Third section the judgment upon the church itself second picture of judgment

As it is written of Him.—De Wette: “This indicates the necessity of death or fate, after the Jewish view.” It rather indicates the Father’s counsel according to the knowledge of Christ.

But woe!—De Wette calls this an imprecation, as in Matthew 18:6; confounding the Christian and the heathenish spirit, as before. The expression was a proverbial one, and very common, as Wetstein shows by many rabbinical passages. Here, it is to be remembered, the man as that particular man in his act is meant; not the man in himself, as that would throw an imputation upon his original creation. [Stier: This woe is the most affecting and meltinglamentation of love, which feels the woe as much at holiness requires or will admit.—P. S.]

Matthew 26:25. Thou hast said it.—Formula of affirmation common among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, De Wette and Meyer consider this passage contradictory to John 13:26. But it is no other than one of those cases in which John supplements the rest. Without doubt, Judas only at the last moment asked,) “Is it I?” and the answer of Jesus, spoken probably with softened voice, was lost in the exclamation, “What thou doest, do quickly!”

Matthew 26:26. As they were eating, Jesus took bread.—Not after the finished paschal feast, as Wetstein, Kuinoel, and Scholz suppose. Rather, as we have seen, the breaking of the bread, and the cup of thanksgiving, were taken from two elements in the Passover-rite. But the act of the breaking of the bread is brought down somewhat later; unless we assume that it had already taken place in a preparatory way, and thus was in some sense repeated. [The Fathers refer here to the consecration of bread and wine by Melchisedek, the priest-king, as a type of the Eucharist ( Genesis 14:18 sqq.; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:1-15). Bengel observes on the order εὐλογήσαςἔκλασε (comp. Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, εὑχαριστήσας, έ̓κλασε: “Fregit post Benedictionem; contra transubstantiationem. Accident enim, quale post benedictionem panem esse ajunt, non potest frangi.” From the giving of thanks (εὐχαριστήσας) and blessing (εὐλογήσας) the offering, the holy communion is called εὐ χαριστία. see the patristic passages in Suicer’s Thesaurus, sub verbo.—P. S.]

Take, eat; this is My body.—This, in the neuter (τοῦτο). Therefore not directly ὁ ἄρτος. Song of Solomon, in what follows, this is not the cup, but what was presented. Starke: “The expression: ‘The bread is the body of Christ, the wine Christ’s blood,’ is not properly scriptural, but a propositio ecclesiastica; although it is not incorrect, rightly understood.” Against the doctrine of transubstantiation.^[FN43] Song of Solomon, in 1 Corinthians11it is not, “This cup is My blood.” Meyer (a Lutheran by profession) thus explains the words of institution: “Since the whole Passover was a symbolical festival of remembrance; since, further, the body of Jesus was still unbroken, and His blood still unshed: none of those present at the table could have supposed that they were doing what was impossible,—that Isaiah, that they were in any sense actually eating and drinking the body and blood of the Lord. Again, the words spoken, according to Luke and Paul, in connection with the cup (ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη), absolutely exclude the sense that the wine in the cup was actually itself the New Covenant. For all these reasons, ἐστί can be no other than the copula of symbolical relation. ‘This broken bread here which you are to take and to eat is symbolically My body, or the symbol of My body which is about to be offered up.’ ” So far Meyer. He then contends against the reference of the σῶμα to the mystical body of Christ, the Church (a view held by Œcolampadius, Schulthess, and Weisse). We distinguish, in conformity with the tenor of all the ritual usages of the Old Covenant, between the allegorical, the symbolical, and the typical meaning, as they all concur in the sacramental. 1. The allegorical (commonly called symbolical): The paschal lamb was an appropriate didactic figure of the ideally sacrificed first-born and their deliverance, a figure which at the same time signified the deliverance of Israel:—the breaking of the bread and the cup signify the broken body and the shed blood of Christ2. The symbolical: The paschal lamb was the symbol and assuring sign or pledge of the propitiatory offering up of the spiritual first-born, the priests of Israel set apart for the people:—the bread and the cup are the sealing signs of the redeeming propitiation which was accomplished by Christ in His perfect high-priestly sacrifice, which was changed from a sin-offering of death into a thank-offering of life3. The typical: The feast of the Passover was a prophecy in act; that Isaiah, the medium and the sign of the future of the suffering and triumphing Christ:—the bread and the cup are the type; they are the media of the spiritual transformation of believers through fellowship with the glorified Christ. Thus, didactic spiritual enlightenment, a sealed covenant redemption, and real participation in the glorified Christ, are the three elements which make the Supper a mysterious seal or sacrament of finished salvation. According to Meyer, the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics agree in the exegetical interpretation of ἐστί, since both take the word as the copula of actual being. He thinks they only differ in their dogmatic definition of the manner of the being. Similarly there is an exegetical agreement and a dogmatic disagreement between Zwingli and Calvin, who both take the ἐστί as a symbolical copula. But doctrine goes back to exegesis. The ἐστί of the Romanists means in fact: “it has become in a hidden manner;” that of the Lutherans: “it is in a certain sense and partially;” that of Zwingli: “it is in an exclusively spiritual sense;” that of Calvin: “it is in a concrete, spiritual-real manner.” On the allegorical and symbolical occurrence of ἐστί (which, however, was not spoken in Aramaic), see Exodus 12:11; John 15:1; Luke 7:1; Galatians 4:24; Hebrews 10:20.

