The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church Part 6

In the former chapter we made some preliminary observations, intended to be helpful, as guards against false conclusions, and as guides to a correct understanding of the subject under consideration.

It is important that we always keep these in mind in our study of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper; Let us ever keep before us therefore the _Author_ or _Founder_ of this inst.i.tution, the _time_ and _circ.u.mstances_ of the inst.i.tution, and its _testamentary_ character.

We are now ready to inquire further into the _nature_ and _meaning_ of this holy ordinance. And in order to determine this we desire to go directly to the law and to the testimony. We want to know, first of all: what does the Word of G.o.d teach on the subject?

Before we proceed, however, to note and examine the pa.s.sages of Scripture bearing on the matter, let us recall what we said, as to the interpretation of Scripture, in one of the chapters on the Sacrament of Baptism. We there stated that our Church has certain plain and safe principles of interpretation that are always to guide the searcher after the truth of G.o.d's word, viz.:

1. "A pa.s.sage of Scripture is always to be taken in its plain, natural and literal sense, unless there is something in the text itself, or in the context, that clearly indicates that it is meant to be figurative."

2. "A pa.s.sage is never to be torn from its connection, but it is to be studied in connection with what goes before and follows after."

3. "Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, the dark pa.s.sages are to be compared with the more clear, bearing on the same subject."

4. "We can never be fully certain that a doctrine is Scriptural until we have examined and compared all that the Word says on the subject."

On these principles we wish to examine what the Word teaches as to the nature of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We note first the accounts of the inst.i.tution as given by the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In Matthew xxvi. 26-28, we read, _"Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said; 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to, them saying: 'Drink ye all of it. For this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'"_ With this the accounts in Mark xix. 22-24, and in Luke xxii. 19, 20, substantially agree. There is a slight variation of the words, but the substance is the same.

We notice only this difference: Luke adds the words, "_This do in remembrance of Me_." On this point let us notice, in pa.s.sing, that St. Luke's was the last written of the three. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark had been written and were read and used in the churches several years before St. Luke's. And yet the two former do not contain the words, "_Do this in remembrance of Me_." Now we submit right here, if to _remember_ Christ were all that is in this sacrament, or even the chief thing, why did those who wrote the first Gospels, and knew that there were no others, leave out these words? But we go on.

Almost thirty years after the time of the inst.i.tution of this sacrament, the great apostle of the Gentiles wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth. That Church was made up of a mixed mult.i.tude--Jews and Gentiles, freemen and slaves. Many of them were neither clear nor sound on points of Christian doctrine and practice. In his fatherly and affectionate letters to the members of this Church, Paul, among other things, gives them instruction concerning this sacrament; and, lest some of them might perhaps suppose that he is giving them merely his own wisdom and speculation, he takes especial care to disavow this: "_For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread_," etc., giving in substance the same words of inst.i.tution as given by the Evangelists (1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25).

After thus giving them the words of inst.i.tution, Paul goes on to instruct them about worthy and unworthy communing. In these instructions we cannot help but notice how he takes the real presence of Christ's body and blood for granted all the way through. Notice his language. Verse 27: _"Whosoever shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."_ Verse 29: _"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh d.a.m.nation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."_ Going back to chapter ten, verse sixteen, we find the Apostle giving the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in a few words thus: _"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"_

We have now noted all the pa.s.sages that speak directly on this subject. There are other strong pa.s.sages that are often quoted in defence of the doctrine of the real presence, and which we doubtless have a right to use in corroboration of those above quoted. We refer to John vi. 53-56: _"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ... for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him."_

As it is a disputed point, however, whether this pa.s.sage refers to the Lord's Supper or not, we are willing to waive it here. We are content to take those pa.s.sages quoted above, which every one acknowledges as referring directly to our subject. These we would have the reader carefully examine. Note particularly the language, the words employed. In the four accounts given of the inst.i.tution, three by the Evangelists and one by Paul, we have the same clear, plain words concerning the bread and wine--words of the last will and testament of the Son of G.o.d, our Saviour--"_This is my body." "This is my blood of the New Testament_;" or "_the New Testament in my blood_."

