Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Part 2

[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 VIII:  Hitherto the words of the commandment.  They are the words of promise, which make known and disclose the thing signified in sacramental expression, even concerning the external symbols:  as concerning the bread, this is my body; concerning the cup, or [the wine] in the cup, this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

EXPLANATION:  I.  Concerning the sense of Christ’s words, this is my body…this is my blood, there is a controversy between us, the Lutherans, and the Papists.  And so we will first explain and confirm our position:  then we will recite and refute the opinions of our adversaries.

II.  To the former proposition, this is my body, which is given for you, there are three parts:  the subject, the predicate, and the copula.  The subject is This, whereby Christ signifies the bread, which from the table he took, broke, and distributed.  We prove this by the following arguments:

(1.)  Only what Christ with His own hands took from the table, broke, and distributed, that alone the demonstrative This signifies.

But Christ with His own hand took the bread alone from the table, broke, and distributed it.

Therefore, the demonstrative This signifies the bread alone.

The Minor is evident from the history of the institution.  And, if Christ, besides the bread, with His own hands had taken anything else, and broken it, doubtlessly that would have been His body.  But Christ did not take His body:  since, with the disciples looking on, that body sat at the table in its place, and remained there:  much less did He break it, which was at length to be broken by the Jews through crucifixion.

(2.)  Paul expressly interprets the demonstrative, This, of the bread:  inasmuch as he expounds the words of Christ, this is my body, with these words, the bread is the communion of the body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 10:16.  But if by bread the Apostle or Christ had understood a composition of bread and the body of Christ, corporally united, the sense of Christ’s words would have been this:  The bread together with my body is my body:  or, the bread and my body are my body, or, the communion of my body.  But just how jarring this is, everyone understands.

(3.)  What we are commanded to eat with the mouth in memory of Christ’s body, that only is denoted by the pronoun, This.

But we are commanded to eat with the mouth the bread alone in memory of Christ’s body.

Therefore, the bread alone is denoted by the pronoun, This.

The minor is evident out of Paul, who names only the bread, which he commands us to eat in memory of the body of Christ broken, that is, crucified, for us.  But the very body of Christ is not eaten in memory of the body of Christ, but it is that in the memory of which we are commanded to eat the bread.

(4.)  What is signified by the pronoun, This, it is the symbol and sacrament of the body of Christ.

But, not the body of Christ, but the bread alone, is the symbol and sacrament of the body of Christ.

Therefore, the bread alone, not the body of Christ, is signified by the demonstrative, This.

The major is proven:  Because the pronoun, This, Paul expressly interprets of the bread.  But bread alone is the symbol of the body of Christ:  for the body is not the symbol of itself.  And hence it is, that from the bread the body of Christ is proclaimed:  because it is the sign and sacrament of the body of Christ.  Whence Augustine:  The Lord did not hesitate to call the bread His body, since He gives a sign of His body.  Luther, by the pronoun, This, wanted to be understood, not the body of Christ, not the complex of the body of Christ and bread, but the Eucharistic bread alone.  Let Exercitation 94, § 1, be considered, following in this portion the ancient Doctors of the Church.  See Concensum Orthodoxorum, chapter 7, pages 288, 289.  See Exercitation 94.

III.  That by the demonstrative, This, is indicated, not the bread alone, but συμπεπλεγμένον or complex of the bread, or accidental properties of the bread, contend the Papists and Lutherans, and that with the following arguments:

(1.)  If Christ had wanted to say, this, that is, the bread, is my body, certainly with one word he would have said it more clearly, this bread is my body.

But this He did not do.

Therefore, He did not will the former.

Response:  I deny the hypothetical.  For it is an altogether common manner of speaking, which by the demonstrative This indicates that of which mention was previously made, and which is yet exhibited or shown:  But the bread was previously mentioned, and the bread was shown, taken from the table and broken.

Then the same reasoning is able also to be turned against our adversaries.  For, if Christ had wanted to say, This, that is, this complex of bread and my body, is my body, why did He not say that more clearly, this complex, etc.?

(2.)  The demonstrative τοῦτο/This is of the neuter gender.  Therefore, by that is not indicated the ἄρτος, or bread, which is of the masculine gender:  For this would be a solecism.

Response:  The consequence is denied, together with the proof.  For it is well-known to school children, that an adjective in the neuter gender is able to be put for a substantive:  of this not one of the learned is ignorant, that common people also by Hoc/This often signify the thing that they show or hold in their hands, of whatever gender.  So also in the neuter gender it is wont to be asked of a thing of whatever gender, Quid hoc est? What is this?

(3.)  Thus the Lutherans continue in disputation:

If in the first part of the institution τοῦτο/This signifies the bread alone, in the second part also τοῦτο/This signifies the wine alone.

But the latter is false:  therefore also the former.

The minor is proven:  Because in Luke τοῦτο/This is said ἐκχυνόμενον ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, to have been shed for you:  which cannot be said concerning mere wine alone.

Response:  If mere bread and mere wine are indicated only in this respect, that in, with, and under the bread the body is not, and in, with, and under the wine the blood is not; we deny the hypothetical:  for in the second part the τοῦτο/this is also expressly referred to the cup, which was containing the wine in itself, and so by the cup the wine is signified synecdochically; and that alone, as a symbol of the blood of Christ.  Therefore, with the trope thus explained, we now deny the minor.  This only denotes the wine synecdochically expressed.

Our adversary insists:

But mere wine is not ἐκχυνόμενον ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, shed for you:  but the blood of Christ.