[De Wette, Meyer, Alford, and others agree with Lange that the verb is was not spoken in the original Aramaic (הָא גוּשְׁמִי or בְּשָׂרִי) Alford, whose lengthy explanation of the words of institution does not seem to me very clear, infers from this probable omission that the much controverted ἐστί should not be urged at all. “In the original tongue in which the Lord spoke, it would not be expressed; and as it now stands, it is merely the logical copula between the subject this and the predicate My body.” But the verb is in the Greek text, and has to be disposed of in some way. De Wette thinks that ἐστί may be real (Luther), or symbolical = significat (Zwingli); but that here the latter alone is admissible in view of the symbolical character of the whole discourse and action, and in view of the impossibility of Christ’s real living body being then offered to the disciples as food. He refers to Luke 12:1; Hebrews 10:20; Galatians 4:24; John 14:6; John 15:1; John 15:5, etc, as instances of this symbolical meaning of ἐστί A very large number of other passages have been quoted over and over again in the various stages of the sacramental controversy, by Ratramnus, Berengarius, Zwingli, Schulz, and others, in favor of the figurative interpretation. It is an acknowledged law of thought and language that the copula never really identifies two things essentially different, but brings simply the subject and predicate into a relation, the exact nature of which depends upon the nature of the subject and predicate. This relation may be real or symbolical, may be full or partial identity, or mere resemblance. But it is perhaps more correct to say, that the figure in these cases does not lie, as is usually assumed, in the auxiliary verb (ἐστί), but, as Œcolampadius suggested, and as Maldonatus maintains in his lengthy exposition of Matthew 26:26 (though he denies the figure in this case), either in the subject, or more usually in the predicate. If I say of a picture: “This is Martin Luther,” I mean to say: This is (really and truly) a picture of Martin Luther, or the man which this picture represents is M. L. If I say: “The dove is the Holy Spirit,” I mean to identify the dove with the Holy Spirit only in a symbolical or figurative sense. In both these cases the figure lies in the subject. But if I say: “Peter, thou art rock,” or “Christ is the rock, the lamb, the door, the bread, the vine,” etc, etc, the figure lies in the predicate, and I mean to convey the idea that Christ is really all this, not in a literal and physical, but in a higher spiritual sense, the rock of ages, the lamb of God, the bread of eternal life. As to the words of institution, already Tertullian explained them by circumscribing: hoc est figura corporis mei, but he also uses the term reprœsentat for est (Adv. Marc. 1:14; 3:19; 4:40). That there is something figurative in the words of the Saviour, is conclusively evident from the text according to St. Luke and St. Paul: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον (not: οὗτος ὁ οἶνος) ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι, where the cup is used for the wine,—a clear case of a synecdoche continentis pro contento,—and the covenant for the blood. Maldonatus, the Jesuit commentator, to get rid of this difficulty, boldly declares that Christ never spoke these words (“Nego Christum hœc verba dixisse,” etc.); but this does not help the case, since the inspired Luke and Paul must certainly be regarded as authentic expounders of the Saviour’s meaning, and Paul moreover expressly declares that he derived his account of the institution of the holy supper directly from the Lord. We see then that even the Romish interpretation, which otherwise is the most consistently literal, cannot be carried out exegetically, much less philosophically, and in order to maintain the thesis, that the bread is no bread at all as to substance, but the real body of Christ and nothing else, it must contradict the laws of reason, the testimony of the senses (the eyes, the smell, the taste), the declaration of Paul, who calls the eucharistic bread still bread, even after the consecration ( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:26-28), and must overthrow the true nature of the sacrament by destroying the natural elements. But the figurative exposition of the words of institution does by no means force us to stop with that sober, jejune, common-sense view of the Lord’s Supper, which regards it as a purely commemorative ordinance; it is perfectly consistent with the deeper view that it is at the same time the feast of a vital union of the soul with the whole person of the Saviour, and a renewed application, of all the benefits of His atoning sacrifice, so significantly exhibited and offered in this holy ordinance. See the further Exeg Notes, and the Doctrinal Thoughts below.—P. S.]