Note the language of Paul: _"Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." "Not discerning the Lord's body."_ The cup is called _the communion of the blood_, and the bread, _the communion of the body_ of Christ. The word communion is made up of two Latin words, _con_ and _unio_, meaning union with, or connection with. The marginal reading in our family Bibles, as well as in the revised version, is "partic.i.p.ation in." The plain English of the verse then is, the bread is a partic.i.p.ation in, or a connection with Christ's body, and the wine with His blood.

We are now ready to take all these pa.s.sages together, to compare them one with another, and to ask, What do they teach? What is the Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper? Is it transubstantiation? Is it consubstantiation? Is it that the bread and wine are mere representations or memorials of the absent body and blood of Christ?

Or do these pa.s.sages teach "That the body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine and are communicated to those that eat in the Lord's Supper?" (Augsburg Confession, Art. X.)

CHAPTER XV.

THE LORD'S SUPPER--CONCLUDED.

We have quoted, noted, collected and compared the words of Scripture that speak of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We now wish to ask and examine the question: What do these pa.s.sages taken together and compared with one another teach? Or, in other words, what is the Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper?

Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as held and confessed by the Roman Catholic Church? If our investigation of the teachings of the Holy Scriptures convinces us that they teach Transubstantiation, we will be ready to believe and confess that doctrine, no matter who else may believe or disbelieve it. What we want to know, believe, teach and confess, is the _Bible doctrine_.

What is Transubstantiation? The word means a change of substance.

The doctrine of the Romish Church is that after the consecration by the priest, the bread in the sacrament is changed into the material body of Christ, and the wine into His blood--so entirely changed in substance and matter, that after the consecration there is no more bread or wine there; what was bread has been converted into the flesh of Christ, and what was wine has been converted into His blood. Is this the doctrine of G.o.d's word? Does the Word anywhere tell us that the bread and wine are thus changed? Does it call the bread flesh, either before or after the consecration? Let us see. "Jesus took _bread_." "I will not drink of the _fruit of the vine_." "The _bread_ which we break." "For as often as ye eat this _bread_ and drink this cup." Such is the language of inspiration. Now we ask, if the Holy Spirit desired that plain and unprejudiced readers should find the doctrine of Transubstantiation in His words, why does He call the earthly elements _bread_ and _wine_ before, during and after the consecration Why does He not say, "as often as ye eat this flesh and drink this blood?" Evidently because the bread is, and remains plain, natural bread, and so with the wine. There is no change in the component elements, in the nature, matter, or substance of either.

Transubstantiation is not the doctrine of G.o.d's word; neither was it the doctrine of the early Church. It is one of the human inventions and corruptions of the Church of Rome.

Do then these words of Scripture teach the doctrine of Consubstantiation? There are persons who talk a great deal about Consubstantiation, and yet they know not what it means. What is it? It is a mingling or fusing together of two different elements or substances, so that the two combine into a third. A familiar example, often given, is the fusing or melting together of copper and zinc until they unite and form bra.s.s. Applied to the sacrament of the altar, the doctrine of Consubstantiation would teach that the flesh and blood of Christ are physically or materially mingled and combined with the bread and wine; so that what the communicant receives is neither plain, real bread, nor real flesh, but a gross mixture of the two.

Again we ask, is this the teaching of the Word? The very same proofs that convince us that the divine Word does not teach Transubstantiation, also convince us that it does not teach Consubstantiation. The simple fact that the earthly elements are called _bread_ and _the fruit of the vine_, before, during and after consecration, satisfies us that they remain plain, simple bread and wine, without physical change or admixture. Consubstantiation is not the teaching of the Word; neither is it, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Lutheran Church. It often has been, and is still called the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but it is found in none of her confessions. It was never taught by a single recognized theologian of our Church. One and all, they have repudiated it and repudiate it still. The question then is still unanswered What is the doctrine of the divine Word?