Responses:  1.  The words ἐκχυνόμενον ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, shed for you, by Matthew and Mark are expressly referred to αἵμα, that is, the blood of Christ.  Therefore, because of this consent of the Evangelists, even with the Grammar opposing, we conclude that in Luke also it ought to be referred to the blood:  the dative αἵματι/blood not withstanding, to which τῷ ἐκχυνομένῳ, shed, would have agreeably answered.  Neither is it necessary, that a Grammatical σφάλμα/ error be imputed to the Evangelist (although Luther acknowledges many grammatical errors in Scripture, Tome 3, page 78b), which was able to creep in by the fault of the scribes or copyists.  Even if it is able to be excused as an error through Hebraism, and the τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον is able to be expounded by τὸ ὕπερ ἐκχύνεται, what is poured out:  since not even among the Greeks is it unusual, that τὸ/the[1] is put in the place of ὅ/the:[2]  especially among the Poets, from whose imitation who would restrain historians?  In the New Testament, forms of speech of every sort are found:  among our men see Georgius Pasor[3] in his Manuali.  Nevertheless, Luther thinks that the knot is able more easily to be untied, if the words, τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, pour out for you, are not taken of the blood shed or to be shed for us on the altar of the cross, but of the cup distributed to and drunk by the disciples:  which he judges to be an ingenious interpretation, against the mind of Christ, and the consent of the ancient Church, and writes that he received this gloss from a rural pastor, Tome 3, folio 541.

2.  If it be granted that the ἐκχυνόμενον/shed ought to be referred to the wine: yet it would not follow that it is able to be referred to that alone.  For, even if wine is not able properly to be said to be shed for us, and much less a cup, to be referred to which it appears to some:  yet it does not immediately follow that it is not able to be said improperly and sacramentally.  For, by this manner of speech concerning the sacramental symbols the thing signified is affirmed:  so that, when the bread is said to be the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ, by the same concerning the sacramental symbols what is proper to the thing signified is able to be affirmed, as when baptism is said to wash away sins.

(4.)  The δεικτικὸν/demonstrative pronoun in the words of institution is posited barely, in the neuter, and substantively.

Therefore, it signifies conjunctively and συμπεπλεγμένως/complexly.

Response:  The consequence is denied.  The rationale, upon which it rests, namely, an omitted premise:  Wherever the δεικτικὸν/demonstrative pronoun, This, is posited separately, in the neuter, and substantively, there it complexly signifies diverse matters involved with each other:  is altogether false.

(5.)  It is a most familiar manner of speaking, that, when two certain things are presented as conjoined, at the same time in the place of the subject is put the whole complex, which consists of those two.

Therefore, also in this place the subject τοῦτο/This denotes the whole complex of bread and the body of Christ.

Response:  This is the argumentation of Luther:  but it has no consequence, unless it first be proven, that Christ with His own hands did not take from the table, break, and offer to be eaten orally bread alone, but also at the same time in, with, and under the bread, His own body, which at that time was sitting on the table:  which we deny.

(6.)  That which Christ took broke, and commanded to eat, is signified by the particle τοῦτο/This.

But Christ not only took and broke bread, but also commanded to eat His body, with the word eat.

Therefore, by the particle τοῦτο/This is signified, not only the bread, but also the body of Christ.

The major is proven from the words of institution, for Christ, with the bread taken and broken, said, Take, eat; this is my body.

The minor is proven:  If the eating of the body of Christ is not commanded by the word eat, in the institution Christ did not command His body to be eaten:  which is false.  Thus Graver argues in the Appendix on article 13 of the Confessionis Augustanæ, page 266.

Response:  I introduce a distinction into the major.  By the particle τοῦτο/This is signified that which Christ took, broke, and commanded to be eaten, namely, bodily and orally.  With this limitation admitted, the minor is false:  the body of Christ, properly understood, He never and nowhere commanded to be eaten bodily and orally, that is, properly to be eaten.

Where then, you say, in the institution did Christ command improperly, or spiritually and by faith, His body to be eaten?

Response:  1.  Implicitly in the words, eat ye.  For, as the eucharistic bread is not common bread, but the sacrament of the body of Christ given for us; so oral manduction of the bread, which the Lord calls His body, is not required as bare manduction, but as conjoined with faith, receiving the matter signified and sealed by the bread.  2.  Expressly in the words, do this in remembrance of me:  as we shall explain in its place.  See Exercitation 95.

IV.  Hitherto the subject; the predicate follows, which is, my body given for you, or, which is delivered for you, namely, to death.  That, therefore, of which the blessed bread is a symbol and sacrament, is the body of Christ properly so called.  For this body was given and crucified for us; which is openly acknowledged among all.  Although Luther expressly says, that it is not doubtful, that the text of Paul, this is my body, which is broken for you, ought simply to be understood of the breaking and distribution, which was done on the table, Tome 3, folio 541, against the scope of Christ, and the consent of all Antiquity.

V.  The Copula, whereby the subject is affirmatively connected with the predicate, is the substantive verb, IS:  concerning the signification of which is the principal controversy.  We interpret the IS as signifies, or is the symbol and seal.  Whence we say that the sense of the words of Christ is this:  The bread signifies and represents my body, which is given for you, or, the bread is sign, or memorial, and seal of my body, which is given for you.

Because of this signification of the copula, or of the verb IS, we say that the words of Christ, this is my body, ought not to be understood properly, but improperly, and in a sacramental sense, of which external and visible element is affirmed the thing signified by the word IS, because the external and visible element signifies and represent the thing signified, or because it is the memorial, symbol, sign, and seal of it.

The sense of the other proposition is the same, when Christ says of the cup:  This is my blood of the New Testament.

VI.  But why we interpret the words of Christ in this manner, there are two reasons:

(1.)  The bread is the body of Christ mystically and sacramentally.

Therefore, the proposition, this is my body, is to be understood sacramentally.  Now, it is a sacramental expression, whereby the names of the things signified are attributed to the external symbols, because the signify and seal the things signified, as we taught above out of Augustine.

