ubiquitous; but it does mean that a divine person with human affections and sympathies is near us and within us. We have now a high-priest who can be touched with a sense of our infirmities. (Heb. iv. 15.) He and we are one in such a sense that He is not ashamed to call us brethren. (Heb. ii. 11.) In all things He was made like unto his brethren that He might be what He still is, a merciful and faithful high priest. (Heb. ii. 17.) Of this every Christian is assured. The prayers and hymns of the Church addressed to Christ all assume that He has human sympathies and affections which make his relation to us entirely different from what it is to any other order of beings in the universe. If any one asks, How the humanity of Christ, his body and soul in heaven, can sympathize with his people on earth? the answer is, that it is in personal union with the Logos. If this answer be deemed insufficient, then the questioner may be asked, How the dust of which the human body is formed can sympathize with the immortal spirit with which it is united? Whether the mystery of this human sympathy of Christ can be explained or not, it remains a fact both of Scripture and of experience. In this sense, and not in a sense which implies any relation to space, it may be said that wherever the divinity of Christ is, there is his humanity, and as, by common consent, He is present at his table, He is there in the fulness of his human sympathy and love.

     But this presence of Christ in the eucharist is predicated, not of his person only, but also of his body and blood. This presence the Reformed, as Zwingle said, “if they must have words,” were willing to call real. But then they explained the word “real” as the opposite of “imaginary.” The negative statements concerning this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper are,—

     1. That it is not local or corporeal. It is not material or of the matter.

     2. It is not to the senses.

     3. It is not peculiar to this sacrament. Christ and his benefits, his body and blood, and all their influences on the believer, are said to be accessible to him, and as truly received by him out of the supper as in it.

     On this point the Confessions, even those signed by Calvin, are perfectly explicit. In the Zurich Confession, A.D. 1545, it is said, “Believers have in the Lord’s Supper no other life-giving food than that which they receive elsewhere than in that ordinance.” In the Second Helvetic Confession this is taught at length, and the doctrine vindicated from the objection that it renders the sacrament useless, that if we can receive without it what we receive in it, the importance of the sacrament is gone. The answer is, that as we continually need food for the body, so we continually need food for the soul; and that the sacraments as well as the Word are divinely appointed means for conveying that spiritual nourishment. That the sacraments are means of grace, does not render the Word unnecessary; neither does the Word’s being effectual and sufficient unto salvation, render the sacraments useless. Calvin teaches the same doctrine: “The verity which is figured in the sacraments believers receive our side of the use of them. Thus in baptism, Paul’s sins were washed away, which had already been blotted out. Baptism was to Cornelius the layer cf regeneration, although he had before received the Spirit. And so in the Lord’s Supper, Christ communicates Himself to us, although He had already imparted Himself to us and dwells within us.” The office of the sacraments, he teaches, is to confirm and increase our faith. In his defence of this “Consensus,” he expresses surprise that a doctrine so plainly proved by Scripture and experience should be called into question. In the decree of the French National Synod of 1572, it is said, “The same Lord Jesus both as to his substance and gifts, is offered to us in baptism and the ministry of the word, and received by believers.”

     The Church of England teaches the same doctrine, for in the office for the communion of the sick, the minister is directed to instruct a parishioner who is prevented from receiving the sacrament “that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.” On this point there was no diversity of opinion in the Reformed Church. There is no communion with Christ, no participation of his body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, which is not elsewhere offered to believers and experienced by them.

    4. There is still another position maintained by the Reformed which is especially important as determining their doctrine on this subject. They not only deny that believers receive the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper otherwise than these are received through the Word, but they deny that believers receive anything in the eucharist that was not granted and communicated to the saints under the Old Testament. This of course is decisive. Under the old dispensation it was only the sacrificial efficacy of his broken body and shed blood that could be enjoyed. He died for the remission of sins “under the first testament.” (Heb. ix. 15.) Therefore the fathers as well as we, and they as fully as we, are cleansed by the sprinkling of his blood; to them, as well as to us, He was the true bread which came down from heaven; they all drank of that Spiritual Rock which was Christ. Calvin devotes several pages to the refutation of the doctrine of the Romanists that the sacraments of the Old Testament only signified grace, while those of the New actually convey it. He maintains that, though different in form, they are the same in nature, object, and effect. “Scholasticum autem illud dogma, quo tam longum discrimen inter veteris ac novæ Legis sacramenta notatur, perinde acsi illa non aliud quam Dei gratiam adumbrarint, hæc vero præsentem conferant, penitus explodendum est. Siquidem nihilo splendidius de illis Apostolus quam de his loquitur, quum docet patres eandem nobiscum spiritualem escam manducasse: et escam illam Christum interpretatur (1 Cor. x. 3). . . . . Quicquid ergo nobis hodie in sacramentis exhibetur, id in suis olim recipiebant Judæi, Christum scilicet cum spiritualibus suis divitiis. Quam habent nostra virtutem, eam quoque in suis sentiebant; ut scilicet essent illis divinæ erga se benevolentiæ sigilla in spem æternæ salutis.” He quotes freely from Augustine to prove that that eminent father taught “Sacramenta Judæorum in signis fuere diversa: in re quæ significatur, paria, diversa specie visibili, paria virtute spirituali.”

     With these negative statements agree all the affirmations concerning the presence of the body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. What is affirmed to be present is not the body and blood of Christ absolutely, but his body as broken, and his blood as shed. It is he sacrifice which He offered that is present and of which the believer partakes. It is present to the mind, not to our bodies. It is perceived and received by faith and not otherwise. He is not present to unbelievers. By presence is meant not local nearness, but intellectual cognition and apprehension, believing appropriation, and spiritual operation. The body and blood are present to us when they fill our thoughts, are apprehended by faith as broken and shed for our salvation, and exert upon us their proper effect. “The body of Christ is in heaven at the right hand of God,” says the Helvetic Confession. “Yet the Lord is not absent from his Church when celebrating his supper. The sun is absent from us in heaven, nevertheless it is efficaciously present with us; how much more is Christ, the sun of righteousness, though absent as to the body, present with us, not corporally in deed, but spiritually, by his vivifying influence.” Calvin says, “Every imagination of local presence is to be entirely removed. For while the signs are upon earth seen by the eyes and handled by the hands, Christ, so far as He is a man, is nowhere else than in heaven; and is to be sought only by the mind and by faith. It is, therefore, an irrational and impious superstition to include Him in the earthly elements.” He likewise teaches that Christ is present in the promise and not in the signs. Ursinus, one of the principal authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, in his Exposition of that formulary, says: “These two, I mean the sign and the thing signified, are united in this sacrament, not by any natural copulation, or corporal and local existence one in the other; much less by transubstantiation, or changing one into the other; but by signifying, sealing, and exhibiting the one by the other; that is, by a sacramental union, whose bond is the promise added to the bread, requiring the faith of the receivers. Whence it is clear, that these things, in their lawful use, are always jointly exhibited and received, but not without faith of the promise, viewing and apprehending the thing promised, now present in the sacrament; yet not present or included in the sign as in a vessel containing it; but present in the promise, which is the better part, life, and soul of the sacrament. For they want judgment who affirm that Christ’s body cannot be present in the sacrament except it be in or under the bread; as if, forsooth, the bread alone, without the promise, were either a sacrament, or the principal part of a sacrament.”

     There is, therefore, a presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper; not local, but spiritual; not to the senses, but to the mind and to faith; and not of nearness, but of efficacy. If the presence is in the promise, then the body of Christ is present, offered to and received by the believer whenever and wherever he embraces and appropriates the promise. So far the doctrine of the Reformed Church is clear.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874], pp. 637-643.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[2.] Cf. G. W. Bromiley:

…spiritual does not mean that it is isolated from the world of true reality. It means that it is of the Holy Spirit.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], p. 50.)

Cf. David Dickson:

…the body of Christ in this sacrament, is spiritually eaten by believers, and his blood is spiritually drunken. …a spiritual presence, is a true and real presence, because it comes and flows from true and real causes, namely, from faith, and the Holy Spirit…

(David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error: Or, the True Principles of the Christian Religion, Stated and Vindicated, [Glasgow: John Bryce, 1772], p. 272.)

Cf. Michael Horton: 

Typical of Reformed confessions, the Westminster Larger Catechism points out that the mode, not the substance, was spiritual. Furthermore, it is crucial to bear in mind that “spiritual” here refers to a person—the Holy Spirit—and not to a merely intellectual or imaginary mode of feeding. Christ is not spiritually present as opposed to being bodily present in the sacrament, but gives himself as our food and drink by the agency of the Spirit.

(Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, [Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008], p. 128.)

Cf. John Calvin: 

But greatly mistaken are those who conceive no presence of flesh in the Supper unless it lies in the bread. For thus they leave nothing to the secret working of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. To them Christ does not seem present unless he comes down to us. As though, if he should lift us to himself, we should not just as much enjoy his presence! The question is therefore only of the manner, for they place Christ in the bread, while we do not think it lawful for us to drag him from heaven. Let our readers decide which one is more correct. Only away with that calumny that Christ is removed from his Supper unless he lies hidden under the covering of bread! For since this mystery is heavenly, there is no need to draw Christ to earth that he may be joined to us. 

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.31; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], p. 1403.)

Cf. Francis Turretin: 

     XXVI. It is one thing to eat Christ’s body; another to eat it orally and corporeally. The former denotes the object of manducation and the latter the mode. We say the former, but not the latter. Nor are these two to be confounded here—“spirit” and “spiritually.” What is eaten spiritually, still does not become a spirit, as the body which is eaten, ought not at once to be eaten corporeally. Therefore it must not be thought that, a spiritual conjunction being established, the true and most intimate union with Christ is taken away; otherwise there could be no union of Christ with his church, nor of believers among themselves and with blessed spirits (although most distantly separated as to locality). 

     XXVII. If Christ’s body is truly present to us, it does not follow that he is corporeally present to us on earth. Nor if he is truly received by us, must he be received by us orally and corporeally. The truth of presence differs from the mode of reception. He is indeed corporeally in heaven with respect to the existence of his body, but he is nonetheless present to our minds through faith with his spiritual presence. Therefore Christ’s body is truly present corporeally in heaven and truly spiritually present in our souls or to our faith, by which we receive him. And it is an improper inference, if spiritually then not truly; for nothing is done more truly than what is done by the Spirit. 

     XXVIII. The spiritual manducation of Christ does not belong only to the efficacy and virtue of the body and blood of Christ and his benefits, but also to its substance. (1) The Scriptures testify that believers are joined to Christ himself (Jn. 17:22; Gal. 2:20; 1 Cor. 6:17; Eph. 3:17). (2) We are said to eat the flesh of Christ and to drink his blood, which is contradistinguished from his benefits, as also Christ distinguishes in the same place (Jn. 6:63). (3) Christ is inseparable from his benefits. The believers under the Old Testament are rightly said to have been made partakers of Christ himself and so of his body and blood, which were present to their faith. Hence they are said to have drunk of the rock, which was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). And Christ is the same yesterday and today (Heb. 13:8), even as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). 

     XXIX. Hence it appears that we are falsely charged with denying the presence of Christ’s body and blood because it is improperly proceeded from the negation of one species to the negation of the genus; from the negation of corporeal presence to the negation of any presence at all. For although Christ’s body is not locally present in the Supper, it does not cease to be truly present to the mind, through the mediation of faith, in the word as much as in the sacraments. 

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], 19.28.26-29, pp. 517-518.)

Cf. A. A. Hodge: 

     The gross perversions of the Romanists and Ritualists, who have made it altogether a question of the local presence of Christ’s flesh and blood, have occasioned much confusion of thought and many prejudices on the subject Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, every believer knows that Christ is present in the sacrament—that he has, as a matter of fact, experienced his presence. If he is not present really and truly, then the sacrament can have no interest or real value to us. It does not do to say that this presence is only spiritual, because that phrase is ambiguous. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective to us, but simply a mental apprehension or idea of him subjectively present to our consciousness, then the phrase is false. Christ as an objective fact is as really present and active in the sacrament as are the bread and wine or the minister or our fellow-communicants by our side. If it means that Christ is present only as he is represented by the Holy Ghost, it is not wholly true, because Christ is one Person and the Holy Ghost another, and it is Christ who is personally present. The Holy Ghost doubtless is coactive in that presence and in all Christ’s mediatorial work, but this leads into depths beyond our possible understanding. It does not do to say that the divinity of Christ is present while his humanity is absent, because it is the entire indivisible divine-human Person of Christ which is present. 

     When Christ promises to his disciples, “Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world-age,” and, “Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” he means of course that he, the God-man Mediator they loved, trusted and obeyed, would be with them. His humanity is just as essential as his divinity, otherwise his incarnation would not have been a necessity. His sympathy, his love, his special helpful tenderness, are human. He is able to be our perfect High Priest, “being touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” because he “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). 

But what do we mean by “presence”? It is a great mistake to confuse the idea of “presence” with that of nearness in space. This may be a condition of presence or it may not, but it is never “presence” itself. If you walk abroad at noonday in the tropics, the most overwhelmingly present thing to you in the universe is the intolerable sun, although it is ninety-three millions of miles distant. If another person is only one foot distant, but separated from you by a wall which cuts off all light and sound, he is as absent as if in the centre of a distant star. But if the same person, a hundred feet from you in an audience-room, sees you face to face and hears every vibration of your voice, he is as truly present as if he touched you at every point. When Whitefield’s preaching was fully heard and its power felt across the Delaware River, he was present really and truly wherever his voice was heard and his matchless eloquence felt. “Presence,” therefore, is not a question of space: it is a relation. Personal presence is such a relation of persons that they are conscious of each other as immediate objects of perception and sources of influence. We know nothing as to the ultimate nature of the union of our souls and bodies, yet we no less are certain of the fact. We know nothing as to the ultimate nature of either sight or hearing, whereby we make our mutual presence felt in social intercourse, yet we are absolutely certain of the facts. So we need not speculate how it is that Christ, the whole God-man, body, soul and divinity, is present in the sacrament, but we are absolutely certain of the fact. He has promised it. We have hundreds of times experienced it. We can neither see his face nor hear his voice with our bodily senses; nevertheless, when we exercise faith, he, the whole Christ, speaks to us, and we hear him; we speak to him, and he hears us; he takes all we give him, he gives us and we receive all of himself. This is real, because he is present. And this is not confined to the sacrament. He makes manifest to our faith the reality of his presence with us, and communicates the same grace to us on many other occasions. But here and now and thus is his appointed rendezvous. Whatever may be our fortune under other conditions and at other times, here and now and in this breaking of bread we have a personal appointment to meet our Lord. And he never disappoints those who thus seek him with faith and love. 

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], Lecture XVII: The Lord’s Supper, pp. 408-410.) Return to Article.

[3.] Cf. B. A. Gerrish: 

A sacrament is first and foremost an act of God or Christ rather than of the candidate, the communicant, or the church.

(B. A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002; Previously published by Fortress Press, 1993], p. 8.)

Cf. Richard Hooker:

It is on all sides plainly confessed, first that this sacrament is a true and a real participation of Christ, who thereby imparteth himself even his whole entire Person as a mystical Head unto every soul that receiveth him, and that every such receiver doth thereby incorporate or unite himself unto Christ as a mystical member of him, yea of them also whom he acknowledgeth to be his own…

(Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 5.67.7; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1865], p. 85.)

Cf. Richard Hooker:

They grant that these holy mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of the grace of that body and blood which were given for the life of the world, and besides also impart unto us even in true and real though mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire, as hath been shewed.

(Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 5.67.8; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1865], pp. 85-86.)

Cf. Richard Hooker:

The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. …I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when and where the bread is His body or the cup His blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them it pleaseth God to bestow.

(Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 5.67.6; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1865], p. 84.)

Cf. Richard Hooker:

…no side denieth but that the soul of man is the receptacle of Christ’s presence. Whereby the question is yet driven to a narrower issue, nor doth any thing rest doubtful but this, whether when the sacrament is administered Christ be whole within man only, or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves; which opinion they that defend are driven either to consubstantiate and incorporate Christ with elements sacramental, or to transubstantiate and change their substance into his; and so the one to hold him really but invisibly moulded up with the substance of those elements, the other to hide him under the only visible show of bread and wine, the substance whereof as they imagine is abolished and his succeeded in the same room.

(Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 5.67.2; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1865], p. 81.)

Cf. Timothy Keller:

     The first Passover meal in Egypt was, of course, an actual meal. It was not enough that a lamb was slain and its blood put on the doorposts. The lamb also had to be eaten; it had to be taken in. In the same way, the Lord’s Supper is a way of “taking in” the death of Christ for yourself and appropriating it personally.