Eat.—Meyer: Eating and drinking are the symbol of the spiritual appropriation of the saving virtue of the sacrifice of Christ in His crucifixion and blood-shedding (comp. Paul: τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν), in living and saving faith (comp. John 6:51 sqq.); so that this symbolical participation of the elements represents a spiritual, living, and vivifying κοινωνία with the body and blood ( 1 Corinthians 10:16). De Wette (after Olshausen): “We must not suppose that Jesus Himself ate The paschal lamb was an appropriate didactic figure of the ideally sacrificed first-born and their deliverance, a figure which at the same time signified the deliverance of Israel:—the breaking of the bread and the cup signify the broken body and the shed blood of Christ2. The symbolical: The paschal lamb was the symbol and assuring sign or pledge of the propitiatory offering up of the spiritual first-born, the priests of Israel set apart for the people:—the bread and the cup are the sealing signs of the redeeming propitiation which was accomplished by Christ in His perfect high-priestly sacrifice, which was changed from a sin-offering of death into a thank-offering of life3. The typical: The feast of the Passover was a prophecy in act; that Isaiah, the medium and the sign of the future of the suffering and triumphing Christ:—the bread and the cup are the type; they are the media of the spiritual transformation of believers through fellowship with the glorified Christ. Thus, didactic spiritual enlightenment, a sealed covenant redemption, and real participation in the glorified Christ, are the three elements which make the Supper a mysterious seal or sacrament of finished salvation. According to Meyer, the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics agree in the exegetical interpretation of ἐστί, since both take the word as the copula of actual being. He thinks they only differ in their dogmatic definition of the manner of the being. Similarly there is an exegetical agreement and a dogmatic disagreement between Zwingli and Calvin, who both take the ἐστί as a symbolical copula. But doctrine goes back to exegesis. The ἐστί of the Romanists means in fact: “it has become in a hidden manner;” that of the Lutherans: “it is in a certain sense and partially;” that of Zwingli: “it is in an exclusively spiritual sense;” that of Calvin: “it is in a concrete, spiritual-real manner.” On the allegorical and symbolical occurrence of ἐστί (which, however, was not spoken in Aramaic), see Exodus 12:11; John 15:1; Luke 7:1; Galatians 4:24; Hebrews 10:20.