Hence similar expressions of Scripture, which have the copula IS, or are, expressed or understood in the original languages, are to be understood in the same manner.  As, circumcision is the covenant of God, Genesis 17:10, 13, from which it is clearly evident, that circumcision is called the covenant of God, for they are the words of verse 10, this is my covenant, that every man child among you shall be circumcised, and of verse 13, my covenant shall be in your flesh:  but not the covenant itself, but circumcision was in the flesh.  But circumcision is said to be the covenant, because it was the sign and seal of the covenant, as it is evident from verse 11.  The lamb is the Passover.  Exodus 12:11, Ye shall eat it (namely, the little sheep, or lamb):  it is Jehovah’s Passover.  And lest it be possible to be doubted, whether the lamb is called the Passover, in the New Testament it is also expressly called the Passover to be killed, Luke 22:7.  In the Old Testament, see 2 Chronicles 30:15, 17, etc.; 35:6; Ezra 6:20.  The rock was Christ, 1 Corinthians 10:4.  The Apostle speaks of the Rock from which water flowed in the wilderness:  which was Christ only σημαντικῶς/significatively:  because it signified Christ.  The seven kine are seven years, Genesis 41:26.  Where the copulative are is not able to be taken in any other way than signify:  For the kine were not properly years:  but they were signifying years.  And let not anyone quibble, that in the Hebrew text the copula is not expressed, which nevertheless has to be understood:  let verse 27 be added, in which it is expressed concerning the seven ears:  the seven blasted ears shall be seven years of famine.  Hitherto the first reason for our interpretation.

(2.)  Of what sort is the express:  This cup is the New Testament in my blood, 1 Corinthians 11:25:  such is also the expression:  This is my body.

But the former expression is sacramental, and the cup is said to be the New Testament, because the wine contained in the cup is a sign and seal of the New Testament, ratified by the blood of Christ.

Therefore, the sense of the latter expression is also the same.

(3.)  Of what sort is Paul’s expression:  The bread is the communion of the body of Christ:  such is also Christ’s expression:  The bread is my body.

But the former is sacramental; the sense of which is this, The bread is the sacrament or sacred sign of the communion of the body of Christ.

Therefore, the latter is also such.

(4.)  If the proposition of Christ, this is my body, ought to be understood properly and κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν, according to the thing spoken, it would follow that the bread is οὐσιωδῶς/substantially and properly the body of Christ, as it is said to be οὐσιωδῶς/substantially and properly the nourishment of man.

But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven.  For these absurdities would follow:

1.  That Christ, when He took the bread from the table and broke it, took His own body in His hands and broke it (although to Luther this does not appear absurd, Tome 6, Jena, v. 88 B); and so also poured out His own blood before He was crucified by the Jews.

2.  That the bread was properly given unto death for us, and the wine was poured out for us for the remission of sins:  because the body of Christ was delivered to death for us, and His blood was poured out for us for the remission of sins.

3.  That the body of Christ, now glorified, in the Supper is even now broken, and His blood poured out.

4.  That in the Apostles’ Creed we in vain express belief in the return of Christ to this world for judgment.  For, if in His body Christ is now in the world; seeing that the bread of the Lord’s Supper is in the world:  He will not return in the end near the end of the world to judge.

(5.)  No disparate is properly affirmed from a disparate:  by the nature of opposites.

But in the words, the Bread is the body of Christ, the cup is the New Testament, a disparate is affirmed from a disparate.

Therefore, there is able to be no proper affirmation.

Exception is taken:

God and man are disparate:  and yet God is properly affirmed from man, and man from God:  God is a man:  and a man is God.

Response:  In the doctrine concerning the Son of God and the mystery of the Incarnation, God and man are not disparate:  even if Deity and humanity are disparate.  For the same hypostasis is God and man:  even if the same nature is not Deity and humanity.  See Thomas, Summa, part 3, question 16, article 1.  Whence Cajetan[4] upon this place:[5]  Man is predicated of God, as a species from His hypostasis.

(6.)  If the cup is properly the blood of Christ, it will certainly not properly be the Testament of Christ.

But, according to the opinion of our adversaries, the former is true:  even if it is actually completely absurd:  Therefore also the latter:  and by consequence, improper expressions are not wanting to the words of institution; which was the thing to be demonstrated.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  the blood and the Testament are not the same thing:  for the former is a natural thing, but the latter is moral and civil.  See Exercitation 96.

VII.  Hitherto the declaration and confirmation of our position.  The Lutherans with the Papists contend, that the expression of Christ, this is my body, is to be taken properly, as it sounds, or κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν, according to the thing spoken.  Their principal arguments are these:

(1.)  Interpretation, retaining the proper signification of the words of Christ, agrees with the mind and will of Christ.

Therefore, that interpretation alone is to be approved and retained.

Response:  I deny the antecedent.  The rationale:  because upon that interpretation absurdities follow, which we have already reviewed, which are able in no way to be reconciled with the mind and will of Christ.

(2.)  Interpretation, retaining the proper signification of the words of Christ, retains the promise, and the exhibition of the thing signified, that is, the body and blood of Christ.

Therefore, that alone is to be approved.

Response:  I deny the antecedent:  if be understood the promise and exhibition of the thing signified, agreeing with the word of God and the will of the testator.  For, Christ did not promise to us in Scripture the corporal presence and exhibition of his body in this world, before the impending last day:  but only spiritual, which is done in word, is received in faith, and is sealed through the sacraments.

(3.)  In the institution of no sacrament is there to be a receding from the proper signification of the words.

Therefore, this ought not to be done in the institution of the Supper.

Response:  I deny the antecedent.  The rationale:  because in the institution of old and new sacraments God made use of improper expressions.  For example:

In the institution of circumcision, which He called the covenant, because it was a sign of the covenant.  Thus He said that the covenant is in their flesh, while understanding circumcision, the sign of the covenant.

