Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of the Lord's Supper Outline

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

Thesis I:  The Lord’s Supper is defined.

Explanation:  1.  The various names of the Lord’s Supper.  * 2.  Why altars please the Papists.  3.  The language of supper indicates the circumstance of time.

Thesis II:  Things to be considered in the Lord’s Supper.

Thesis III:  The efficient, principal or instrumental.

Thesis IV:  The principal efficient.

[Explanation:  The threefold words of Christ’s institution.]

Thesis V:  The words of command.

Thesis VI:  Pertaining to those dispensing.

Explanation:  The giving of thanks.

Thesis VII:  Pertaining to the communicants.

Explanation:  [1.  To what time the Church has been obligated by commandment for the dispensation and receiving of this sacrament?]  2.  It is proven that the sacramental symbols are rightly received by the hands of those communicating.  [3.  With what gesture of the body is the Lord’s Supper to be received?]

Thesis VIII:  The words of promise.

Explanation:  1.  A summary of those things that to be treated concerning the words of promise.  2.  Of the Proposition, This is my body, which is given for you, the individual words are explained:  and first it is indeed proven that the bread alone is signified by the demonstrative, This.  3.  The contrary arguments of the Lutherans and Papists are refuted.  4.  With His Body, etc., proclaimed, Christ’s body properly so called is signified.  5.  It is proven that the copula Is is put in the place of signifies, or is a sign:  and so it is not able to be taken properly.  6.  The reasons for thus interpreting the words.  7.  The contrary arguments of the Papists and Lutherans for retaining the ῥητῷ, literal use, of the words of Christ are refuted.  8.  The opinion and interpretation of the Lutherans is explained, and it is proven that the Lutherans do not retain τὸ ῥητὸν, the literal use, of the words of Christ.  9.  It is proven that the interpretation of the Lutherans is false.  10.  The opinion of the Papists is explained, and it is proven, that they do not retain τὸ ῥητὸν, the literal use, of the words of Christ.  11.  It is proven that their interpretation is false.  12.  The arguments of the Papists for transubstantiation are refuted.

Thesis IX:  The instrumental efficient.

Explanation:  * Why only Pastors ought to administer the Supper.

Thesis X:  The matter out of which and around which.

Thesis XI:  The matter out of which.

Thesis XII:  The sign.

Thesis XIII:  The substantial sign.

Explanation:  1.  It is proven, that in the Lord’s Supper true bread, nourishing and plain, is to be employed.  2.  It is proven, that in the Lord’s Supper hosts are to to be used in the place of the sacramental symbol.  3.  The contrary arguments of the Lutherans and Papists are refuted.  4.  It is proven, that both symbols are to be extended to communicants.  5.  The contrary arguments of the Papists are refuted.

Thesis XIV:  The ceremonial sign.

Explanation:  1.  The ceremonies employed by Christ in the first administration.  2.  It is proven that the breaking of the bread is necessary.  3.  The contrary argument of the Lutherans is refuted.

Thesis XV:  The thing signified.

Thesis XVI:  Answering to the substantial sign.

Explanation:  1.  The body and blood of Christ are the things signified in the Lord’s Supper.  2.  Concerning the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, between us, the Lutherans, and the Papists, there is no controversy:  it is controverted concerning the mode of presence.  3.  It is proven, that the body and blood of the Lord is not corporally in, with, and under the sacramental symbols, or their appearances.  4.  The spiritual presence is asserted.  It is proven that it is real.  5.  The contrary arguments of the Lutherans in favor of His bodily presence are refuted.

Thesis XVII:  The thing signified, answer to the ceremonial sign.

Explanation:  1 & 2.  What is it, spiritually to eat and to drink the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper?  3.  What is it sacramentally to eat and to drink?  4.  It is proven, that Christ’s body in the Supper is not eaten bodily and orally.  5.  The arguments of the Orthodox for a spiritual manduction:  * some illustrative passages from the Fathers.  6.  The arguments of the Lutherans and Papists for bodily and oral manduction are refuted.  7.  It is proven, that unbelievers in the use of the Lord’s Supper are not made partakers of Christ’s body and blood properly so called.  8.  The contrary arguments of the Lutherans and Papists are refuted.  9.  The idolatrous adoration of the Papists.  10.  The contrary arguments of the Papists are refuted.

Thesis XVIII:  The matter around which.

Explanation:  [Who should be excluded from the use of the Holy Supper?]

Thesis XIX:  Preparation for the Lord’s Supper.

Thesis XX:  Internal.

Explanation:  [In what things consists preparation, according to others.]

Thesis XXI:  External.

Explanation:  1.  The penances of the Papists concerning auricular confession are opposed.  2.  The contrary arguments of the Papists are refuted.  [3.  Whether a quarrel or enmities are just causes of abstaining from the Lord’s Supper.]

Thesis XXII:  The internal form of the Lord’s Supper.

Explanation:  [It is proven, that in the Lord’s Supper the things signified in outward appearance are not signified, nor sealed, nor furnished to unbelievers.]

Thesis XXIII:  The end.

Explanation:  An explanation of the threefold recording.  * New ends of the Lord’s Supper are enumerated.

Thesis XXIV:  The effects.

Explanation:  [1.  Arguments for the more frequent use of the Lord’s Supper.]  2.  The idol of the Mass is cast down.  3.  It is proven, that the Mass is not a true, properly called, and divine sacrifice.  4.  The contrary arguments of the Papists are refuted.  5.  It is proven, that the Mass is dishonoring to the sacrifice of Christ.  6.  It is proven, that the Mass is not an expiatory sacrifice.