Stulti dum vitant vitia, in
contraria currunt.
Fools when they run from certain
vices, rush into the opposite extremes.
For instead of the absurd miracle
of the Papists, in regard to the subsistence of the accidents of the bread and
wine, independent of any subject, they imagine another still more absurd, viz:
the penetration of two bodies; so that they may be said to have wandered
farther, than the Papists themselves from the words of Christ, whether we regard
the letter or sense of the words. For the words, if taken literally, must be
thus understood: That, this is, this bread, is my body; and if we have respect to
the sense, or true meaning of the words, it must be: This visible bread which
is broken and given is my true and essential body given for you. It is my true
body, not by any change of the essence, as the Papists believe, (for the Word
did not assume bread, neither was bread delivered or crucified for us,) but it
is my true body in a mystical sense, and according to a sacramental form of
speech, as Christ himself, and Paul, and all the orthodox fathers have
understood it. The interpretation which the advocates of transubstantiation put
upon the words of Christ, is far from being their literal and true sense; for
it is not true that the Papists retain the letter, seeing that they put in the
place of the words of Christ, this is my body, this gloss: This thing, or
indefinite substance contained under these forms is my body; much less,
therefore, do the consubstantialists retain the literal and true meaning of the
words of Christ, seeing that they substitute their own words in the place of
what Christ said, saying, in, with, and under this bread is my body; or, the
bread and the body of Christ, which is invisibly concealed in this bread, is my
body. For neither is the bread by itself, not the bread with the body of Christ
concealed in it, properly the body of Christ; as a purse, whether full or
empty, is not properly and without a figure of speech called money. And as to
the various illustrations, or forms of speech, which they bring forward for the
purpose of establishing their view, they are evidently foreign; for as it
respects the instances to which we have already referred that which is
expressed by them is plain, as soon as it is uttered, that grains is in the
sack, money in the purse, an infant in the cradle, and wine in the cup. But
that the body of Christ is in the bread, does not appear so clearly, neither
can it be proved, since there is an article of the Christian faith which
declares that it is in heaven.
On
the Schism of the Consubstantialists
The words of Christ, That is my
body, were at first the only foundation upon which Luther based his view of the
presence of Christ in the supper. Subsequently, in the controversy which he had
with those who opposed its view of consubstantiation, he took refuge in the
years 27 and 28 to the doctrine of ubiquity, and instead of the one foundation
upon which he at first based his view, he now proposed four: 1. The personal
union of the two natures in Christ. 2. The right hand of God, which is
everywhere. 3. The truth of God, who cannot lie. 4. The three-fold manner of
the existence of Christ’s body in any place. Being at length driven from these,
he again betook himself to the words of Christ, and desired that all
disputation as to ubiquity might be brought to an end. Since the time of
Luther, however, some who profess his name, not finding a sufficient support
for their cause in the words of Christ, have again taken shelter under the
doctrine of ubiquity, and to this day regard it as the main stay of their
peculiar view. Yet there are others who reject it altogether. It is to this diversity
of sentiment that the schism of the consubstantialists traces its origin. There
are some who will be Lutherans simply, who defend impanation or the existence
of Christ’s body in the bread, and the oral manducation by the words of Christ
alone. There are other multi-presentiary and omni-potentiary Lutherans, who
hold that the body of Christ is present at the same time in many hosts on
account of the omnipotency really communicated to it. And, finally, there are
some omni-presentiary, or ubiquitarian Lutherans, who, for the purpose of
defending the presence of Christ’s body in the bread, seize the shield of
ubiquity, and teach that the body of Christ, by virtue of its union with the
Word, is everywhere present; and, therefore, present also in the bread, before
and after its use in the supper, and that the rite and consecration merely
cause it to be eaten in the bread. Our young divines, that they may have a
correct understanding of this controversy, must not be ignorant of these
things; for, from what we have said, they may see that to this day the doctrine
of consubstantiation rests upon two main pillars, or props ubiquity and given a
sufficient refutation of it in the exposition of the articles relating to the
personal union of the two natures on Christ, his ascension into heaven, and
sitting at the right hand of God the Father, to which we refer the reader. And
as to the words of Christ, they neither teach the doctrine of consubstantiation,
nor will they admit of such an interpretation, the Papists themselves being
witnesses in the case. The ubiquitarians also acknowledge this is their
writings, and have for this reason invented the doctrine of ubiquity, because
they clearly saw that their views could be sustained by the words of Christ;
but would soon be overthrown if made to rest on this foundation.
Christ said, This s my body which
is given for you. These words, however, the consubstantialists do not retain,
neither as to the letter, nor as to the sense, when they say, In, with, and
under this bread is my body. We do not, therefore, need any other arguments for
the refutation of consubstantiation, than the words of Christ, to which we
direct the attention of the advocates of this doctrine, and thus reason with
them: Christ did not say, In this bread, is my body; but, This is my body. But
these forms of speech do not express the same thing; for the former declares
what is in the bread, and where the body of Christ is; whilst the latter
declares that the bread itself is in the eucharist. Therefore, those who teach
that the body of Christ is in the bread, and not that it is the bread itself,
retain neither the letter, nor the sense of the words of Christ. (The
Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus: On the Heidelberg Catechism—The Protestant
Christian Doctrines, Dating to 1563 [trans. G. W. Williard; Pantianos
Classics, 1888], 422-23)
Further Reading
William G. T. Shedd: Lutherans are Guilty of a Form of the Christological Heresy of Eutychianism