In the institution of the Passover; when He says that the Lamb is the Passover, or calls it the Passover:  because it was a sign of the Passover.

In the institution of the Supper there are many improper expressions:

1.  The cup is improperly called the New Testament.  That there is in these words a rhetorical trope, namely, a synecdoche of the container for the thing contained, Graver expressly writes in his Appendix on article 13 of the Confessionis Augustanæ, page 271, as does Brenz[6] in his Exegese, page 122.

2.  The cup is improperly put in the place of the wine in the cup.

3.  By Paul, the body of Christ is improperly said to be broken.

4.  The bread which we break is improperly said to be the communion of the body of Christ, where Graver does indeed expressly say that it is metonymy of the subject for an adjunct:  that the bread is put for the breaking of the bread, which nevertheless we ourselves do not grant:  Appendix on article 13 of the Confessionis Augustanæ, page 272.

5.  The cup is improperly said to be the communion of the blood of Christ.

6.  Paul improperly says that we drink the cup.

7.  The bread is improperly said to be the body of Christ.

8.  Christ improperly says that He is going to drink the fruit of the vine new in the kingdom of His Father.

(4.)  The words of Christ, this is my body, are the words of a Testament.

Therefore, they are to be taken properly.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The reason:  because improper terms are foreign neither to a divine nor a human Testament.  We proved this just now concerning the divine.  Concerning human Testaments the matter is beyond all controversy in the writings of the Jurisconsults.

(5.)  He that speaks figuratively is the author of the errors of those that err in understanding.

But God is not the author of the error of those that err in understanding the institution of the sacraments.

Therefore, God did not speak figuratively in the institution of any sacrament.

This argument is papistical, from which the Lutherans do not shrink, who frequently have that saying of Luther in their mouths concerning this controversy:  If I am deceived, Christ has deceived me.

Response:  The major is completely false:  for, it would follow, that God is the author of the greatest number of heresies, which were born of figurative or tropical sayings of Scripture incorrectly understood.  Let the one example of the Anthropomorphites suffice, who, it is altogether certain, drew their heresy from tropical expressions of Scripture concerning God incorrectly understood.  Therefore, those that are deceived by a twisted interpretation of the tropical words of Christ are not deceived by Christ, but by their own blindness, or obstinacy, and preconceived opinions.

(6.)  Christ, being near to death, put an end to figures.

Therefore, He did not speak figuratively, nor did He institute a figure or new sign of His body.  Thus Stapleton[7] argues.

Response:  The antecedent is not universally true concerning figures of words or of things.  Concerning the signs of words it is altogether manifest, since from the formula of institution, and those words especially, the Cup is the New Testament, and from other words, which we touch upon the in solution to objection 8.  Concerning figures of things, that is, sacraments and symbols of the Lord’s body and blood, instituted by Christ Himself, we have the acknowledgement of all the Fathers of the purer Church, and even a great many of the Papists.  Therefore, Christ put an end to figures, not all, but the figures of the Old Testament representing the Messiah to come and His sacrifice.

(7.)  The instituted Supper is speech concerning a matter obscure and unusual.

Therefore, it is perspicuous and proper.

Response:  They are not synonyms, obscure and unusual; perspicuous and proper:  for, what is unusual is able to be not obscure:  and what is not proper is able to be perspicuous.  The words, the cup is the New Testament, are improper and unusual concerning the matter:  but nevertheless perspicuous, and not obscure concerning the matter, even according to the opinion of our adversaries:  for they do not complain of obscurity, even if they are not able to deny that the matter is unusual and the words improper.  Whence it is evident, that the antecedent is partly to be denied, and the consequence partly.

(8.)  When Christ spoke these words, This is my body, He was near to death.

Therefore, He spoke properly.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The reason for the denial:  because He was closer to death, when He spoke these words, if this is done in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?[8] which everyone knows are improper, and He, being as close to death as possible on the cross, improperly calls John the Son of Mary, and Mary the mother of John.[9]

(9.)  In the proposition, This is my body, the subject this, and the predicate body, are taken properly.

Therefore, the whole proposition is proper.

Responses:  1.  I deny the consequence.  The rationale:  because the proposition of Christ is not constituted solely from the subject and predicate, but a third part is added, namely, the copula, IS; which is put for signifies, and brings it to pass that the body of Christ might be proclaimed through the bread improperly and sacramentally, which manner of expression we call metonymical:  whereby the sign is said to be the thing signified:  because it signifies and seals the thing signified.

2.  Even according to the hypotheses of our adversaries, the antecedent is false, because the Lutherans and the Papists do not retain the proper signification of either the subject or the predicate:  as we shall demonstrate by degrees.

Against the former response the Lutherans and Papists take exception:

Rhetoricians do not locate a trope, except in the subject or predicate, neither has anyone ever written, that a trope can be set up in the copula, or in the verb, is.

Response:  But Theologians, both ancient and more recent, as also others, among whom are also the Lutherans, have said and written, that sometimes the copula, is, is taken improperly.  Among us the authority of these is greater than that of the Rhetoricians, whether Gentile or Christian, slavishly committed to their own error:  neither did they merely say or write, but they also made demonstration with evident examples of Scripture:  of which sort are those alleged in Explanation 6 above, on our first reason.  And what is more familiar in the explication of words that to put is in the place of signifies? as the verb to love is to hold dear, that is, signifies to hold dear:  which is so evident that many of the Papists are compelled to give their assent.  Concerning the impropriety, if it be evident, it is not the case that we should anxiously labor over the name or species of trope:  see Exercitation 96.

They insist, 1.  But the is signifies nothing but the conjunction of the things, or terms:  therefore, it is not able to be taken improperly.