     …Jesus says, “Take it.” He lets us know that we have to take what he is doing for us. We have to receive it actively. It is common to distribute the Lord’s Supper and say, “Feed on him in your hearts by faith.” You don’t get the benefit of food unless you take it in and digest it. You can have a meal piled high in front of you, all the food cooked to perfection, and you could still starve to death. To be nourished by a meal, you have to eat it. The excellent preparation of the food doesn’t help you if you’re not willing to pick it up and take it into yourself. Taking it is the same as saying, “This is the real food I need—Christ’s unconditional commitment to me.”

(Timothy Keller, Jesus the King: Understanding the Life and Death of the Son of God, [New York: Riverhead Books, 2013], pp. 185, 186.)

Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas:

     Our various bodily functions are treated as the best means of explaining our spiritual functions. These are not merely figures, but analogies, like birth, sustenance, assimilation of food. We are taught that it is not sufficient merely to trust Christ, but there must be something in the spirit which corresponds to eating in the body, a reception of Him in our inmost soul until His will and nature become a part of ours, and, like food, strengthen all our faculties. There is nothing in our nature that so closely corresponds to this assimilation of Christ and our union with Him as eating and drinking, and it is, therefore, used here. If, then, we would feed on the Saviour and be in union with Him it is not enough to regard Him as our Teacher, or Master, or God; we must accept Him in the great act of His sacrifice as well. So that in the reception of Christ is included every part of His work for us.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, [London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963], on Art. XXVIII, pp. 389-390.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” 

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 25.12; trans. NPNF1, 7:164.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

And, consequently, he that hungers after this bread, hungers after righteousness,—that righteousness however which cometh down from heaven, the righteousness that God gives, not that which man works for himself. For if man were not making a righteousness for himself, the same apostle would not have said of the Jews: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, they are not subject to the righteousness of God.” Of such were these who understood not the bread that cometh down from heaven; because being satisfied with their own righteousness, they hungered not after the righteousness of God. What is this, God’s righteousness and man’s righteousness? God’s righteousness here means, not that wherein God is righteous, but that which God bestows on man, that man may be righteous through God. But again, what was the righteousness of those Jews? A righteousness wrought of their own strength on which they presumed, and so declared themselves as if they were fulfillers of the law by their own virtue. But no man fulfills the law but he whom grace assists, that is, whom the bread that cometh down from heaven assists. “For the fulfilling of the law,” as the apostle says in brief, “is charity.” Charity, that is, love, not of money, but of God; love, not of earth nor of heaven, but of Him who made Heaven and earth. Whence can man have that love? Let us hear the same: “The love of God,” saith he, “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us.” Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. 

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 26.1; trans. NPNF1, 7:168.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue [virtus, power] of the sacrament another [sed aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus Sacramenti].

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 26.11; PL, 35:1611; trans. NPNF1, 7:171.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“They drank,” saith he “of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Thence the bread, thence the drink. The rock was Christ in sign; the real Christ is in the Word and in flesh. And how did they drink? The rock was smitten twice with a rod; the double smiting signified the two wooden beams of the cross. “This, then, is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eateth within, not without; who eateth in his heart, not who presses with his teeth. 

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 26.12; trans. NPNF1, 7:172.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, doubtless neither eateth His flesh [spiritually] [spiritualiter] nor drinketh His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth] [licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi], but rather doth he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man taketh worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 26.18; PL, 35:1614-1615; trans. NPNF1, 7:173.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 27.3; trans. NPNF1, 7:174.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

All this that the Lord spoke concerning His flesh and blood;—and in the grace of that distribution He promised us eternal life, and that He meant those that eat His flesh and drink His blood to be understood, from the fact of their abiding in Him and He in them; and that they understood not who believed not; and that they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense; and that, while these were offended and perished, the Lord was present for the consolation of the disciples who remained, for proving whom He asked, “Will ye also go away?” that the reply of their steadfastness might be known to us, for He knew that they remained with Him;—let all this, then, avail us to this end, most beloved, that we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ merely in the sacrament, as many evil men do, but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord’s body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended, even if many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments in a temporal manner, who shall in the end have eternal torments.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 27.11; trans. NPNF1, 7:177-178.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     Our Lord Jesus Christ, who called himself bread, is looking for hungry people. But it is only a healthy mind, that is, the belly of the inner man, which is hungry for this bread. Here’s a comparison with this visible bread. Sick people, whose illness has lost them their appetite, can praise good bread, but can’t eat it. In the same way, when the inner man is ill, he is not inclined to eat this heavenly bread, being afflicted with loss of appetite, and though he may praise it, he takes no pleasure in eating it. But the Lord himself said, as we have just heard, Work for the food which does not perish, but which abides to eternal life (Jn 6:27), distinguishing it from this visible and bodily food, about which he says in another place, Everything that enters the mouth goes down into the belly, and is evacuated into the privy (Mt 15:17)—and so it perishes.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon, 130A.1; trans. WSA, III/11:118.)

Cf. John Calvin:

     Therefore, let it be regarded as a settled principle that the sacraments have the same office as the Word of God: to offer and set forth Christ to us, and in him the treasures of heavenly grace. But they avail and profit nothing unless received in faith. As with wine or oil or some other liquid, no matter how much you pour out, it will flow away and disappear unless the mouth of the vessel to receive it is open; moreover, the vessel will be splashed over on the outside, but will still remain void and empty.

     Moreover, we must beware . . . to think that a hidden power is joined and fastened to the sacraments by which they of themselves confer the graces of the Holy Spirit upon us, as wine is given in a cup; while the only function divinely imparted to them is to attest and ratify for us God’s good will toward us. And they are of no further benefit unless the Holy Spirit accompanies them. For he it is who opens our minds and hearts and makes us receptive to this testimony. In this also, varied and distinct graces of God brightly appear. For the sacraments (as we have suggested above) are for us the same thing from God, as messengers of glad tidings or guarantees of the ratification of covenants are from men. They do not bestow any grace of themselves, but announce and tell us, and (as they are guarantees and tokens) ratify among us, those things given us by divine bounty. The Holy Spirit (whom the sacraments do not bring indiscriminately to all men but whom the Lord exclusively bestows on his own people) is he who brings the graces of God with him, gives a place for the sacraments among us, and makes them bear fruit.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.14.17; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], 4.14.17, pp. 1292-1293.)

Cf. John Calvin:

     To their other objection—that the glory of God passes down to the creatures, and so much power is attributed to them, and is thus to this extent diminished—our answer is ready: we place no power in creatures. I say only this: God uses means and instruments which he himself sees to be expedient, that all things may serve his glory, since he is Lord and Judge of all. He feeds our bodies through bread and other foods, he illumines the world through the sun, and he warms it through heat; yet neither bread, nor sun, nor fire, is anything save in so far as he distributes his blessings to us by these instruments. In like manner, he nourishes faith spiritually through the sacraments, whose one function is to set his promises before our eyes to be looked upon, indeed, to be guarantees of them to us. It is our duty to put no confidence in other creatures which have been destined for our use by God’s generosity and beneficence, and through whose ministry he lavishes the gifts of his bounty upon us; nor to admire and proclaim them as the causes of our good. In the same way, neither ought our confidence to inhere in the sacraments, nor the glory of God be transferred to them. Rather, laying aside all things, both our faith and our confession ought to rise up to him who is the author of the sacraments and of all things.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.14.12; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], 4.14.12, p. 1287.)

Cf. John Calvin:

The sacraments, therefore, are exercises which make us more certain of the trustworthiness of God’s Word. And because we are of flesh, they are shown us under things of flesh, to instruct us according to our dull capacity, and to lead us by the hand as tutors lead children. Augustine calls a sacrament “a visible word” [fn. 8: MPL 42. 357; tr. NPNF IV. 244] for the reason that it represents God’s promises as painted in a picture and sets them before our sight, portrayed graphically and in the manner of images.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.14.6; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], 4.14.6, p. 1281.)

Cf. Joseph C. McLelland:

For this reason ‘there is need of the continual ministry’ of the Church, that men might behold the promises of God, both with words and with their seals, ‘by sacraments, which are certain visible words’. This Augustinian definition of the sacrament as verbum visibilis is Peter Martyr’s favourite, and points to the determinative orientation of the sacrament: it is the Word made visible. Although he stresses the centrality of preaching in the Church, particularly in view of the appalling sermonic silence of the Romanism of his time, yet he constantly affirms the need for visibility in the Church’s ministry of the Word. Since Martyr’s analogical thinking begins with the Person of Christ, the origin of this stress upon the Word as clothed in flesh is obvious. For the visibility of the Word in the sacraments of the Church is analogical to the visible accommodation of the Word in Incarnation. Not only must the Word be ‘repeated again and again’ because ‘our mind is so weak’, but:

on account of our infirmity, that spiritual and inward eating, though it be accomplished by the soul and spirit only, yet is assisted very much by the outward help of the senses: namely by the divine sermon and visible Sacraments. And therefore Christ joins to the inward eating the outward symbols and action of eating and drinking. And saints desire and long for that same action, so that through it the spiritual eating of the soul may be preserved more safely and increased more and more. (Def. 724)

(Joseph C. McLelland, The Visible Words of God; An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli, A.D. 1500-1562, [Edinburg and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957], pp. 129-130.)

