The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

most important in regard to this presence, we would remark: 1. That it is
not finite, either physical, or local, or definite, but infinite and divine. 2.
That as there is not one mode only of divine presence, but that presence
may be general, or gracious, or glorious, as the scholastics distinguish it,
so this presence (of the body and blood of Christ) is neither to be referred
to the general nor the glorious, but to the gracious; so that it constitutes
that special degree of this gracious presence which is styled sacramental.
That which is supernatural is also true and real. When this presence is
called substantial and bodily, those words designate not the MODE of
presence, but the OBJECT. When the words in, with, under, are used, our
traducers know, as well as they know their own fingers, that they do NOT
signify a CONSUBSTANTIATION, local co-existence, or impanation.
The charge that we hold a local inclusion, or Consubstantiation, is a
calumny. The eating and drinking are not physical, but mystical and
sacramental. An action is not necessarily figurative because it is not
physical."
Musaeus, 1681.
MUSAEUS (d. 1681): 498 "On the question, By what mode (quo
modo) that which we receive and eat and drink in the Holy Supper is
Christ's body and blood, we freely confess our ignorance." "The
sacramental eating is sometimes called spiritual, that is, an eating not gross,
not carnal, but wholly incomprehensible--the mode is supernatural, and
beyond the grasp of the mind of man...That gross and carnal eating which
the Capernaites (John vi.) imagined is denied by the Formula of Concord,
and when Calvinists attribute this view to us, they are guilty of calumny." 499
Scherzer, 1683.
SCHERZER (d. 1683): 500 To the objection that the particles "in,
with, under, imply an inclusion of the body of Christ in the bread and a
concealing of it under the bread, and a consequent reduction of the body to
the proportion and dimensions of the bread," he says: I. "From presence to
locality, no inference can be drawn. Those particles imply presence, not
locality. For they are exhibitive, not inclusive.
498 De Sacra. Coena. Jenae., 1664, 85.
499 Praelect. in Epitom. Formul. Concord. Jenae, 1701, 4to, 259, 260.
500 Collegium Anti-Calvinianum, Lipsiae, 1704, 4to, 606, 630, 632.