Matthew 26:27. And He took the cup.—The article is doubtful. But it is defined, not only by Luke and Paul, but also by Matthew, as the well-known cup in connection with or after the meal, which could only be the third,—as is proved also by the mention of the communion cup as the cup of thanksgiving in 1 Corinthians 10:16, which corresponds with the name of the third cup in the Jewish Passover. Meyer, on the contrary, asks: “Where would then have been the fourth cup, over which the second part of the Hallel was sung?” And he thinks it improbable that Jesus, after the cup of symbolical significance, would have added another cup without any such significance, also that Matthew 26:29 excludes any additional cup. But the fourth cap marked the conclusion of the whole feast, and as such needed no particular mention. Moreover, it had no special reference to the paschal lamb, as Maimonides testifies (Lightfoot): Deinde miscet poculum quartum, et super illud per-ficit Hallel, additque insuper benedictionem Cantici, quod est: “Laudent te, domine, omnia opera tua,” etc, et dicit: “Benedictus sit, qui creavit fructum vitis”—et postea non quidquam gustat illa nocte.

[Drink all ye of it—The πάντες, which stands in connection with the drinking of the cop, but not with the eating of the bread, supplies a strong argument against the withdrawal of the cup from the laity; for the disciples represent here the many, Matthew 26:28, or the whole church of the redeemed, and not the ministry alone. The same may be said of the words of the Saviour: ὁσάκις εἂν πινητε, according to the report of St Paul. Bengel: “Si una species sufficeret, bibendum esset potius. Etiam 1 Corinthians 15:25 τό Quoties: in poculi mentione ponitur. Locuta sic est Scriptura, prævidens ( Galatians 3:8) quid Roma esset factura.” Still stronger, Calvin: “Cur de pane simpliciter dixit ut ederent, de calice, ut omnes biberent? Ac si Satanœ calliditati ex destinato occurrere voluisset.” Maldonatus, who dwells with undue length on this section to prove the Romish dogma of transubstantiation, notices the objection of Calvin, but disposes of it in a lame and is sophistical manner.—P. S.]

Matthew 26:28. This is My blood.—That Isaiah, the wine. Meyer: “The symbol does not lie, as Wetstein and others think, in the (red) color, but in the being poured out.” But also, we add, in the nature of wine, the noble blood of the grape (see John 15:1 Genesis 49:11-12).—The blood of the covenant, Body and blood are something like counterpart terms, but they are not precisely parallels: else we would read: “This is My flesh;—this is My blood” ( John 6:53). It is usual to pay regard to the parallel terms as such; but to forget the sequence of the two expressions. The body signifies the whole, as the broken and dying outer life; the blood then signifies the whole as the inner life (the principle of the soul) poured out in sacrifice to God, by Him given back to the Redeemer for the world. The idea that the blood was to be drunk, is intelligible only when it is regarded as the new life received by God and given back to the offerers, that Isaiah, as the wine of the New Covenant. The Jews were not allowed to eat the flesh of a burnt-offering: the priests alone ate of the sin-offering; the laity of the thank-offerings. But the sacrificial blood, which belonged to God, it was permitted to none to drink. So far was this carried, that the eating of blood in any form was absolutely forbidden. And now Christ gives to His people His blood to drink. That cannot mean as the blood yet to be offered to God; but as the blood of the new risen life, which, having been poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins, was accepted of God and given back to the New Covenant High Priest and to His Church. In the distribution of the body, the act of death is ideally presupposed, as the fulfilled and perfected expiation; and Song of Solomon, in the distribution of the blood, the act of reconciliation. But the consummate and sealed reconciliation is connected rather with the resurrection of Christ and its influence. And this is the predominant element in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Baptism represents fellowship with the whole Christ, fellowship with both His death and His resurrection; yet with special emphasis upon the death. The Lord’s Supper, again, signifies fellowship with the whole Christ; yet with special emphasis upon the resurrection. Hence the cup is the chief thing in the Eucharist; and a communion in bread alone (as in the Roman Church) bears too much resemblance to a new baptism.