Cf. Joseph C. McLelland:

This is the substance of God’s Word, and Peter Martyr asks but one question about the Romanist sevenfold sacramental grace: ‘What Word of God is in these things?’ For penance ‘represents no promise’, nor has confirmation a Divine institution; anointing with oil ‘has not the Word of God to warrant it’. Or again, if marriage be a sacrament, where will you stop? What about the washing of feet, embracing children in arms, and ‘almost every action of Christ’, since these also are ‘signs of holy things’? Indeed, the washing of feet has the most reason to be called sacramental, since its element may have a signification more than common, and since a commandment was joined to it; yet

there are given no particular words, which should come to the element to make it a sacrament, and by which the promise of some singular gift of grace to be obtained is declared unto us. (An in Comm. Lic. 15)

     Baptism and the Eucharist are the sacraments of the Church, for they are given to Christ’s flock as signs and seals of His twofold activity in and among them: of joining them to Himself in the union of faith, and nourishing them by the communication of His own new humanity. In the Christian life there are these two elements: the absolute element of once-for-all death and burial related to the Cross of Christ, and the ongoing growth in grace related to the Risen Man. The sacraments signify and seal these two realities, that is, the Mystery of Christ Himself.

(Joseph C. McLelland, The Visible Words of God; An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli, A.D. 1500-1562, [Edinburg and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957], p. 138.)

Cf. John Calvin:

     First, we must consider what a sacrament is. It seems to me that a simple and proper definition would be to say that it is an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety toward him in the presence of the Lord and of his angels and before men. Here is another briefer definition: one may call it a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward him. Whichever of these definitions you may choose, it does not differ in meaning from that of Augustine, who teaches that a sacrament is “a visible sign of a sacred thing,” or “a visible form of an invisible grace,”[fn. 2: Calvin’s phrases are taken from Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus xxvi. 50 (MPL 40. 344; tr. ACW II. 82). Cf. Letters cv. 3. 12 (MPL 33. 401; tr. FC 18. 205); Questions on the Heptateuch 111. 84 (MPL 34. 712).] but it better and more clearly explains the thing itself. For since there is something obscure in his brevity, in which many of the less educated are deceived, I have decided to give a fuller statement, using more words to dispel all doubt.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.14.1; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], 4.14.1, p. 1277.)

Cf. John Calvin:

…the seals which are attached to government documents and other public acts are nothing taken by themselves, for they would be attached in vain if the parchment had nothing written on it. Yet, when added to the writing, they do not on that account fail to confirm and seal what is written. 

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.14.5; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], 4.14.5, p. 1280.)

Cf. John Calvin:

But what is a sacrament received apart from faith but the most certain ruin of the church? For nothing ought to be expected from it apart from the promise, but the promise no less threatens wrath to unbelievers than offers grace to believers. Hence, any man is deceived who thinks anything more is conferred upon him through the sacraments than what is offered by God’s Word and received by him in true faith.

     From this something else follows: assurance of salvation does not depend upon participation in the sacrament, as if justification consisted in it. For we know that justification is lodged in Christ alone, and that it is communicated to us no less by the preaching of the gospel than by the seal of the sacrament, and without the latter can stand unimpaired.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.14.14; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], 4.14.14, pp. 1289-1290.)

Cf. John Calvin:

…the right administering of the Sacrament cannot stand apart from the Word. For whatever benefit may come to us from the Supper requires the Word: whether we are to be confirmed in faith, or exercised in confession, or aroused to duty, there is need of preaching. Therefore, nothing more preposterous could happen in the Supper than for it to be turned into a silent action, as has happened under the pope’s tyranny.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.39; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], 4.17.39, p. 1416.)

Cf. John Calvin:

     To summarize: our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ in the same way that bread and wine keep and sustain physical life. For the analogy of the sign applies only if souls find their nourishment in Christ—which cannot happen unless Christ truly grows into one with us, and refreshes us by the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood.

     Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ's flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure. What, then, our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: that the Spirit truly unites things separated in space.

     Now, that sacred partaking of his flesh and blood, by which Christ pours his life into us, as if it penetrated into our bones and marrow, he also testifies and seals in the Supper—not by presenting a vain and empty sign, but by manifesting there the effectiveness of his Spirit to fulfill what he promises. And truly the offers and shows the reality there signified to all who sit at that spiritual banquet, although it is received with benefit by believers alone, who accept such great generosity with true faith and gratefulness of heart.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.10; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XXI: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XXI: Books III.xx to IV.xx), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], 4.17.10, p. 1370.)

Cf. John Calvin:

     These things being disposed of, a doubt still appears with respect to the word substance; which is readily allayed, if we put away the crass imagination of a manducation of the flesh, as though it were like corporal food, that being taken into the mouth is received by the belly. For if this absurdity be removed, there is no reason why we should deny that we are fed with Christ’s flesh substantially; since we truly coalesce with him into one body by faith, and are thus made one with him. Whence it follows that we are joined with him by substantial connection, just as substantial vigor flows down from the head into the members. The definition must stand then, that we are made to partake of Christ’s flesh substantially; not in the way of any carnal mixture, or as if the flesh of Christ drawn down from heaven entered into us, or were swallowed with the mouth; but because the flesh of Christ as to its power and efficacy vivifies our souls, not otherwise than the body is nourished by the substance of bread and wine.

(John Calvin, De Vera Participation Carnis et Sanguinis Christi in Sacra Coena, Appendix; trans. John Williamson Nevin, The Mystical Presence; Or, A Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, [Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1846], p. 72. Cf. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874], pp. 629-630.)

William G. T. Shedd:

     This view of the nature of the sacrament of the Supper as didactic, is also confirmed by considering the nature and purpose of a symbol. The purpose of a symbol is, to teach a certain truth by a visible sign or token. The ocean is a symbol of God’s immensity, and the sun of his glory. The “invisible things,” or truths, relating to God, are emblematized and impressed by “the things that are made,” Rom. 1:20. The heavens are a symbol of God, because they “declare the glory of God,” Ps. 19:1. The cross is a symbol in all Christendom of the sacrifice of Christ. It teaches emblematically the truth that the Son of God died for man’s sin. The ark, again, is a symbol of the church, and teaches that men are safe within the kingdom of God. In the case of all these natural symbols, there is no efficacy in the symbol as such, but only in the truth taught by it. The ocean, the sun, the cross, the ark, make no spiritual impression as mere water, light, and wood. It is only the immensity and glory of God, as taught by the symbols of the ocean and the sun, that affect the mind. It is only the mercy of God, as suggested by the symbol of the cross and the ark, that produces the spiritual effect.

     The bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are specially and divinely appointed symbols, differing in this respect from all natural symbols. They are also seals as well as symbols; differing in this respect, also, from natural symbols. But as symbols they are didactic, and teach that truth which is the heart of the Christian religion: namely, that the broken and bleeding body of Christ is the oblation for sin.[The Lord’s Supper took the place of the Jewish passover. “Christ our passover is sacrified for us,” 1 Cor. 5:7. The passover was a divinely appointed symbol, reminding of and setting forth the deliverance of the first-born by the sprinkling of blood. But the paschal lamb was also typical of the Lamb of God. So that the visible emblem in the instance both of the passover and the supper teaches the expiation of sin by Christ’s vicarious sacrifice.] They are “holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him.” Westminster Confession, XXVIII. 1. But in this instance, too, as in that of natural symbols, it is the truth taught by the symbols, and not the symbols themselves, that strengthens the faith of the participant, deepens his gratitude, enlivens his hope, and sanctifies his heart. As mere bread and wine, the symbols produce no spiritual effect in the soul of the believer. When the Holy Spirit enlightens the mind of the participant to perceive the gospel-truth which these emblems “exhibit, signify, and seal,” then, and only then, do they become means of sanctification. It is not because the glorified body of Christ is conjoined with them, as the Lutheran asserts; or because they are converted into the glorified body of Christ, as the Komanist asserts; that they are effectual. It is because of the spiritual presence of Christ in the soul of the participant, and the spiritual perception of the truth signified and sealed by the emblems, as Calvin and Hooker say, that they are means of grace.[See, upon this point, Calvin: Institutes, IV. xvii. 9-12, 33, 36, 39.]

