Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:6

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's 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; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

The Confession denies in rather strong terms the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is consistent with the position of generations of English and Scottish Reformers. Several statements deserve comment:

1. Repugnant to Scripture and common sense and reason. The former, because there is no Scriptural support for the doctrine and it is inconsistent with the way miracles are portrayed therein (see John 2:1-11 for an example of real transubstantiation); the latter, because it is a “miracle” that is not miraculous—there is no evidence of any real change. The Roman Catholic treatment of pertinent passages is eisegetical.

2. Overthrows the nature of the sacrament. Again, the sign is not the thing signified.

3. “A lying sign and wonder”—the cause of manifold superstitions, even gross idolatries. See 2 Thessalonians 2:9. The belief that the elements of bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of Christ (when they are not) leads naturally to adoration and worship, which is idolatry.

Tomorrow: The Reformed view of the Supper.