The blood of the (new) covenant.—דַּם הַבְּרִית, Exodus 24:8. Meyer: “My blood, serving for the establishment of a covenant with God.” Rather, “My blood which ratifies and seals the covenant already established.” For the covenant is in Exodus 24. supposed to have been entered into when the lamb was slain; and hence the offering of burnt-offerings and thank-offerings. The blood of the thank-offering is now in part poured out upon the altar, and in part sprinkled upon the people. Here first enters in the idea of a sacrificial blood which Jehovah gives back to the offering people—the essential germ of the sacramental participation of the blood in the Lord’s Supper. This blood serves also unto purification, according to Hebrews 9:14. But this purification is no longer the negative expiation, which abolishes the sin of the old life; it is the sanctification which completes positively the new life. The ordinary symbol of purification was water, though not without the addition of blood ( Leviticus 14:6). The higher purification was the sprinkling with blood (the idea of the baptism of blood was the consummation of life in the ancient Church). This cleansing is not merely the removal of the impure, but also the positive communication of a new life, which cannot be lost. Hence, in the Old Testament, the sprinkling of blood was followed by eating and drinking on the part of Moses and the priests and the elders upon the Mount of God: Exodus 24:11,—a very manifest type of the New Testament.

Which is shed (or: being shed) for many (τὸπερὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον)—Present tense. [Compare the addition to σῶμα in Luke: τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον, which is being given.] The sacrifice is already virtually accomplished, and the future act realized in the Lord’s first Supper. Hence, this, eternal ideal presence of the atoning death is continued throughout all ages in the sacrament, because the offering was presented in the Eternal Spirit; but the Romish repetition of the sacrifice reduces the great atonement to a mere act of the past, a temporary event, however significant in its bearings and effects. Matthew writes περί, Luke ὑπέρ. While these prepositions are often interchanged, ὑπέρ is the more definite expression. Matthew, however, adds the explanation, εἰς ἄφεσιν; and therefore, in accordance with biblical typology, only an expiatory offering can be meant, yet at the same time an expiatory offering which is transformed by the grace of the reconciled God into a thank-offering. For the blood of the sin-offering as such belonged to God alone. The objective sprinkling of the blood, and the subjective act of faith, are both supposed.

Matthew 26:29. I will not drink henceforth—Meyer refers this to the fourth cup as the eucharistic cup;^[FN44] but it seems rather to intimate that this fourth cup was drunk, as usual, in addition (after the eucharistic ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας), at the close of the feast, as the thanksgiving for the blessing of the wine. Hence the expression, “fruit of the vine.” At the same time, Christ marks this moment as His perfected renunciation of all things: His enjoyment of all things in this world had come to its end. It was the last cup of this world. Hence He consecrates this sad moment as the anticipatory festival of a common enjoyment in the world of glory. Bengel: Novitatem dicit plane singularem. Kuinoel: The expression is figurative, signifying the nighest happiness. The new wine of the glorified world, or of the kingdom of heaven, is a symbol of the future festal blessedness of the heavenly world, even as that earthly cup (especially the fourth one) was a symbol of the festal enjoyment of the spiritual life in this divinely created world.

[This verse implies that the Lord’s Supper has not only a commemorative and retrospective, but also a prophetic and prospective meaning. It not only carries us back to the time of the crucifixion, strengthening our vital union with the Redeemer, and conveying to us anew, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through faith, all the blessings of His atoning sacrifice; but it is also a foretaste and anticipation of the great Marriage Supper of the Lamb which He has prepared for his Church at His last advent, when all eucharistic controversies will cease forever, and give place to perfect vision and fruition in harmony and peace.—P. S.]

Matthew 26:30. And when they had sung the hymn of praise, ὑμνήσαντες.—The second part of the Hallel, Psalm 115-118.