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume II, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888], pp. 572-574.) See also: monergism.com. Return to Article.

[4.] Cf. Michael Horton:  

A sacrament is not only the signs, but the reality signified that is joined to them. Therefore, the Reformed argued, the whole Christ may be said to be present and to offer himself in the sacrament without being enclosed in the elements. 

(Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011], p. 815.)

Cf. Keith A. Mathison:

The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the second means of grace provided by God. The Westminster Larger Catechism helpfully defines a sacrament as “an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without” (A. 162). The sacraments “become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted” (A. 161). The Westminster Shorter Catechism adds that the sacraments become effectual means of salvation only “in them that by faith receive them” (A. 91).

     The Reformed doctrine of the sacraments set forth in the Westminster standards is contrasted with Roman Catholic doctrine, which insists that the sacraments work ex opere operato, that is, by virtue of the work being performed. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, when the sacraments are celebrated properly, the grace they signify is always made efficaciously present. According to the Reformed doctrine, the sacraments are not intrinsically efficacious. Their efficacy requires that the Holy Spirit be at work in and through them and that they be received in faith.

     The Reformed doctrine of the sacraments is also contrasted with the Zwinglian doctrine, which understands the sacraments to be merely symbols of spiritual truths. According to the Reformed doctrine, the sacraments consist of three aspects: the visible elements and actions (the signs), the spiritual reality (the things signified), and the spiritual relation (the sacramental union) between the signs and the things signified (Westminster Confession of Faith 27.2). Because of the sacramental union established by God, the sacraments effectually confer grace to those who receive them in faith. As several Reformed confessions indicate, for those with faith God performs spiritually what the sacraments signify physically (Belgic Confession §§34-35; French Confession §37).

…In the Reformed doctrine of Calvin, parallelism is at work between the action of the minister during the observance of the sacrament and the work of God. What is promised and offered through the visible sacramental signs is truly given by God to those who receive the promise in faith (Romans 2:25-29; Colossians 2:11-12). The action of God is not, however, necessarily tied to the instant of time that the visible sacrament is observed (Westminster Confession of Faith 28.6).

(Keith A. Mathison, “God’s Means of Assurance;” In: Assured by God: Living in the Fullness of God’s Grace: Second Edition, ed. Burk Parsons, [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007], pp. 143-144, 149.)

Cf. Michael Horton: 

…Peter Martyr Vermigli… Appealing especially to the eleventh-century Orthodox archbishop of Bulgaria, Theophylact . . . defended the notion of “transelementation,” according to which the signs of bread and wine were transformed by their union with the reality signified. Like an iron rod placed in a fire, the bread is transformed while remaining bread. Vermigli’s interpretation influenced other Reformed theologians, like Bucer and Cranmer. “Calvin went so far as to state of him that ‘the whole [doctrine of the Eucharist] was crowned by Peter Martyr, who left nothing more to be done.’”

(Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011], p. 809.)

Cf. A. A. Hodge: 

…this holy Supper is, in conformity with its inner nature, called by way of eminence “the sacrament.” The sacramentum, in classical Latin, came to mean specially the soldier’s oath. The army, halting under the shadows of the great primeval forests, gathered in its new recruits, and by the terrible ceremonial of the soldier’s oath they were bound to an unconditional loyalty to their imperial leader, who reigned from his seat at the head of the host. A victim having been offered in sacrifice, his blood was poured into the hollow of their convex shields. The new soldier, plunging his right hand into this sacrificial blood and raising it to Heaven, swore by all most sacred to be faithful, heart and act, to his master through life and through death. This, of course, implied a reciprocal pledge of protection and benefit from the lord to his loyal follower. So Jesus went in person to the feast, and taking the broken bread and poured wine, the symbols of his crucified body and shed blood, he swears to each of us to fulfill for us and in us his whole mediatorial work—to secure for us, body and soul, his complete salvation culminating in the bosom of God. And we with streaming eyes, taking in our hands and mouths the same tremendous symbols, swear, looking straight into the face of our present Lord, to keep back no part of the price, but to place on the altar of his service all we are and all we possess, without reserve or change for ever. Take the shoes from off your feet and step lightly, for the place is most holy on the inner side of the veil. And when you go down and out into world again, remember that the binding sanction of this great sacrament rests on you every moment of your lives. 

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], Lecture XVII: The Lord’s Supper, pp. 416-417.) Return to Article.

[5.] For an overview of the Mercersburg controversy see: (Paul T. Nimmo, David A. S. Fergusson, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Reformed Theology, [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016], pp. 91-92.) For Nevin’s view see: (John Williamson Nevin, The Mystical Presence, [Philadelphia: S. R. Fisher & Co., 1867]. Cf. John Williamson Nevin, “Doctrine of the Reformed Church on the Lord’s Supper;” In: The Mercersburg Review: Volume II.—1850, [Mercersburg: P. A. Rice, 1850], No. V, September, pp. 421-548.) For Hodge’s view see: (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874], 3.20.16, pp. 626-650. Cf. Charles Hodge, “Review of The Mystical Presence;” In: The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review: For the Year 1848: Volume XX, [Philadelphia: Wm. H. Mitchell, 1848], pp. 227-278.)

Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas:

     The doctrine associated with Calvin is distinct from the other two extremes, and teaches a presence which is such as does not involve attachment to the elements, or inclusion, or circumscription. According to this the Spirit uses the elements through faith to unite us to Christ. By many representative Churchmen this view is regarded as practically identical with Anglican doctrine. It was certainly the view of Hooker, but Bishop Moule makes one criticism, that Calvin associated the feeding of the soul with our Lord’s glorified humanity, which is not what our Lord taught at the original institution. Hooker’s words are often quoted: “The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament.” And although in recent times attempts have been made to show that these words do not represent the whole of Hooker’s belief, the result has not been convincing. Hooker’s view is sometimes described as that of a “virtual” presence only in the heart of the faithful recipient. But the word “virtual” is ambiguous and misleading. In modern phraseology it implies, “almost, but not really,” but in connection with the Lord’s Supper, as taught by Calvin and Hooker, it refers to the “virtue,” or “virtus,” that is, the force of it.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, [London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963], on Art. XXVIII, p. 398.) Return to Article.

[6.] Cf. Gregory A. Boyd, Paul R. Eddy:  

In the evangelical world today, there are primarily two perspectives on the nature of the Lord’s Supper. Those who hold to a spiritual presence view remain close to Luther’s conviction. They believe that in a unique way Christ is spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper. There is therefore a sacramental aspect to communion in that the believer is sealed in Jesus Christ as a confirmation of God’s saving promises. Those who hold to a memorial view claim that Christ is not literally present in the Lord’s Supper. They affirm that a distinct spiritual blessing is involved in taking communion, for believers are remembering what Jesus did for them. But this blessing is due to their obedient response to Christ’s instruction, not because Christ is uniquely present in the Lord’s Supper itself. 

(Gregory A. Boyd, Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology: Second Edition, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009], Ch. 13: The Lord’s Supper Debate, p. 228. Cf. Paul E. Engle, John H. Armstrong, eds., Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007].) Return to Article.

[7.] Cf. Richard Hooker:

Whereas therefore there are but three expositions made of ‘this is my body,’ the first, ‘this is in itself before participation really and truly the natural substance of my body by reason of the coexistence which my omnipotent body hath with the sanctified element of bread,’ which is the Lutherans’ interpretation; the second, ‘this is itself and before participation the very true and natural substance of my body, by force of that Deity which with the words of consecration abolisheth the substance of bread and substituteth in the place thereof my Body,’ which is the popish construction; the last, ‘this hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them and in them my body:’ of these three rehearsed interpretations the last hath in it nothing but what the rest do all approve and acknowledge to be most true, nothing but that which the words of Christ are on all sides confessed to enforce, nothing but that which the Church of God hath always thought necessary, nothing but that which alone is sufficient for every Christian man to believe concerning the use and force of this sacrament, finally nothing but that wherewith the writings of all antiquity are consonant and all Christian confessions agreeable.

(Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 5.67.12; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1865], pp. 89-90.)