There are many who have a ready and easy answer as to this doctrine. They say it is only a Church ceremony, one of the old, solemn rites by which Church members are distinguished from outsiders.

There is indeed no special significance or Grace connected with it.

There is really nothing in it but bread and wine. There is no presence of Christ at all in this sacrament in any way different from His general presence. The bread represents or signifies, is a sign, or symbol, or emblem of Christ's body, and the wine of His blood. The communicant receives nothing but bread and wine, and while he partakes of these he remembers Christ's sufferings and death. Whatever special benefit he is to derive from this sacrament he must first put into it, by bringing to it pious thoughts, good feelings, deep emotions, tender memories, and a faith that swings itself aloft and holds communion with Christ far off in heaven.

This is about the current, popular view of this subject as held and taught in nearly all the Protestant Churches of to-day, outside of the Lutheran Church. As a natural consequence of this superficial view, the whole matter is treated very lightly. There is little, if any, solemn, searching preparation. In many places there is no formal consecration of the elements. The table is thrown open to any one who desires to commune. There are no regulations, no guards, no disciplinary tests, connected with it. Even unbaptized persons, and persons who have never made a public profession of faith, are often permitted to commune. But we digress.

We return to the question: Is the view just noticed in harmony with and based on the Word? Let us see. If there is nothing on the altar but bread and wine, why does Christ say, "This is _My body ...

My blood_?" Why not say, This is bread, this is wine? If Christ wanted us to understand that the bread and wine merely represent or are emblems of His body and blood, why did He not say so? Did He not know how to use language? Did He use dark or misleading words in His last Will and Testament? Why does Paul, in speaking of worthy and unworthy communing, speak of the body of Christ as present, as a matter of course? Was he inspired to misunderstand Christ and lead plain readers astray? If there is nothing more in the sacrament than to remember Christ, why--as already noticed--did not the writers of the first two Gospels put in the words, "_Do this in remembrance of Me_?" Or why did not Christ plainly say, "Take, eat this bread, which represents My body, in remembrance of Me?" Clearly, the doctrine in question is not based on the words of Scripture. It cannot be supported by Scripture.

Neither do its defenders attempt to support it by the pa.s.sages that clearly speak of this sacrament. If they try to bring in any Scripture proof, they quote pa.s.sages that have nothing to do with the subject.

They draw their proofs and supports princ.i.p.ally from reason and philosophy.

Surely a doctrine that changes the words of the inst.i.tution, wrests and twists them out of their natural sense, and does violence to all sound rules of interpretation that must bolster itself up by the very same methods of interpretation that are used to disprove the divinity of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the eternity of future punishment, is not the doctrine of Christ.

We have not found the Bible doctrine in any of the views examined. Can we find it? Let us see. We are satisfied, from our examination of the pa.s.sages that have to do with our subject, that there must be earthly elements present in this sacrament. They are bread and wine. They remain so, without physical change or admixture.

We also find from these pa.s.sages that there is a real presence of heavenly elements. These are the body and blood of Christ. Not indeed that body as it was in its state of humiliation, when it was subject to weakness, hunger, thirst, pain and death. But that glorified, spiritual, resurrection body, in its state of exaltation, inseparably joined with the G.o.dhead, and by it rendered everywhere present. And this body and divinity, we remark in pa.s.sing, were already present, though veiled, when the G.o.d-man walked this earth. Peter and James and John caught a glimpse of it on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is of this body, and blood, of which Peter says, 1 Peter i. 18, 19, that it is _not a corruptible thing_, and of which the Apostle says, Heb. ix.

12, "_By his own blood he entered in once into the Holy Place_" (that is, into heaven), and of which Jesus spoke when He said, "_Take eat, this is my body_ ... _this is my blood_."

