The Mystical Presence

by John Williamson Nevin

As the Eucharist forms the very heart of the whole Christian worship, so it is clear that the entire question of the Church, which all are compelled to acknowledge, the great life-problem of the age, centres ultimately in the sacramental question as its inmost heart and core. Our view of the Lord's Supper must ever condition and rule in the end our view of Christ's person and the conception we form of the Church. It must influence at the same time, very materially, our whole system of theology, as well as all our ideas of ecclesiastical history. -- excerpt from the Preface to "The Mystical Presence" This edition is a word-for-word copy of the 1846 publication of John Williamson Nevin's classic "vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist." Significant effort was made to balance the original text's style with modern typesetting and legibility.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Church History, Nonfiction

246 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1846

Reviews

[Booketeer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here's the myth: Roman Catholicism invents the idea that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper actually conveys grace. This eventually becomes the superstition of Transubstantiation. Then Luther and Calvin rise up and liberate the masses from such belief in magic. Luther never quite liberates himself, but Calvin gives us Luther's justification by faith undergirded by nothing more than hard-core predestinarianism. The sacraments are simply symbols, pictures, and/or dramatizations of a spiritual truth designed to bring it into the participant's remembrance.

Nevin's The Mystical Presence: A Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist was a reality check for American Evangelicalism. He demonstrated that the assumption of American "puritans" that their heritage came from sixteenth-century Geneva was a delusion. Calvin believed and taught repeatedly and emphatically that believers truly partook of Christ's flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper. The idea that the Eucharist was a "naked" symbol was a complete abomination in Calvin's eyes.

Nevin's makes his case masterfully. He quotes copiously from Calvin to show that His view of the real presence of Christ in the rite was not an obscure part of his teaching but an essential component of his theology. He also explains how Calvin's view of the Eucharist was essential to his soteriology. For Calvin, a person is not saved from the wrath of God simply because God imputes "in a merely outward way" Christ's righteousness to him. A person is saved because he is incorporated into Christ's human body so that he is more intimately bound to Christ than a branch to a tree, a member of a body to his head, or a human to Adam. Only those united to Christ in this way by the power of the Holy Spirit can benefit from Christ's righteousness, having it imputed to them as His glorified human life is imparted to them. This is the same once-and-for-all forensic declaration, but it is not baseless, in Nevin's view. Those who belong to Jesus have his righteousness. Calvin was not unambiguous on this point.

The Lord's Supper, says Nevin, according to Calvin and the other sixteenth-century Reformers, renews and strengthens this union. We are truly given Christ's human body by the Holy Spirit when we partake of the Sacrament. Anything less would not be sufficient for our salvation and sanctification.

Nevin carefully distinguishes Calvin's view not only from the socinians and other rationalists, but from that of traditional Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Regarding the former, Nevin must have made his contemporary Evangelical readers wince when he pointed out that their view was identical to that of Unitarians and other liberals of the day. On the other hand, unlike tran- and consubstantiation, Calvin's view did not allow for actual material particles to be locally present in the elements or to pass into the bodies of partakers.

Probably one of the most difficult aspects of Calvin's view was his insistence on a real participation in Christ's flesh and blood without any matter being transported into the participant. Thus, Nevin's attempt to formulate and improve on Calvin's explanation is perhaps one of the most valuable aspects of the book. Nevin make the rather obvious but head-aching comment that a physical organism does not consist in particular physical particles! Living human beings pass out and ingest new particles all the time. Our human body is actually a "law" or "force" which must have matter to exist but is not identical with it. An acorn is considered identical to the oak tree which grows from it, but the oak tree is exponentially more massive and probably does not possess one material particle in common with the acorn from which it originated. By these analogies Nevin clears away the conceptual difficulties which make Calvin's view hard to believe. It would do no good if mere dead particles from Christ's flesh were transported into us. What we need is Christ's life. By the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ's resurrected, glorified, human life is given to us so that we become sharers in it.

