Basic HTML Version
635
so-called manducatio oralis, which means that those who partake of the elements in the Lord’s
Supper eat and drink the Lord’s body and blood “with the bodily mouth”, and not merely that
they appropriate these by faith. Unworthy communicants also receive them, but to their
condemnation. This view is no great improvement on the Roman Catholic conception, though it
does not involve the oft-repeated miracle of a change of substance minus a change of
attributes. It really makes the words of Jesus mean, ‘this accompanies my body’, an
interpretation that is more unlikely than either of the others. Moreover, it is burdened with the
impossible doctrine of the ubiquity of the Lord’s glorified human nature, which several
Lutherans would gladly discard.
3. THE ZWINGLIAN VIEW.
There is a very general impression, not altogether without
foundation, that Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper was very defective. He is usually alleged to
have taught that it is a bare sign or symbol, figuratively representing or signifying spiritual
truths or blessings; and that its reception is a mere commemoration of what Christ did for
sinners, and above all a badge of the Christian’s profession. This hardly does justice to the Swiss
Reformer, however. Some of his statements undoubtedly convey the idea that to him the
sacrament was merely a commemorative rite and a sign and symbol of what the believer
pledges in it. But his writings also contain statements that point to a deeper significance of the
Lord’s Supper and contemplate it as a seal or pledge of what God is doing for the believer in the
sacrament. In fact, he seems to have changed his view somewhat in the course of time. It is
very hard to determine exactly what he did believe in this matter. He evidently wanted to
exclude from the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper all unintelligible mysticism, and showed an
excessive leaning to the side of plainness and simplicity in its exposition. He occasionally
expresses himself to the intent that it is a mere sign or symbol, a commemoration of the Lord’s
death. And though he speaks of it in passing also as a seal or pledge, he certainly does not do
justice to this idea. Moreover, for him the emphasis falls on what the believer, rather than on
what God, pledges in the sacrament. He identified the eating of the body of Christ with faith in
Him and a trustful reliance on His death. He denied the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s
Supper, but did not deny that Christ is present there in a spiritual manner to the faith of the
believer. Christ is present only in His divine nature and in the apprehension of the believing
communicant.
4. THE REFORMED VIEW.
Calvin objects to Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, (a) that it
allows the idea of what the believer does in the sacrament to eclipse the gift of God in it; and
(b) that it sees in the eating of the body of Christ nothing more nor higher than faith in His
name and reliance on His death. According to him the sacrament is connected not merely with
the past work of Christ, with the Christ who died (as Zwingli seems to think), but also with the
present spiritual work of Christ, with the Christ that is alive in glory. He believes that Christ,