Response:  We concede the antecedent concerning the copula, is:  but we deny the consequence.  For, it conjoins things either οὐσιωδῶς/substantially, when it is taken properly; or σχετικῶς/relatively, when it is taken improperly.

They insist, 2.  The copula, is, is a substantive verb:  therefore, it consistently signifies ὕπαρξιν or existence, and is never put for signifies.

Response:  The consequence is denied:  use demonstrates the contrary.

The insist, 3.  The copula is a part of the predicate:  Therefore, there is not able to be a trope in the copula, without it also being in the predicate:  in which predicate, however, it is not placed by us.

Response:  The antecedent is denied.  The copula is the bond of the subject and predicate, not a part of the predicate, but of the proposition.  If it were a part of the predicate, that the trope is in the predicate with respect to this part, no one would deny.  At the same time, no conclusion can be drawn from the part to the whole.  Hitherto the tropical copula.

Among our Theologians there are still those that locate the trope in the predicate, body, in exactly the same sense in which others locate it in the copula.

Therefore, they say that body is posited μετωνυμικῶς/metonymically for the sign of His body.  But to signify His body and to be a sign of His body is the same thing; which even Luther expressly admits, Tome 3, folio 382b:  What Zwingli says, This signifies my body, is the same thing that Œcolampadius[10] says, This is the sign of my body.  The Germanic and all other tongues maintain this.

Against this positioning of the trope our adversaries dispute in this way:

By the predicate is understood that which was delivered to death for us.

But not improperly so called, but properly, the body of Christ was delivered to death for us.

Therefore, not improperly so called, but properly, the body of Christ is understood by the predicate:  and consequently, there is no trope in the predicate.

The major is proven by the express declaration of the predicate:  For Christ does not simply say, the bread is my body, but adds, which for you is delivered, or is offered on the altar of the cross.

Response:  Those that locate the trope in the predicate, deny the Major.  The proof is inconsequent:  for the declaration, which is delivered for you, does not pertain to the whole predicate, which is, a sign of the body of Christ, but to a part of it, namely, the thing signified, which is the body of Christ properly so called.  Whence the sense of the proposition emerges here:  This is a sign of my body, which body was delivered for you.  Not, therefore, is body posited for a sign of the body, in such a way that the true and proper body of Christ is excluded from that sacramental proposition:  but in such a way that it might be included by the relation that the sign has to the thing signified.  Luther denies the major on other grounds.  Let “Explanation” 4 be considered.

(10.)  The words of Christ, This is my body, are perspicuous.

Therefore, they are to be taken properly.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale for the denial:  because improper words are also perspicuous:  for tropes are employed, not to obscure, but to illuminate, speech.

Close to this is the argument of certain Papists:

If the words of institution were improper, their signification would be uncertain, and the Testament would be vain.

But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

Response:  The hypothetical is denied.  That the sentence, This cup is the New Testament, is improper, not even the Papists are able to deny, the certain interpretation of which, however, they boast themselves to have.

(11.)  The words of a testator, I leave to thee my house, are not able to be interpreted, I leave to thee a sign of my house.

Therefore, the words of the testator Christ, This is my body, are not able to be interpreted, this is a sign of my body.

Response:  I deny the consequence, on account of the dissimilarity of the examples.  For, when a testator says, I leave to thee my house, he speaks of his house without mention of a sign of the house left or bequeathed:  When Christ says, This is my body, He speaks of His body with mention of a sign of His body; for He says, the bread is my body:  which is only a sign and seal of His body delivered for us.  By force of institution, this sign and seal confirms our faith concerning the blessings to redound to us from the death of Christ and our spiritual union with the body of Christ.  But if a testator, after the example of Christ, with the Testamentary documents laid before him, should say to his heir, Behold, this is the house that I leave to you; there is no one so simple that he would not understand, that the testamentary documents are not the very house, but only a sign and testification of the house left and bequeathed.

(12.)  No one uses tropes with the unskillful.

When Christ was instituting the Eucharist, He spoke to the unskillful, namely, His Apostles, yet rough and undeveloped.

Therefore, He did not use tropes.

Response:  I introduce a distinction into the major; with the unskillful, who are not at all competent to receive tropical speech, no one makes use [of tropes].  With this limitation the minor is denied; for the Apostles were not so unskillful, with whom Christ quite frequently used improper speech; and, in any event, in those words of institution, this cup is the New Testament.  Why? because the major, asserted simply without regard to limitation, could be denied.  With the unskillful Christ in the Gospel history spoke tropically on more than one occasion.

(13.)  Laws set forth by prudent legislators are not tropical, but perspicuous.

But in the institution of the Eucharist Christ set forth law.

Therefore, it is not tropical, but perspicuous.

Response:  In the major things tropical and things perspicuous are set in opposition, but they are not in opposition:  since things tropical are able also to be perspicuous.  Therefore, if the major be thus fashioned, the laws of prudent legislators are not tropical; we deny that it is universally true:  seeing that contrary examples occur, not only in the institution, when the cup is put for the wine, and the same cup is called the New Testament:  but also frequently elsewhere.  Let one example suffice for us.  Christ, in John 6, sets for a law concerning the eating of His flesh, and the drinking of His blood:  which consists of improper or tropical words, as all Theologians of sound mind acknowledge.

(14.)  In the divine books, the principal dogmas are wont to be delivered only in proper words.

But the institution of the Eucharist is a principal dogma, or treats of a principal dogma.

Therefore, it has been delivered only in proper words.  Thus Bellarmine argues.

Response:  The major is not universally true.  For example, the first publication of the Gospel, the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,[11] is certainly a principal dogma:  in which, notwithstanding, not one word is proper.

(15.)  If the body of Christ in no other relation is preached from the bread blessed, than under the relation of a thing signified, in such a way that the body, as signified, is preached from the bread as from a sign; it follows, that the body of Christ in no relation is preached from the bread.