To the Mount of Olives: that Isaiah, to Gethsemane, Matthew 26:36. Meyer: The tradition, that people were obliged to spend this night in Jerusalem (Light, foot), seems not to have had a universal application. But ancient Jerusalem extended as far as the eastern declivity of the mount. And it is at least remarkable, in relation to this tradition, that Jesus did not go to Bethany.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The relations between the typical and the real salvation by judgment, between the typical and the real redemption, the typical and the real Passover, the typical and real covenant institution, the typical and real feast of the covenant ( Exodus 24:3-11). On the significance of the Passover, compare also the typological writings of Bähr, Kurtz, Sartorius, [Fair-bairn], etc.

2. The Woe Pronounced on Judas.—It were better for him that he had never been born. This is held, and rightly Song of Solomon, to prove the perdition of the traitor. But when his endless perdition is established by this text, and the words are taken literally, orthodoxy must take care lest the consequence be deduced, that it would have been better for all the condemned generally never to have been born, and evil inferences be drawn as to their creation. But our Lord’s expression cuts off such abstract discussions; it says only that it were better that Hebrews, ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, had never been born. This may be said of every sinner generally, inasmuch as his sin is the beginning of eternal death; but it held good especially, and in an immeasurably heightened sense, in the case of the traitor. We should feel and realize the full force of this most fearful word; yet without overstraining it, remembering that it is no final judicial sentence, but a burning expression rather of infinite pity.

3. That the first holy communion was at the same time an institution of the ordinance for His perpetual commemoration, is manifest from the express declaration of the Lord in Luke, from the account given by all the Evangelists, and from the testimony of the Church.

4. And it appears, further, from the particulars of the first supper, that it could not have been celebrated according to the Catholic, the Lutheran, or the Reformed doctrine; but that it was celebrated rather as an annunciation of the saving death of Jesus. It was the reconciliation of the disciples with the death of reconciliation; and, as Dietlein says (1857), a confession in the form of action, and not of doctrinal teaching. The development of the doctrine of the sacrament, however, became an ecclesiastical necessity, although by no means the confusion of Christian disputants about the doctrine. On the dogmatic question we must refer to the doctrinal histories generally, and to the monographs of Ebrard on the Reformed side (1845), of Kahnis on the Lutheran (1851), and also of Dieckhoff (1854).^[FN45]

Meyer, p443,^[FN46] sums up the views of Ebrard and Kahnis with the remark: “It would be easy on the way which is supposed to lead to the Lutheran theory, to arrive at the dogma of transubstantiation, because both theories rest on doctrinal premises to which the exegetical treatment is made to conform.” The different interpretations of the various evangelical confessions are not necessarily contradictory and exclusive, but may, with certain modifications, be reconciled under a higher theory. Comp. my Positive Dogmatik, p1144. The Reformed divines will always insist on the allegorical and symbolical interpretation of the words of institution as a proper starting point (comp. Martensen, § 262); while the Lutherans, on the other hand, will maintain that the holy communion is not only the sign and seal of the negative abolition of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ, but also a positive celebration and communication of the new life of Christ, as also the symbolical anticipation and typical foundation of the final glorification of the spiritual life of believers.^[FN47]

[Dr. Lange refers here, without naming it, to Martensen’s Christliche Dogmatik (German translalation from the Danish, 2d ed. Kiel, 1853, § 262, p491), where this distinguished Lutheran divine of Denmark concedes the relative truth of Zwingli’s symbolical interpretation, but combines with it the Lutheran, at least as to its substance, concerning the actual fruition of Christ. As this interesting work is not accessible to the English reader, as far as I know, I will translate the passage in full: “The Romish doctrine of transubstantiation resolves the natural elements into an empty show, and violates the order of nature in order to glorify the order of grace. Against this the whole Evangelical Church protests, and maintains the natural identity of the sensual signs. ‘Bread is bread, and wine is wine,’ both are symbols only (nur Sinnbild) of the body and blood of Christ. In this sense, as a rejection of transubstantiation, the entire Evangelical Church owns and adopts Zwingli’s interpretation: ‘this signifies’ (dies bedeutet). And in this church-historical connection Zwingli’s sober common-sense view acquires a greater importance than Lutheran divines are generally disposed to accord to it. Zwingli himself almost stopped with this negative protest; while Luther held fast to the real presence of the Lord (comp. Conf. Aug. art. x.), but a presence which is veiled and hid under the natural signs, and communicates the heavenly gifts of grace in, with, and under the same. Calvin sought out a medium path between Zwingli and Luther, but his theory of the real presence represents a one-sidedness the very opposite to that of the doctrine of transubstantiation [?], by separating dualistically what Romanism mixes and confounds.”—P. S]

[In this connection it may be proper to refer to a recent controversy, as far as it bears on the exegetical aspect of the eucharistic question, among Lutheran divines. Dr. C. Fr. Aug. Kahnis, who is quoted above by Meyer and Lange as the chief modern champion of the Lutheran doctrine of the eucharist,^[FN48] as Ebrard is of the Calvinistic,^[FN49] has recently changed his view on the exposition of the words of institution, and thus superseded the lengthy note of Meyer (Com. on Matthew, p498 sq 4 th ed.) above quoted in part by Dr. Lange. In his recent work on didactic theology,^[FN50] he gives up the literal interpretation of the ἐστί, to which Luther always resorted as the strongest bulwark for his theory of the real corporeal presence of Christ in the sacramental elements (in, cum et sub pane et vino). I will translate the exegetical results (without the arguments) at which Kahnis arrives in the first volume of his Dogmatics: “Where such difficulties are to be overcome, it is well to proceed from principles which command assent1. It is beyond a doubt that the sentence: ‘The bread is the body, the wine is the blood of Jesus,’ taken literally, is logically an impossibility.... Bread and body are heterogeneous conceptions which can no more be identified as subject and predicate than: Hegel is Napoleon, or, this wood is iron.... 2. It is beyond controversy that the sentence: ‘This is my body,’ may be figurative (metaphorical). The Scriptures contain innumerable figurative sentences....3. The words of institution say plainly that the body of Christ is here spoken of as the one which was to be offered up in death....If bread and wine are the subject, then the literal interpretation must be given up, and to this we are forced even by the sentence: ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood,’ which...must mean: This cup is a sign of the new covenant….” Dr. Kahnis then goes on to prove that the Lord’s Supper is not a mere memorial, but also a feast of the life union of believers with the whole Christ, etc, but adds expressly, that Christ can only be received in a spiritual manner (not by oral munducation), i.e, by faith. In his self-defence against Dr. Hengstenberg (Zeugniss von den Grundwahrheiten des Protestantismus, etc, Leipzig, 1862, p26 sqq.) he discusses the question again, and arrives at the conclusion (p28) that “the Lutheran interpretation of the words of institution must be given up,” but that this matter affects only the Lutheran theology, not the Lutheran faith, which he thinks is substantially right, though resting on an untenable exegetical basis. He also expresses his conviction (p29) that there is a possibility of a higher union and reconciliation of the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine on the eucharist. Dr. Francis Delitzsch, of Erlangen, another prominent divine and Biblical scholar of the strict Lutheran type, in his pamphlet: Für und wider Kahnis, Leipzig, 1863, p28, thus speaks of his friend’s recent change on this particular point: “In the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, Kahnis has no intention of giving up the Lutheran dogma, he only thinks it necessary to drop the Lutheran exposition of the words of institution. He admits, indeed, that in themselves considered, they may be understood synecdochically, as it may be said of the dove which descended at the baptism of John: ‘This dove is the Holy Spirit;’ but he regards this synecdochical relation inapplicable in this case on account of the words of Luke and Paul: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. We think, on the contrary, that these words confirm the Lutheran exegesis; for they present evidently a synecdoche continentis pro contento: the cup is the New Testament in Jesus’ blood, because it contains and exhibits this very blood of the Testament which is the ground, bond, and seal of the New Covenant. As Kahnis does not mean to discredit, but rather to save the I.uther. an dogma, we may hope that he may find out at last that the words of institution which have become uncertain and unsettled to his mind, still stand fast, and that his new doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is only a shadow, not the substance, of the Lutheran dogma.” Dr. Ebrard, on the other hand, a distinguished champion of the Reformed Confession, in the second edition of his Christliche Dogmatik, Königsberg, 1863, vol ii. p638, expresses his satisfaction that Kahnis has come over, as he thinks, to his own view on the Lord’s Supper, which he formerly opposed, but censures him rather severely for not giving him credit for indebtedness to his (Ebrard’s) argument. Dr. Kahnis will take care of his originality. But we firmly believe that the Lutheran and Reformed views can be essentially reconciled, if subordinate differences and scholastic subtleties are yielded, and that the chief elements of reconciliation are already at hand in the Melanchthonian-Calvinistic theory. The Lord’s Supper is: 1. A commemorative ordinance, a memorial of Christ’s atoning death. (This is the truth of the Zwinglian view which no one can deny in the face of the words of the Saviour: Do this in remembrance of Me). 2. A feast of living union of believers with the Saviour, whereby we truly, though spiritually, receive Christ with all His benefits and are nourished by His life unto life eternal. (This was the substance for which Luther contended against Zwingli, and which Calvin retained, though in a different scientific form, and in a sense confined to believers.) 3. A communion of believers with one another as members of the same mystical body of Christ. See below, No9.—P. S.]

5. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, but a festal thank-offering. Hence the name Eucharist, which connects itself with the cup of thanksgiving. Gregory the Great was the first who changed the idea of the New Testament thank-offering into that of a sin-offering; and those evangelical theologians who are anxious to establish in the Supper a continued propitiation, have already passed the Rubicon between the Evangelical Confession and Romanism.

6. Meat and drink; bread and wine: type of the whole nourishment and invigoration of life, the spiritual life being also presented under this twofold aspect in Scripture ( Psalm 23, green pastures or meadows, and fresh waters). The Lord’s Supper embraces both in one: it is the sacrament of the glorification of the new life derived from the bloody fountain of the atoning death of Jesus.

7. The materia terrestris and cœlestis in the Eucharist. Its religious and moral influence. Either salvation or condemnation.

8. For the history of the rites of the Lord’s Supper, see the works on church history and archæology. The Church passed over from the use of unleavened to the use of leavened bread. Contentions arose, in consequence, between the Eastern and the Western Churches. Other differences concerning the kind of bread, the use and withdrawal of the wine, the posture (kneeling, standing, sitting) of the communicants, etc.

9. It is a sad reflection, that the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, this feast of the unio mystica and communio sanctorum, which should bind all pious hearts to Christ and each other, and fill them with the holiest and tenderest affections, has been the innocent occasion of the bitterest and most violent passions, and the most uncharitable abuse. The eucharistic controversies, before and after the Reformation, are among the most unrefreshing and apparently fruitless in church history. Theologians will have much to answer for at the judgment-day, for having perverted the sacred feast of Divine love into an apple of discord. No wonder that Melanchthon’s last wish and prayer was, to be delivered from the rabies theologorum. Fortunately, the blessing of the holy Communion does not depend upon the scientific interpretation and understanding of the words of institution—however desirable this may be—but upon the promise of the Lord, and upon childlike faith which receives it, though it may not fully understand the mystery of the ordinance. Christians celebrated it with most devotion and profit before they contended about the true meaning of those words, and obscured their vision by all sorts of scholastic theories and speculations. Fortunately, even now Christians of different denominations, and holding different opinions, can unite around the table of their common Lord and Saviour, and feel one with Him and in Him who died for them all, and feeds them with His life once sacrificed on the cross, but now living for ever. Let them hold fast to what they agree in, and charitably judge of their differences; looking hopefully forward to the marriage-supper of the Lamb in the kingdom of glory, when we shall understand and adore, in perfect harmony, the infinite mystery of the love of God in His Son our Saviour.—P. S.]