There is much else of value in Nevin's work, more than I can recite from memory as I punch out this brief review. Perhaps the most questionable portion of Nevin's work is his exegesis.
The texts he uses are very similar to those used by Richard Gaffin in Resurrection & Redemption: A Study in Pauline Soteriology. In other words, Nevin was a century ahead of the cutting edge of conservative Reformed scholarship.

Anyone claiming to be Evangelical and/or Reformed needs to read this book. There is simply nothing else like it. You will never be the same again.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nevin argued that modern Puritan theology, manifested in the revivalistic tendencies of the Hodges of Princeton and the Dabneys of the South, represented a signficant deviation from Calvin's eucharistic theology. And as Nevin goes on to argue, given the life-giving importance of the Eucharist for the church, this was a major deviation, indeed.

Nevin simply summarizes and improves Calvin's eucharism. He argues that in the Lord's Supper we feed upon the humanity of Christ (flesh and blood) through faith by the Holy Spirit. Against late Roman Catholicism we see Christ's humanity in heaven with the Father. However, Calvin would say that "gap" (bad terminology, but go with it at the moment) is bridged by faith or the Holy Spirit.

Nevin improves that language by positing humanity as an organic whole. Christ is the Vine, and we are the branches. This is a significant improvement, but one not without its problems. Reformed (and Anglican) exegetes in the 20th century would improve this with their theologies of the Resurrection.

Nevin also includes a damning critique of American sacramental theology. There is simply no way to get around the evidence. The American Reformed church treats the sacrments lower--waaaay lower--than their Reformed ancestors. Low sacramental theology necessarily denigrates the role of the sacraments in the Church. How often does your church celebrate the Supper?

[Grant Van Brimmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some dense reading but a very profound explanation and expansion of Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. I'd say Nevin definitely takes it up a notch. Essentially, Nevin sees the efficacy of the Supper due to the fact of the incarnation, that our salvation is through union with Christ, and that sacraments have been given especially to establish and nurture that union. A great analogy used to show the gradual growth from glory to glory in which the eucharist is crucial is that of an acorn and oak tree. Really happy to finally get to this book. I'll be revisiting it in the future for sure.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great.

[Ross · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this lesser known but high calibre work, Nevin crafts a comprehensive and convincing argument for a recovery of the real, spiritual presence of Christ through Holy Communion. Examining positions within the earth church, and drawing extensively on the reformed confessions and catechisms, Nevin displays how the leading puritan thought of his day had departed from the historically orthodox position with regards to the Eucharist. How much more prevalent this is now with the rise of evangelicalism and departure from mainline Christianity's historical roots.

While difficult to read at points, with some arguments going over my head, the case is rigorous and convincing. The protestant branch of the church has a rich history, one which it would do well to reflect on and remember, since currently many 'protestant', and even 'reformed' churches would be unrecognisable to those who died to see its creation.

[William Schrecengost · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book on the Lord's Supper. He gives a brief overview of the Catholic and Lutheran views, but spends a good bit of time going over the Reformed Confessions, quotes from Calvin and other reformers supporting a Spiritual Presence view of the Eucharist. He also gives many quotes from modern Puritans showing the current normative view of a symbolic communion and nothing more. He shows different aspects of the church's relationship to Christ. He does get a little more in depth nearer the end of the book, using Greek and Latin. I think this is geared more toward pastors and elders than to laymen, so I'm sure I missed some stuff. Even so, this was a very good book on communion and I'd recommend it to anyone looking to learn more about it.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nevin is at his best in this book when speaking directly on the mystical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He generally assumes that Lutheran and Catholic theology is wrong, which is unfortunate but understandable when speaking to a Reformed audience. Even still, he writes more than he needs to in many areas. Some of his historical observations and conclusions are, in my opinion, suspect, but his analysis of early Reformed theology seems solid. His argument that doctrines of the Lord’s Supper have shifted is convincing. The worst charge I have against Nevin is that he is Reformed and not Lutheran.

[Paul Yanchek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good for academic purposes

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lives up to the hype

[Adam Ross]

Review to follow.