1689 30.6

30.6. Of the Lord's Supper

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of Bread and Wine, into the substance of Christs body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a Priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross Idolatries.

Proof texts

• Acts 3:21 — [21] whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.
• Luke 24:6, 39 — [6] He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, [39] See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
• 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25 — [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

For discussion

1. The Assembly cited Acts 3:21 in support of this answer. Read it in context — how does it bear on what is claimed here?
2. 3 passages are cited here. Which does the most work, and is anything claimed that the proofs do not obviously carry?
3. WSC Q88 treats the same ground. What does it add, and why might it put things differently?
4. WLC Q149 treats the same ground. What does it add, and why might it put things differently?

Read alongside

WSC Q88 · WLC Q149 · WCF 27.1 · HC Q65 · BC 8.1 · BC 8.2 · BC 8.3 · SD 28.1