Of this body and blood, the Scriptures affirm that they are present in the sacrament. The pa.s.sage which sets forth the _double_ presence, that of the earthly and heavenly elements, which indeed sums up and states the Bible doctrine in a few words, is 1 Cor. x. 16.

There Paul affirms that the bread is the communion of Christ's _body_, not of His Spirit or His influence. If the bread is the communion of, partic.i.p.ation in, or connection with His body, then bread _and_ body must both be present. It takes two things to make a communion. They must both be present. It would be absurd to speak of bread as a communion of something in no way connected with it.

As we have already said, the plain sense of the words of this pa.s.sage is, that the bread is a connection with, or a partic.i.p.ation in Christ's body, and so with the wine; so much so that whoever partakes of the one must, in some manner, also become a partaker of the other.

The bread, therefore, becomes the medium, the vehicle, the conveyance, that carries to the communicant the body of Christ, and the wine likewise His blood. And this, we repeat, without any gross material trans.m.u.tation or mixing together. The bread and wine are the earthen vessels that carry the Heavenly treasures of Christ's body and blood, even as the letters and words of the Scriptures convey to the reader or hearer the Holy Spirit. This is the clear, plain, Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper. There is nothing gross, carnal, Capernaitish or repulsive about it.

And exactly this is the teaching and doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Article X., Augsburg Confession, says, "Of the Lord's Supper they teach that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present, under the form of bread and wine, and are there communicated to those that eat in the Lord's Supper." And Luther's Catechism says, "The sacrament of the altar is the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat and drink, as it was inst.i.tuted by Christ Himself."

We therefore find that on this point also our dear old Church is built impregnably on the foundation of Christ and His Apostles. And though she may here differ from all others, she cannot yield one jot or t.i.ttle without proving false to her Lord and His truth. It is not bigotry. It is not prejudice, that makes her cling so tenaciously to this doctrine. She knows, as the great Reformer knew, that the very foundations are at stake; that if she gives up on this point, and changes the Scriptures to suit human reason, she will soon have to give up other doctrines, and by and by the rock on which the Church is built will be removed, and the gates of h.e.l.l will prevail.

And further, if there is any risk of being mistaken--which she, however, does not admit--she would rather run that risk, by taking her Master at His word, than by changing His word. In childlike confidence and trust, she would rather believe too much than not enough. She would rather trust her dear Master too far than not far enough. And therefore here she stands; she cannot do otherwise. May G.o.d help her!

Amen.

Others may still say, "This is a hard saying, who can bear it?

The idea of eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord offends us."

Well, it also offended the late Henry Ward Beecher, that his salvation should depend on the literal shedding of the literal blood of Jesus. This idea was repulsive to the great Brooklyn divine. But it does not offend us. On the contrary, this same doctrine is to us the very heart of the whole Gospel, and is therefore more precious than life itself.

Neither does it offend us that the mother, whose pure and tender love to her infant child is an emblem of the divine love to us poor sinners, while she presses to her bosom that little one, soothes away its frettings and sings away its sobbings, at the same time feeds and nourishes that feeble life with her own physical life, giving it literally her body and blood. This is no offense to us.

And why should it offend us that our dear loving Saviour comes so close to us, leads us into His banqueting house, where His banner over us is love, speaks to us words that are the out-breathings of the yearning love of His divine heart, and, at the same time, feeds us with His own spiritual and glorified body and blood, and thus makes us partakers of the divine nature.

Instead of being offended, let us rather bow down, and worship, and adore, and sing:

"Lord, at Thy table I behold The wonders of Thy Grace; But most of all admire that I Should find a welcome place."

"I that am all defiled by sin; A rebel to my G.o.d: I that have crucified His Son And trampled on His blood!"

"What strange surprising Grace is this That such a soul has room; My Saviour takes me by the hand.

And kindly bids me come!"