Cf. William G. T. Shedd:

…there are but three generic theories of the sacraments: Reformed, Lutheran, and Romish. Some would find a fourth theory represented by Zwingli. This comes from a misapprehension of the views of the Swiss reformer. The difference between Zwingli and Calvin upon sacramentarian points has been exaggerated. Zwingli has been represented as denying that the sacrament of the supper is a means of grace and that Christ is present in it. The following positions in his Confession of Faith disprove this. He asserts that (1) the sacraments are things that are holy and should be venerated; (2) they present a testimony of the thing borne; (3) they stand in place of the things which they signify, since they represent what cannot in itself be directly perceived; (4) they signify lofty things: having value not for what they are materially, but for what they signify; as a bridal ring is not worth merely the gold of which it is made; (5) they enlighten and instruct through the analogy between the symbol and the thing symbolized; (6) they bring aid and comfort to faith; and (7) they take the place of (vice) an oath. These positions accord entirely with those in the First Helvetic Confession, which contains Calvin’s view of the sacraments, and also with those presented in the Articles of Agreement between the churches of Zurich and Geneva.

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Third Edition, ed. Alan W. Gomes, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2003], p. 814. Cf. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume II, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888], pp. 569-570.) See also: monergism.com.

Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas:

The name of Zwingli is generally regarded as expressing the commemorative view only, though it is a matter of real question whether Zwingli held it himself.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, [London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963], on Art. XXVIII, p. 398.)

Cf. H. C. G. Moule:

…the great Swiss Reformer, Zwingli, or Zwingel (who died 1531), is commonly credited with having been a mere “commemorationist.” The charge is baseless. He held substantially the doctrine taught in the English Article (xxviii.). But writing early in the history of the controversy on the Eucharist, he expressed himself sometimes incautiously.

(H. C. G. Moule, The Supper of the Lord: New Edition, [London: The Religious Tract Society, 1926], p. 61 fn. 2.)

Cf. Charles Hodge:

     It was the tendency of the Zwinglian element of the Reformed Church, to make less of the supernatural aspect of the sacraments than their associates did. There was, however, no essential difference, as afterwards appeared between the Churches of Zurich and those of Geneva. Zwingle taught that “The Lord’s Supper is nothing else than the food of the soul, and Christ instituted the ordinance as a memorial of Himself. When a man commits himself to the sufferings and redemption of Christ he is saved. Of this He has left us a certain visible sign of his flesh and blood, both of which He has commanded us to eat and drink in remembrance of Him.” This is said in a document presented to the council of Zurich in 1523.

     In his “Expositio Christianæ Fidei,” written just before his death, and published by Bullinger in 1536, he says: “The natural substantial body of Christ in which He suffered, and in which He is now seated in heaven at the right hand of God, is not in the Lord’s Supper eaten corporeally, or as to its essence, but spiritually only. . . . . Spiritually to eat Christ’s body is nothing else than with the spirit and mind to rely on the goodness and mercy of God through Christ. . . . . Sacramentally to eat his body, is, the sacrament being added, with the mind and spirit to feed upon Him.”

     The Confessions most nearly conformed to the views of Zwingle are the “Confessio Tetrapolitana,” the “First Basil,” and the “First Helvetic.” These are all apologetic. The last mentioned protests against the representation that the Reformed regard the sacraments as mere badges of profession, and asserts that they are signs and means. The Lord’s Supper is called “cœna mystica” “in which Christ truly offers his body and blood, and hence Himself, to his people; not as though the body and blood of Christ were naturally united with the bread and wine, locally included in them, or sensibly there present, but in so far as the bread and wine are symbols, through which we have communion in his body and blood, not to the nourishment of the body, but of the spiritual or eternal life.”

     In “The Sincere Confession of the Ministers of the Church of Zurich,” dated 1545, we find the following precise statement of their doctrine: “We teach that the great design and end of the Lord’s Supper, that to which the whole service is directed, is the remembrance of Christ’s body devoted, and of his blood shed for the remission of our sins. This remembrance, however, cannot take place without true faith. And although the things of which the service is a memorial, are not visible or present after a visible or corporal manner, nevertheless believing apprehension and the assurance of faith renders them present in one sense to the soul of the believer. He has truly eaten the bread of Christ . . . . who believes on Christ, very God and very man, crucified for us, on whom to believe is to eat, and to eat is to believe. . . . . Believers have in the Lord’s Supper no other life-giving food than that which they receive elsewhere than in that ordinance. The believer, therefore, receives both in and out of the Lord’s Supper, in one and the same way, and by the same means of faith, one and the same food, Christ, except that in the supper the reception is connected with the actions and signs appointed by Christ, and accompanied with a testifying, thanksgiving, and binding service. . . . . Christ’s flesh has done its work on earth, having been offered for our salvation; now it no longer benefits on earth and is no longer here.”

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874], pp. 626-628.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[7.1.] Cf. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153 A.D.): 

That the visible sign is as a ring, which is given not for itself or absolutely, but to invest and give possession of an estate made over to one. Many things (saith he) are done for their own sake, and many in reference to something else, and then they are called signs. A ring is given absolutely as a gift, and then it hath no other meaning: it is also given to make good an investiture or contract, and then it is a sign; so that he that receives it may say, ‘the ring is not worth much; it is what it signifies, the inheritance, I value.’ In this manner, when the passion of our Lord drew nigh, He took care that His disciples might be invested with His grace, that His invisible grace might be assured and given to them by a visible sign. To this end all sacraments are instituted, and to this the participation of the eucharist is appointed. 

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, In Coena A Domini Sermo [de baptismo, sacramento allaris, et ablutione pedum], §. 2; PL, 183:271; trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 181-182.)

Cf. Michael F. Bird:

…symbols tend to be effective signs and evocative indicators of certain states of affairs. Symbols activate realities even if they do not fully include those realities in their own makeup. G. B. Caird argued that symbols are more than metaphors; like a kiss or a handshake, they are a means of conveying what they represent. So I think there is clearly more to the Eucharist than the memory of Jesus’ death and reminding us that Christ is with us.

     Consider the following. The two travelers to Emmaus told the disciples how they met Jesus on their journey and how he was made known “to them in the breaking of the bread [en tē klasei tou artou]” (Luke 24:35). The eucharistic echoes are transparent here. Luke is evidently pointing ahead to Acts 2, where the disciples were dedicated to “breaking bread” together in their fellowship (Acts 2:42, 46). When the disciples met together to break bread, they also met with Jesus in the bread.

     In addition, Paul teaches about a real encounter with Christ through the elements. Through the wine there is a real “participation” in the blood of Christ and through the bread a real “participation” in the body of Christ (1 Cor 10:16). The word for “participation” is koinōnia, meaning “fellowship” or “sharing.” Plain as day, through bread and wine, we actually commune with Christ, and this communion requires an exclusive allegiance that forbids us from partaking of pagan sacrifices. The bread and wine of the Eucharist actually fosters a vertical communion with the risen Christ and facilitates a closer horizontal relationship with fellow believers.

(Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013], 8.6.2.6, p. 789.)

Cf. Michael F. Bird:

The Reformed view is that it is the Holy Spirit who makes Christ present in the Eucharist, and it is the same Spirit who communicates benefits to partakers of the Eucharist. The presence of Christ is not mediated through the Church’s mutation of the elements into Christ’s body and blood (i.e., transubstantiation or consubstantiation). The presence of Christ is not restricted to the believer’s faith, reducing the bread and wine to a memorial. It is the Holy Spirit who draws Christ downward and the believer upward to meet Christ in the gospel meal.

     The Reformed view of the Eucharist is thoroughly Trinitarian as it highlights the gracious character of the Father in giving us Christ. The sacrament presents us to Christ and unites us with him as food for our soul. The Holy Spirit is the instrument of our union with Christ and perichoretically energizes the elements to convey the presence of Christ and the grace that accompanies his work.

     Moreover, I would maintain that the presence of Christ in the meal, a real “participation” in Christ, is essential for the meal to have any efficacy or value.

(Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013], 8.6.2.6, p. 790.) Return to Article.

[7.2.] Cf. The Recognitions of Clement (c. 3rd Century A.D.):

…and that it may not be known that they are demons. But they are not concealed from us, who know the mysteries of the creation, and for what reason it is permitted to the demons to do those things in the present world; how it is allowed them to transform themselves into what figures they please, and to suggest evil thoughts, and to convey themselves, by means of meats and of drink consecrated to them, into the minds or bodies of those who partake of it, and to concoct vain dreams to further the worship of some idol.