But the former is true, according to our opinion.

Therefore also the latter, which nevertheless is false.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  because the thing signified never and by no means is able to be preached in a direct case from its sign, either properly or improperly:  for this is against the nature of things related.

In this syllogism Graver appears to triumph in the Appendix on article 13 of the Confessionis Augustanæ, page 274, 275.

Response:  We deny the consequent of the hypothetical.  The rational wherewith it is proven is altogether false:  that things signified are preached from their signs in a direct case, that is, by improper preaching, we have proved in the sixth preceding explication, with many examples sought from Scripture.  See Exercitation 97.

VIII.  Hitherto the arguments of the Lutherans and Papists for retaining the ῥητῷ, literal use, of the words of Christ.

At the same time, the Lutherans interpret the words of Christ, This is my body, as in, with, and under this bread is my body.

Whence we gather two things:

(1.)  That the Lutherans do not retain τὸ ῥητὸν, the literal use, of the words of Christ.

(2.)  That the interpretation of the Lutherans is false.

That the Lutherans do not retain τὸ ῥητὸν, the literal use, we prove from this:

(1.)  That this is interpreted as in, with, and under this.  Christ said, This is my body.  The Lutherans say, In, with, and under this is my body.  But, that this does not properly signify in, with, and under this, all Grammarians testify.

The Lutherans take exception, that, through Luther’s synecdoche, whereby concerning the whole complex of the body of Christ and the bread is affirmed only a part of the complex, namely, the body of Christ, a rhetorical trope is not imported into the words of institution, but only a grammatical figure, which is wont to be called synecdoche, which, with two things conjoined in this manner, this only is affirmed, what is farther removed from the senses.

Response:  It is remarkable, that learned men indulge in their own preconceived opinions in such a way that, for the sake of suppressing the truth, they force all things, and prefer rather to render their own learning suspect, than to concede even a little to the truth.  That a grammatical synecdoche is a certain anomaly of construction, is generally admitted among all grammarians.  Whence syntactical Synecdoche is described in the Grammar Philippea Wittenbergensi:  when an accusative is added to adjectives, or to verbs passive and absolute, signifying some part:  like, Æthiops albus dentes, the Ethiopians white of teeth; puer ingenuus vultum, the body noble of countenance.  Let them consider now, whether the words of Christ, This is my body, or, this bread is my body, are able to be referred to this construction and syntactical rule.  All grammarians shall cry out in protest, and acknowledge a regular construction here.

On the other hand, among all rhetoricians it is generally admitted, that a synecdoche is rhetorical, when the whole is mention, and a part is understood; or when to the whole is attributed the appellation of a part.

(2.)  That Christ understands His own body, which is really natural, visible, palpable, finite, furnished with its just quantity and figure, and circumscribed in one definite place.

But the Lutherans imagine, that the body of Christ in, with, and under the host is not natural, not visible, not palpable, not finite, without its just quantity and figure, because it is at one and the same time everywhere and in all places; which sort of body Christ never had, neither was there ever a human body of this sort in the nature of things; indeed, because of manifest contradiction, it is not even possible to be.  That the oral manduction of the body of Christ, which is a Palladium to them,[12] recedes as far as possible from proper oral manduction, if you listen to the more subtle moderns; those that have weighed those mysteries are not ignorant; on account of which things the whole Church of Christ presently suffers.  Therefore, although the Lutherans continually have τὸ ῥητὸν, the literal use, in their mouth with their oral manduction:  it is nevertheless certain, that no doctors ever departed and strayed farther from τῷ ῥητῷ, the literal use, than the Lutherans:  concerning which matter there are many things in our Exercitationibus.  See Exercitation 98.

IX.  That the interpretation of the Lutherans is false, in which they teach the συνουσίαν, that is, the immediate coexistence, or corporal union, of the substances of the body of Christ and of the bread, whereby the two bodies were conjoined with each other ἀδιαστάτως/inseparably (what it pleases some to call παρουσίαν/parousia, or presence; we called συνουσίαν/sunousia/coexistence in no other sense); we prove:

(1.)  In baptism the blood of Christ is not corporally in, with, and under the water.

Therefore, neither in the supper is the body of Christ in, with, and under the bread.

Our adversaries concede the antecedent.

The rationale of the consequence:  That the water of baptism is no less a sacrament of the blood of Christ, than the bread is a sacrament of the body of Christ.

They take exception, that of the water of baptism it is not said, that it is the blood of Christ, as it is said of the wine, that it is the blood of Christ.

Response:  This is not to the point.  Baptism is no less a sacrament of the New Testament than the Eucharist.  In baptism water is no less a symbol and sacrament of Christ’s blood, than the wine in the Eucharist; therefore, both the relation of both will be the same, with respect to the presence and union of the thing signified; even if the words be not the same:  for to signify the same thing with diverse words is not unusual for the Holy Spirit.

(2.)  In His word Christ nowhere promises to us the corporal exhibition of His body, before the final judgment.

Therefore, neither does He confirm and seal this in the sacrament of the supper.

The rationale of the consequence:  That the sacraments confirm nothing except what the word promises.

The antecedent is perfectly manifest out of the Scripture of the New Testament; which expressly testifies, that the return of Christ to this inferior world is deferred to the last day:  as we proved above.  The passages that our adversaries allege unto the contrary opinion either speak not concerning the human nature of Christ, but concerning His person; or not concerning His bodily presence, but concerning the spiritual and gracious presence of His person according to the divine nature; or, finally, not concerning the real existence of His body on earth, but only a vision and apparition.

(3.)  Christ has only one finite body.  Therefore, the body of Christ is not in, with, and under the bread, wherever the supper is administered.  The rationale of the consequence:  For, if, where the supper is administered, Christ in His body is in, with, and under the bread:  it would follow, that either He has multiple bodies; or, if He has only one body, it is infinite, so that it might be able to be everywhere.

They take exception, that the body of Christ is everywhere, and nevertheless is and remains finite.

This is false, as we have seen in its place.  At the same time, let our adversaries, who believe that there is no contradiction so evident that it is not able to be reconciled or at least evaded, persuade them of this.

(4.)  If the body of Christ is now corporally under the bread, and the blood under the wine; it would follow, that in the Lord’s Supper either the blood is separated from the body of Christ, or that the body and blood are under the bread at the same time, and the body and blood are under the wine at the same time.

But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven.  For, if the blood were separated from the glorified body of Christ, certainly the body of Christ would be bloodless:  which is against the nature of a true and living human body; which sort Christ had and retained even after His resurrection; who had to enter into the heavenly sanctuary with His own blood, Hebrews 9:23.  I pass over in silence, that blood is not able to be separated from a body without suffering; which the glorified body of Christ does not admit.  But, if the body and blood were under the bread at the same time, or under the wine at the same time; the bread alone or the wine alone would suffice for the sacramental participation in Christ’s body and blood:  which is false.  Because Christ instituted the bread as the sacrament of His body alone, and the wine as the sacrament of His blood alone.

(5.)  If the body of Christ is in, with, and under the bread; it follows that the body of Christ is now broken in, with, and under the bread, is chewed with the teeth and transferred to the stomach in, with, and under the bread.

But the consequent is false and absurd.  Therefore also the antecedent.

Yet formerly the consequent did not appear absurd to Luther:  since he expressly writes, tome 2, Eisleben, folio 330a, that in the administration of the Lord’s Supper the body of Christ endures whatever the bread endures, that is, to be ground and pulverized by the teeth; and writes, tome 2, Wittenberg, folio 184, that the true body of Christ is pulverized and ground by the teeth.  Man zertructe und zerreibe mit den Zahnen den warhaffigen Leib Christi:  Man zerbeisse den Leib Christi mit den Zahnen, one should crush and grind the true body of Christ with one’s teeth:  one should bite the body of Christ with one’s teeth, says he, in the place previously alleged:  which is to be shuddered at.  Westphal[13] also understands the same:  see Calvin contra Heshusium,[14] page 843.

(6.)  If the body of Christ were in, with, and under the bread:  certainly Christ should be adored in, with, and under the bread.

But the consequent is false:  as the Lutheran Theologians themselves admit, at the assembly of Torgau, Error 15 (although the consequent did not appear absurd to Luther and other Lutherans:  see Breviar. Ubiquitist., page 228.22).  Therefore also the antecedent.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  that wherever we know Christ to be with His body in a certain singular manner, there we rightly and piously adore Him.

To this pertain all the arguments that militate against bodily presence:  see Exercitation 99.

X.  Hitherto the opinion of the Lutherans.  The Papists interpret the words of Christ, This is my body, in this manner, that my body lies hidden under the accidental appearances of bread:  into which body the substance of the bread has been transmutated by the power of the words, This is my body.

Whence we gather two things:

(1.)  That the Papists do not retain τὸ ῥητὸν, the literal use, of the words of Christ.

(2.)  That the interpretation of the Papists is false.

That the Papists do not retain τὸ ῥητὸν, the literal use, of the words of Christ, we prove:

(1.)  Because the bread, which Christ took, broke, and said to be His body, and which Paul constantly calls bread, they interpret only as the accidental properties of bread, namely, its color, taste, smell, and external figure.

(2.)  Because Christ understood His true and natural body, visible, palpable, circumscribed in a certain place, furnished with the certain dimensions and figure of a human body.  The Papists obtrude the body of the Church, under the accidental properties of bread, invisible, impalpable, without local circumscription, just dimensions, and a human figure.

XI.  That the interpretation of the Papists is false, which μετουσίαν/ communion/participation, that is, the transmutation of the bread into the body of Christ, they teach, we prove:

(1.)  Because Christ has only one body, made once of the substance of the Virgin Mary:  Therefore, the same is not made daily and infinitely of bread.

(2.)  Because the transmutation of the bread into the body of Christ removes from the supper the sign, namely, the bread, and so its sacramental character is destroyed:  For there is no sacrament without a visible and substantial sign.

(3.)  Because that which Christ gave to be eaten by His disciples, Paul also calls bread after its consecration, 1 Corinthians 11.

But the accidental properties of bread alone are not bread.

(4.)  Because nowhere does the Scripture say, that of the bread is made the body of Christ.  Whence some doctors of the Papists, like Scotus,[15] Pierre d’Ailly,[16] and others, confess that transubstantiation is not able to be proven from Sacred Scripture.

(5.)  If the body of Christ is under the appearances of bread, certainly the body now glorified is ground and pulverized by the teeth.

(6.)  If the bread in the supper is changed into the body of Christ, it follows, that Christ is daily created anew by the priests of the mass.

But the consequent is blasphemous:  Therefore also the antecedent.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  because there is no reason why the transmutation of earth into a human body, formerly done by God in the creation of man, is called a creation, rather than the transmutation of bread into the body of Christ, which is feigned daily to be done through the Pope’s sacrificing priests.

But the consequent does not appear blasphemous to the Papists.  Whence that blasphemous utterance of the sacrificing priests is vomited out:  He that created me without me, is now created by me.  Is it dreadful to hear? that a most miserable and generally wretched creature has the Creator so in his power, that he is able to create, to make, and to remake Him at will.

XII.  The principal and almost sole argument and bulwark for the Pope’s transubstantiation is sought from the words of Christ:  This is my body.

Whence the Jesuit Becanus[17] argues, Theologiæ Scholasticæ, de sacramentis in specie, chapter 18, question V, § 17:

(1.)  Christ said; This, that is, this bread is my body:  Therefore, either He speaks of the bread transformed into the body of Christ, or of the bread as bread.  If the former, the Papists have what they want.  If the latter, Christ’s proposition is false:  because bread made of wheat is not properly the body of Christ.

Response:  The disjunctive axiom is not legitimate and necessary:  because it is evident from the insufficient enumeration of the opposed members.  We add, therefore, a third member:  or of the bread, as it is a sacrament:  which we receive.  For because of the sacramental union the names of the things signified are attributed to the sacramental symbols themselves:  as we have elsewhere shown.

(2.)  This, which I hold in my hands, is the true body of Christ.

Therefore, it is not bread.

The rationale of the consequence:  because the body of Christ and bread are disparate things.

Response:  I deny the consequence:  the proof is invalid.  For a disparate thing is able to be affirmed truly of a disparate thing, although improperly.  Thus bread is the true body of Christ, but improperly, and in sacramental expression.

(3.)  Bellarmine, book 3 de Eucharistia, chapter 19, was not able to prove Transubstantiation from any other argument sought from the Scriptures, except this one:

When Christ, in blessing the bread, said, This is my body:  either He changed it actually and properly into His body:  or He changed it improperly and figurative, by adding a signification that it did not have:  or He changed it in no way.

If He changed it actually and properly, the transubstantiation of the Papists obtains, and so, what is contained under the appearance of bread, is no longer bread, but the body of Christ.

If He changed it figuratively, the opinion of the sacramentarians obtains (thus he styles the Orthodox), which the Papists and Lutherans reject in the common sense, as false.

If He did not at all change it, it would follow, that the bread was not truly and properly changed into the body of Christ, which is obviously false and absurd.

Response:  We choose the middle option, and say, that that the bread was changed improperly and figuratively, that is, with respect to use and service:  because He made this the sacrament of His body, which previously was not a sacrament, but only common bread.  Neither does it hinder, that the Lutherans and the Papists reject this opinion:  for in this controversy the truth does not stand by the judgment of the Papists or of the Lutherans, but by the judgment of Sacred Scripture.  When the Greek Fathers make mention of the μεταστοιχειώσεως, or transmutation of the elements in the Lord’s Supper, they understand nothing other this figured, consisting in the mutation of use and service.

THESIS IX:  Hitherto the principal efficient of the Lord’s Supper.  The Instrumental is the minister of the word, to whom it belongs, according to the appointment of Christ, to offer the sacramental symbols.

EXPLANATION:  * Why the Lord’s Supper ought to be administered only by ministers of the word lawfully called, Brochmand[18] renders these reasons, of which we approve:

(1.)  Because the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments are conjoined, Matthew 18:19.

(2.)  Because ministers of the word are co-laborers with God and stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Corinthians 3:6; 4:1; Titus 1:7.

(3.)  Because no one ought to take this honor to himself, but he that is called as Aaron was, Hebrews 5:4.

(4.)  Because only those that are able to examine the faith of a man making use of this sacrament ought to administer it, 1 Corinthians 11:28.  But this properly belongs to pastors.

But the fifth reason, which he subjoins:  because the supper is not as necessary as baptism:  it is of no moment.

[1] The Neuter Article.

[2] The Masculine Article.

[3] Georgius Pasor (1570-1637) was a Reformed theologian and learned philologist; he served as Professor of Theology at Herborn (1607-1626) and Professor of Greek at Franeker (1626-1637).

[4] Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534) was an Italian Dominican.  He was a theologian of great repute, and a learned proponent of a modified Thomism (Neo-Thomism).  Due to his considerable talents, he was made a cardinal.  Cajetan proved to be one of the more able opponents of the Reformation.

[5] Commentaria in Summam theologicam Angelici Doctoris sancti Thomæ Aquinatis.

[6] Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) was a German Lutheran theologian and reformer.  He served as Professor of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at Heidelberg (1519-1522).

[7] Thomas Stapleton (1535-1598) was an English Catholic controversialist.  He was instrumental in the establishment of the English College at Douai.

[8] Luke 23:31.

[9] John 19:25-27.

[10] Johannes Œcolampadius (1482-1531) began his career as a cathedral preacher at Basel.  During the first motions of reformation in Germany, he sided with Luther on many issues.  He allied himself with Zwingli, and through preaching and debate he convinced the magistracy of Basel to embrace the Reformation.  He was a man of considerable skill in Greek and Hebrew, and commented extensively on the Scriptures.

[11] Genesis 3:15.

[12] The Palladium was a cultic image of Pallas Athena, believed to keep Troy safe, but stolen by Odysseus, and taken by Æneas to Rome.  The term is used figuratively of anything believed to provide protection.

[13] Joachim Westphal (1510-1574) was a German Reformer and Gnesio-Lutheran Theologian.  He is remembered for his vigorous defense of the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper against the Reformed.

[14] Tilemann Heshusen (1527-1588) was a Gnesio-Lutheran churchman, theologian, and controversialist.  He served as Professor of Theology at Rostock, Heidelberg, Jena, and Helmstedt.

[15] John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), known as the Subtle Doctor, was a Scottish Franciscan theologian and philosopher.  He lectured and wrote on Lombard’s Sentences, and is remembered for his highly influential form of philosophical Realism.

[16] Pierre d’Ailly (1351-1420) was a French cardinal, theologian, and astrologer.  He was heavily involved in the Great Papal Schism.

[17] Martinus Becanus (1563-1624) was a Flemish Jesuit priest and controversialist.  He taught theology at Würzburg, Mainz, and Vienna.

[18] Caspar Rasmussen Brochmand (1585-1652) was a Danish Lutheran theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Copenhagen (1615-1639).  He composed Universæ Theologiæ systema.