(The Recognitions of Clement, 4.19; trans. ANF, 8:139.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

But beware of supposing this to be plain [ψίλον] ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere [λιτός] bread no longer, but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple [ψίλον] ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit. 

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 21.3; PG, 33:1089, 1092; trans. NPNF2, 7:150.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

Moreover, the things which are hung up at idol festivals, either meat or bread, or other such things polluted by the invocation of the unclean spirits, are reckoned in the pomp of the devil. For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple [λιτός] bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple [λιτά], become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit.  

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 19.7; PG, 33:1072; trans. NPNF2, 7:145-146.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

Regard not the Laver as simple [λιτῷ] water, but rather regard the spiritual grace that is given with the water. For just as the offerings brought to the heathen altars, though simple [λιτά] in their nature, become defiled by the invocation of the idols, so contrariwise the simple [λιτόν] water having received the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father, acquires a new power of holiness.

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3.3; PG, 33:428-429; trans. NPNF2, 7:14-15.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

For this holy altar, too, by which I stand, is stone, ordinary in its nature, nowise different from the other slabs of stone that build our houses and adorn our pavements; but seeing that it was consecrated to the service of God, and received the benediction, it is a holy table, an altar undefiled, no longer touched by the hands of all, but of the priests alone, and that with reverence. The bread again is at first common bread, but when the sacramental action consecrates it, it is called, and becomes, the Body of Christ. So with the sacramental oil; so with the wine: though before the benediction they are of little value, each of them, after the sanctification bestowed by the Spirit, has its several operation. The same power of the word, again, also makes the priest venerable and honourable, separated, by the new blessing bestowed upon him, from his community with the mass of men. While but yesterday he was one of the mass, one of the people, he is suddenly rendered a guide, a president, a teacher of righteousness, an instructor in hidden mysteries; and this he does without being at all changed in body or in form; but, while continuing to be in all appearance the man he was before, being, by some unseen power and grace, transformed in respect of his unseen soul to the higher condition. 

(Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ; trans. NPNF2, 5:519.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia (fl. 403 A.D.):

For the mystic bread, having received the inseparable invocation of the Saviour—the invocation that is on His body and blood unites him who eats to the body of Christ and makes him the limbs of the Saviour. For as the writing-tablet receives power through the letters which the teacher writes on it and gives this power to the scholar, and by means of it uplifts and unites him to the teacher, so the body, which is the bread, and the blood, which is the wine, receiving the immortality of the unstained deity, give it from themselves to him who receives them, and by means of it restores him to the uncorruptible abiding of the Creator.

(Marcarius Magnes, Dialogue, 3.23; trans. Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909], p. 74.)

Alt. Trans. Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia (fl. 403 A.D.):

For the mystic bread that hath inseparably acquired the Saviour’s Name, bestowed upon His body and His blood, joins him who eats it to the body of Christ, and makes him a member of the Saviour.

     For just as the letter delta in the alphabet takes the force of the teacher and conveys it to him who is taught, and by its means leads him up to the teacher by putting him in touch with him, even so the body, that is to say, the bread, and the blood, which is the same as the wine, drawing the immortality of the immaculate Godhead, gives thereof to him that shares it, and by its means leads him up to the Creator’s pure abode itself.

(Marcarius Magnes, Apocriticus, 3.23; Translations of Christian Literature: Series I, Greek Texts: The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, trans. T. W. Crafer, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], 3.23, pp. 84-85.)

Cf. Nilus of Sinai [Nilus the Elder] (d. c. 430 A.D.):

Paper made of the papyrus and glue, is called common paper; but when it has received the signature of the Emperor, everyone knows that it is called a sacra. So also consider the divine mysteries: before the invocation of the priest and the descent of the Holy Spirit, the things which are displayed are mere bread and common wine; but after these dreadful invocations, and the coming of the adorable, and vivifying and good spirit, the things which are displayed upon the holy table are no longer mere bread and common wine, but the precious and immaculate body and blood of Christ, the God of all. 

(S. Nili, Epistolæ: Liber Primus, XLIV (Philippo Scholastico); PG, 79:104; trans. John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [Nashotah: The Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888], p. 182.) Return to Article.

[8.] Cf. N. T. Wright:

When we break the bread and drink the wine, we find ourselves joining the disciples in the Upper Room. We are united with Jesus himself as he prays in Gethsemane and stands before Caiaphas and Pilate. We become one with him as he hangs on the cross and rises from the tomb. Past and present come together. Events from long ago are fused with the meal we are sharing here and now. 

     But it isn’t only the past that comes forward into the present. If the bread-breaking is one of the key moments when the thin partition between heaven and earth becomes transparent, it is also one of the key moments when God’s future comes rushing into the present. Like the children of Israel still in the wilderness, tasting food which the spies had brought back from their secret trip to the Promised Land, in the bread-breaking we are tasting God’s new creation—the new creation whose prototype and origin is Jesus himself.

     …Within the biblical worldview . . . heaven and earth overlap, and do so at certain specific times and places, Jesus and the Spirit being the key markers. In the same way, at certain places and moments God’s future and God’s past (that is, events like Jesus’s death and resurrection) arrive in the present—rather as though you were to sit down to a meal and discover your great-great-grandparents, and also your great-great-grandchildren, turning up to join you. That’s how God’s time works. That’s why Christian worship is what it is.

(N. T. Wright, Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, [New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2006], pp. 154, 156.)

Cf. N. T. Wright:

…John Calvin in Geneva was working out a theory not too unlike some thinking in the great Churches of the East. What is really taking place is happening in the heavenly realm. We do not bring Jesus Christ down to our table; by the Spirit, we are taken up into heaven, where Jesus Christ reigns in majesty. The real miracle of the Communion, on this view, is not that anything happens to the bread, but that we are taken into the very heart of heaven, where Christ is at God’s right hand.

     I find this helpful, but I prefer to think of it in terms of time rather than space. As I have said already, Jesus Christ is the one who comes to us from God’s future. His words at the Last Supper mean what they mean within the Passover experience, where bread and wine looked back to the rescue from Egypt and on to the time when Israel would be free at last.

     To change the image yet again, Jesus stood in the middle of history, with arms outstretched to past and future, and held them together though it killed him. When we stand at the foot of the cross, when we feast at the table which recalls his final Supper, and when we share at the altar the feast which results from his one and only sacrifice, he is present, feeding us with himself. 

(Tom Wright, The Meal Jesus Gave Us: Understanding Holy Communion, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], pp. 61-62.)

Cf. Gerald Bray:

…Paul stressed the eschatological dimension of the sacrament—it looked forward to the consummation of all things, as well as backward to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.[1 Cor. 11:26] …what took place on a single occasion in time and space has now been taken up into the heavens, where the risen, ascended, and glorified Christ pleads for our forgiveness by presenting his broken body and poured out blood to the Father as the propitiation for our sins. …It has an eschatological dimension that is easily ignored, but which Paul was careful to emphasize in his instructions to the Corinthian church. The Lord’s Supper faces both ways—it looks back to the sacrifice of Jesus in time and space and forward to the consummation of that sacrifice in eternity. What Jesus did once for all on the cross he is now doing eternally in heaven. We cannot go back in time to ancient Palestine, but that does not matter because we are seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, and it is in that context that we partake of the Supper of the Lamb who was slain.[Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Rev. 19:6-9]

(Gerald Bray, God Is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2012], pp. 717-718.) Return to Article.

[9.] Cf. Robert Letham:

…Christ is indeed present in his Supper. …Christ gives himself to be eaten and drunk in faith. This eating and drinking is not corporeal but is nonetheless real and true, and is joined to the corporeal consumption of bread and wine. In the Supper, Christ does not come down to us in his body and blood. Instead, we are lifted up to him by the Holy Spirit. Christ, being the eternal Son of God, is omnipresent. Moreover, he has permanently united to himself the human nature assumed in the incarnation. In that sense, the person of Christ is present with us as we eat and drink. Yet on earth the Son of God was not restricted or confined to the humanity he assumed but simultaneously filled all things, directing the universe even as he walked the dusty roads of Palestine. Now at the right hand of God, he fills and directs the universe (Col. 1:15–20), indivisibly united to his assumed humanity, while in terms of that same humanity he is limited and in one place. Yet that humanity is never separate or apart from the Son of God with whom and in whom it is one undivided person. Thus, in the sacrament the Spirit unites the faithful to the person of Christ as they eat and drink the signs, the physical elements of bread and wine. There is an inseparable conjunction of sign and reality. As truly as we eat the bread and drink the wine so we feed on Christ by faith. …what we receive is first and foremost not the benefits of Christ, nor the graces that flow out of Christ, but Christ himself. …The physical and the spiritual are not merged (as in transubstantiation), nor are they separated (as in memorialism). Instead, they are distinct but inseparable. The physical can be the channel of grace, since God created all things, Christ assumed our human flesh, and our bodies will be raised like his at the last day.

(Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2019], 26.1.2, pp. 762-763. Cf. Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2001], pp. 28-29.) Return to Article.

[10.] Cf. The Luenberg Agreement:

In the Lord’s Supper the risen Jesus Christ imparts himself in his body and blood, given up for all, through his word of promise with bread and wine. He thus gives himself unreservedly to all who receive the bread and wine; faith receives the Lord’s Supper for salvation, unfaith for judgment.

(The Luenberg Agreement, III.1.18; In: The Leuenberg Agreement and Lutheran-Reformed Relationships: Evaluations by North American and European Theologians, eds. William G. Rusch, Daniel F. Martensen, [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989], p. 149.)

Cf. Michael F. Bird:

     If we can all agree that the Lord’s Supper is a gospel meal, it makes perfect sense that, irrespective of how we understand presence, we will eat and drink together precisely to remember the Lord of the gospel. Ultimately it is beyond our understanding as to how we meet Jesus in bread and wine through the Spirit. We would do well to be like Calvin and insist that the operation of the Spirit in the Eucharist is something we would “rather experience than understand.” [Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.32.]

(Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013], p. 792.)

Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas:

     Thus, in the Holy Communion we may be said to have the whole Gospel in miniature: Christ for us, in us, with us, coming again. We recall Him, appropriate Him, confess Him, expect Him. ‘The Gospel Supper appeals to intellect, heart, conscience, and soul.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, [London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963], on Art. XXVIII, p. 394.)

Cf. Edward Arthur Litton:

     That Christ is, in some sense, present in the Eucharist, follows from the promises which, before His departure, were given to the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst’; ‘Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world’; ‘I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.’ These are general statements, but they must surely apply with peculiar force to the occasions on which Christians assemble for public worship and the celebration of the sacrament. A Church from which Christ were, in every sense, absent, would be no Church, or only as a dead body is a man, an organization from which the animating spirit had fled. So much must on all sides be admitted; but differences of opinion exist as to the manner in which Christ is present with the Church, and especially in the celebration of the Eucharist.

(Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: New Edition, ed. Philip E. Hughes, [London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1960], §. 96, p. 480.)

Cf. Robert Lewis Dabney:

There is a sense, in which all evangelical Christians would admit a real presence in the Lord’s Supper. The second Person of the Trinity being very God, immense and ubiquitous, is of course present wherever the bread and Vine are distributed. Likewise, His operations are present, through the power of the Holy Spirit employing the elements as means of grace, with all true believers communicating. (Matt. xviii:20).

(Robert Lewis Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, [St Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878], p. 809.)

Cf. C. S. Lewis:

…the very last thing I want to do is to unsettle in the mind of any Christian, whatever his denomination, the concepts—for him traditional—by which he finds it profitable to represent to himself what is happening when he receives the bread and wine. I could wish that no definitions had ever been felt to be necessary; and, still more, that none had been allowed to make divisions between churches.

     Some people seem able to discuss different theories of this act as if they understood them all and needed only evidence as to which was best. This light has been withheld from me. I do not know and can’t imagine what the disciples understood Our Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He handed them the bread and wine, saying they were His body and blood. I can find within the forms of my human understanding no connection between eating a man—and it is as Man that the Lord has flesh—and entering into any spiritual oneness or community or κοινωνία with him. And I find “substance” (in Aristotle’s sense), when stripped of its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other substance, an object I cannot think. My effort to do so produces mere nursery-thinking—a picture of something like very rarefied plasticine. On the other hand, I get on no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that. But it would be profane to suppose that they are as arbitrary as they seem to me. I well believe there is in reality an appropriateness, even a necessity, in their selection. But it remains, for me, hidden. Again, if they are, if the whole act is, simply memorial, it would seem to follow that its value must be purely psychological, and dependent on the recipient’s sensibility at the moment of reception. And I cannot see why this particular reminder—a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more—should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare.

     However, then, it may be for others, for me the something which holds together and “informs” all the objects, words, and actions of this rite is unknown and unimaginable. I am not saying to anyone in the world, “Your explanation is wrong.” I am saying, “Your explanation leaves the mystery for me still a mystery.”

     Yet I find no difficulty in believing that the veil between the worlds, nowhere else (for me) so opaque to the intellect, is nowhere else so thin and permeable to divine operation. Here a hand from the hidden country touches not only my soul but my body. …The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand. Particularly, I hope I need not be tormented by the question “What is this?”—this wafer, this sip of wine. That has a dreadful effect on me. It invites me to take “this” out of its holy context and regard it as an object among objects, indeed as part of nature. It is like taking a red coal out of the fire to examine it: it becomes a dead coal. To me, I mean. All this is autobiography, not theology.

(C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, [New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964], Letter XIX, pp. 101-103, 104-105.)

Cf. Edward Harold Browne:

     It appears, then, that our reformers symbolized herein with Calvin; though it is not likely that they learned their doctrine from him. Points of difference may be discovered between them; but in the main, Calvin, Melancthon in his later views, and the Anglican divines, were at one. There have, no doubt, been different ways of explaining the spiritual presence, among those who have agreed to acknowledge such a presence. But perhaps the safest plan is to say, that because it is spiritual, therefore it needs must be mystical. And so Bishop Taylor concludes, that our doctrine differs not from that of ancient writers, who acknowledged Christ’s presence, but would not define the manner of His presence. For he observes that we say, “the presence of Christ is real, and it is spiritual; and this account still leaves the Article in its deepest mystery; because spiritual perfections are indiscernible, and the word ‘spiritual’ is a very general term, particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural.”[Jer. Taylor, § I. 2.]

     It would be endless, and it is unnecessary, to say much concerning our divines since the Reformation. Some perhaps, who have followed Calvin in his predestinarian theory, have followed, not him, but Zuingle, upon the Sacraments. And this too may have been the bent of those who afterwards more especially followed Arminius, both here and on the Continent.[There is a very pious work by one of the Arminian writers in the English Church (Horneck’s Crucified Jesus). It has much to edify and spiritualize, but if I understand it, its doctrine is purely Zuinglian.] But from the time of the Reformation to the present, all the great luminaries of our Church have maintained the doctrine which appears in the face of our formularies; agreeing to deny a corporal, and to acknowledge a spiritual feeding in the Supper of the Lord. It is scarcely necessary to recount the names of Mede, Andrewes, Hooker, Taylor, Hammond, Cosin, Bramhall, Usher, Pearson, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge, Wake, Waterland. All these have left us writings on the subject, and all have coincided, with but very slight diversity, in the substance of their belief. They have agreed, as Hooker says, that “Christ is personally present; albeit a part of Christ be corporally absent;”[Book V. lxvii. 11.] that “the fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ” — but that “the real presence of Christ’s most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament (i. e. in the elements); but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament.”[Book V. xvii. 6.]

(Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal, ed. J. Williams, [New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1887], on Art. XXVIII, pp. 714-715.)

Cf. Jeremy Taylor:

This was their sense: and I suppose we do in no sense prevaricate their so pious and prudent counsel by saying, THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IS REAL AND SPIRITUAL; because this account does still leave the article in his deepest mystery: not only because spiritual formalities and perfections are undiscernible and incommensurable by natural proportions and the measures of our usual notices of things, but also because the word ‘spiritual’ is so general a term, and operations so various and many by which the Spirit of God brings His purposes to pass and does His work upon the soul, that we are in this specific term very far from limiting the article to a minute and special manner. Our word of ‘spiritual presence’ is particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner; we say it is not this, but it is to be understood figuratively, that is, not naturally, but to the purposes and in the manner of the Spirit and spiritual things, which how they operate or are effected, we know no more than we know how a cherubin sings or thinks, or by what private conveyances a lost notion returns suddenly into our memory and stands placed in the eye of reason. Christ is present spiritually, that is, by effect and blessing; which in true speaking is rather the consequent of His presence than the formality. For though we are taught and feel that, yet this we profess we cannot understand, and therefore curiously enquire not.

(Jeremy Taylor, Discourse of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament, 1.2; In: The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor: In Ten Volumes: Vol. VI, [London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1852], pp. 12-13.) Return to Article.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria