Enea Sylvii Historia Bohemica c. 35. Hermann von der Hardt, Acta Conc. Constant. T. iii. p. 338, ss. Gieseler, Church History, ii. p. 32, § 151. The approbation of Hus was given later. Comp. De Sanguine Christi sub Specie vini a Laicis sumendo, quæstio M. Joannis Hus, quam Constantiæ conscripsit priusquam in carcerem conjiceretur, in Joannis Hus Historia et Monument. Norimb. 1558, T. i. fol. xlii. ss., loc. cit. iii. 431, sq. 'Sess. xiii. (A. D. 1415, June 15th) see in Herm. von der Hardt, Tom. iii. Col. 646, ss., quoted by Gieseler, 1. c. p. 382, note 6, and Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 266: Firmissime credendum et nullatenus dubitandum, integrum corpus Christi et sanguinem tam sub specie panis quam sub specie vini veraciter contineri. * Mansi T. xxx. Col. 695: Sancta vero mater ecclesia, suadentibus causis rationabilibus, facultatem communicandi populum sub utraque specie potest concedere et elargiri.-Nevertheless the council adhered to the earlier canon : Nullatenus ambigendum est, quod non sub specie panis caro tantum, nec sub specie vini sanguis tantum, sed sub qualibet specie est integer totus Christus, etc.; compare also Sess. xxx. (A. D. 1437, Dec. 23d) in Mansi xxix. Col. 158. Gieseler, 1. c. p. 441. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, pp. 267, 268. § 196. DISSENTING OPINIONS. After the doctrine of transubstantiation had been thus established, it was only now and then that a few individuals ventured to dissent from it, or, at least, to modify the commonly received notion. Thus in the twelfth century, Rupert of Duytz (Rupertus Tuitiensis), judging from some passages in his works, supposed that the body of Christ is united in a wondrous way with the bread, without any disturbance of the sensible elements.' John of Paris (Johannes Pungens-asinum) narrowed the notion of Rupert into the scholastic idea of impanation, according to which the corporeitas panis (paneitas) forms a union with the corporeitas Christi-an idea which would readily work upon the fancy in a more repulsive way than the more daring doctrine of transubstantiation.' William Occam also inferred the co-existence of Christ's body with the accidents, from the nominalistic theory about the quantity of things, and thus partly prepared the way for the later Lutheran view. Similar opinions were taught by Durandus de Sancto Porciano. On the other hand, Wycliffe combated the doctrine of transubstantiation, as well as that of impanation, with acute polemics. His views were probably adopted by Jerome of Prague, while Hus expressed himself in accord with the orthodox doctrine of the Church." John Wessel attached particular importance to spiritual participation in the Lord's Supper, and asserted that none but believers can partake of the body of Christ. Though he retained the idea of a sacrifice, allied to the Catholic view, he applied it mystically to the spiritual priesthood." 1 "Concerning Rupert of Duytz, it is difficult to state his opinion in precise terms, inasmuch as he expressed himself at different times in different ways." Klee, Dogmengeschichte, p. 202. But compare his Commentary in Exod. Lib. ii. c. 10: Sicut naturam humanam non destruxit, cum illam operatione sua ex utero Virginis Deus Verbo in unitatem personæ conjunxit, sic substantiam panis et vini, secundum exteriorem speciem quinque sensibus subactam, non mutat aut destruit, cum eidem Verbo in unitatem corporis ejusdem quod in cruce pependit, et sanguinis ejusdem quem de latere suo fudit, ista conjungit. Item quomodo Verbum a summo demissum caro factum est, non mutatum in carnem, sed assumendo carnem, sic panis et vinum, utrumque ab imo sublevatum, fit corpus Christi et sanguis, non mutatum in carnis saporem sive in sanguinis horrorem, sed assumendo invisibiliter utriusque, divinæ scilicet et humanæ, quæ in Christo est, immortalis substantiæ veritatem.-De div. Off. ii. 2: Unus idemque Deus sursum est in carne, hic in pane. He called the bread, Deifer panis.-Panem cum sua carne, vinum cum suo jungebat sanguine. But he also spoke of the bread and wine being converted and transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Compare the passages quoted by Klee, 1. c. [Panis et vinum in verum corpus et sanguinem Domini transferuntur; Div. Offic. ii. 2. Cum igitur vino verbum crucis et passionis accedit, quæ ratio vetat, ut non idem sanguis, qui pro multis in remissionem peccatorum fusus est, debeat credi?.... Non percipiens ea, quæ sunt Dei, videlicet, quia nec panis, nec vinum, aliquid de exteriori specie mutavit, idcirco sapere non potes, nec vis, quod vere factum sit corpus et sanguis Domini: in Johan. vi. On Rupert, comp. Neander, Hist. Dogm. 531. On Malachias, abp. of Armagh, see ibid. 532.] "He died A. D. 1306. He wrote. Determinatio de Modo existendi Corpus Christi in Sacramento Altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia; this work was published Lond. 1686, 8. Comp. Cas. Oudinus, Dissertatio de Doctrina et Scriptis Jo. Parisiensis, in Comment. de Scriptt. Eccles. T. iii. Col. 634, ss. Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xxviii. p. 70, ss. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 256-58.* 3 It is of special importance that he acknowledged the impossibility of proving the doctrine of transubstantiation from Scripture (Quodl. iv. Qu. 35). He developed his own views in his Tractatus de Sacramento Altaris, and elsewhere; the passages are collected by Rettberg (Occam und Luther, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 1). Though Occam retained the orthodox doctrine of the accidents (§ 193, note 6), he could not attach any distinct meaning to the notion that the substance of the elements had vanished, because he was still obliged to conceive of the body of Christ and the bread * As early as the middle of the thirteenth century several professors in the University of Paris had been charged with holding incorrect opinions concerning the Lord's Supper; see the letter addressed to Pope Clement IV. in Bulæus, vol. iii. pp. 372, 373:....Esse Parisiis celebrem opinionem tunc temporis de mysterio Eucharistiæ, qua contendebatur, corpus Christi non esse vere in altari, sed sicut signatum sub signis. as being in one and the same place. Thus we may “suppose the real theory of Occam to have been this, that the body of Christ is contained in the host in the same manner in which soul and body together occupy one and the same space; and as the soul exists wholly in every member, so Christ exists wholly in every single host:" Rettberg, p. 93. Occam carried out his notion of the ubiquity of the body of Christ in the most paradoxical manner. The stone thrown into the air, is, in its transit, in the same place where the body of Christ is, etc. This ubiquity, however, is not the foundation, but the consequence, of his doctrine. See Rettberg, p. 96.-The systems of Occam and of Luther are compared with each other, ibid. p. 123, ss. • See Cramer, vii. pp. 804, 805, who says, none of the scholastics entertained views more nearly allied to those of Luther than Durandus." He did not directly oppose transubstantiation, but he conceded that there were other possible ways in which Christ might be present, and particularly this, that the substance of the bread might remain, and the substance of the body of Christ be united with it. The hoc est might mean the same as-contentum sub hoc est. He distinguished between the matter and the form; the matter of the bread, he says, exists under the form of the body of Christ. Trialogus Lib. iv. c. 2-10, e. g. c. 6, p. 127 (alias, p. cix.): Inter omnes hæreses, quæ unquam pullularunt in ecclesia sancta Dei, non fuit nefandior, quam hæresis ponens accidens sine subjecto esse hoc venerabile sacramentum. He also opposed the doctrine of impanation, c. 8: Sum certus quod sententia ista impanationis est impossibilis atque hæretica. He could not endure the thought, that in that case the baker would prepare the body of Christ, instead of the priest !-According to Wycliffe, Christ is not present in the bread realiter, sed habitudinaliter, secundum similitudinem. In illustration of his views, he also referred to mirrors, in which the one countenance of Christ is reflected in various ways to the eyes of the devout. The conversio which takes place, is a change from the inferior to the superior (this was the ancient opinion, which was also adopted by Berengar). He distinguished (in his confession in presence of the Duke of Lancaster) atriplex modus essendi corpus Christi in hostia consecrata: 1. Modus virtualis, quo benefacit per totum suum dominium secundum bona naturæ vel gratiæ; 2. Modus spiritualis, quo corpus Christi est in eucharistia et sanctis per Spiritum Sanctum; 3. Modus sacramentalis, quo corpus Christi singulariter est in hostia consecrata. On the other hand, Christ is only in heaven, substantionaliter, corporaliter, dimensionaliter. Of like import are the following three, of the 10 Conclusiones Hæretica, which were condemned by the London Council of 1382 (Mansi, xxvii. 691): 1. Quod substantia panis materialis et vini maneat post consecrationem; 2. Quod accidentia non maneant sine subjecto; 3. Quod Christus non sit in sacramento altaris identice, vere et realiter. Comp. Ebrard, i. 501. Schröckh, xxxiv. 501, sq. [Vaughan's Life of Wycliffe.] Jerome of Prague at least was charged by the Council of Constance with holding such opinions as follows: Quod panis non transubstantiabatur in corpus Christi, nec est corpus Christi in sacramento præsentialiter et corporaliter, sed ut signatum in signo. Item, quod in hostia sive sacramento altaris non est vere Christus.-Christus passus est in cruce, sed hostia altaris nunquam est passa neque patitur; ergo in hostia in sacramento altaris non est Christus.-Mures non possunt comedere Christum; sed mures possunt hostiam consecratam comedere: ergo hostia in sacramento altaris non est Christus; see Hermann von der Hardt, T. iv. P. viii. p. 646.-On the other hand Poggi (Ep. ad Aretin.) gives the following relation: Cum rogaretur, quid sentiret de sacramento, inquit: Antea panem, postea vero Christi corpus, et reliqua secundum fidem. Tum quidam: Ajunt te dixisse, post consecrationem remanere panem. Tum ille: Apud pistorem, inquit, panis remanet; see Klee, Dogmengesch. ii. p. 205, note 7.-Hus did not oppose the doctrine of the church in decided terms; he only endeavored to justify himself on the point, that he believed in the real presence of the body of Christ, without entering into any further explanation of the modus; see his Tractatus de Corpore Christi in the above Histor. et Monum. fol. cxxiii. ss. Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 260. 'See Ullmann, p. 328–340 (where extracts are given from Wessel's treatises: De Oratione VIII., de Sacram. Eucharistiæ, especially c. 10, 24, 26, 27; Scal. Medit. Exempl. i. ii. iii.) In his opinion the Lord's Supper is the realization and appropriation of the love of Christ; but he is not aware of any essential difference between the presence and appropriation of Christ in the Lord's Supper and that of which believers are conscious without the sacrament. The spiritual participation of the body of Christ is the principal thing, not the sacramental. The sacramental act (the sacrifice of the mass) can be performed by none but the priest; the inward communion with Christ may be renewed by every Christian. § 197. THE GREEK CHURCH. The use of unleavened bread at the commemoration of Christ's death, which had been introduced into the Latin Church from the ninth century,' gave rise to a controversy with the Greek Church, in the course of which the latter went so far as to charge the former with the corruption of pure religion. As regards the doctrine of the sacrament itself, the Greek theologians agreed in the main with the divines of the Western Church, so far as this, that some of them propounded the doctrine of consubstantiation,' while others taught that of transubstantiation, but without inferring from it all the consequences which we find in the writings of the scholastics. The Greek Church also preserved the ancient custom of administering the Lord's Supper to the laity sub utraque forma.* 3 On this point see Neander, Church Hist. iii. 584. The hosts, properly so called (i. e., the consecrated wafers), did not come into use till later, and, according to some writers, not till the second half of the twelfth century. Compare J. A. Schmidt, de Oblatis Eucharisticis, quæ Hostiæ vocari solent. Ed. 2. Helmst. 1733-4. Augusti viii. p. 375, ss. This was done by Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo of Acrida with him, in a letter addressed to John, Bishop of Trani, in Apulia (in Baronius Aunals, ad ann. 1053, No. 22, and Canisius Lect. Antt. ed. Basnage, T. iii. P. 1, p. 281). He derived, strangely enough, the noun aρros from the verb atpw, and appealed, in support of his theory, to Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, 20, 26-28, as well as to Matt. v. 13, and xiii. 33 (the three measures of meal are, in his opinion, an image of the Trinity!)Division into Azymites and Prozymites (Fermentarii). Vain attempts of the Emperor, Constantine Monomachus, and the Pope Leo IX. to make peace.— The reply of Humbert (prim. ed. Baronius, in Append. T. xi.; Canisius, 1. c. T. iii. P. 1, p. 283, ss.) is given by Gieseler, ii. § 42, note 5. After the controversy had been carried on for some time (e. g., by Nicetas Pectoratus, and others, the Council of Florence at last granted permission to the Greeks to retain their own rite: see Mansi, T. xxxi. Col. 1029 and 1031. Comp. Schröckh, xxiv. p. 210, ss. Neander and Gieseler, 1. c. 'John Damascenus quoted (De Fide Orthodoxa iv. 13,) from the writings of Cyril, Jerome, and Gregory of Nazianzum, those passages which appeared to him to carry with them the greatest weight. He decidedly rejected the symbolical interpretation, p. 271: Οὐκ ἐστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ· μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλ' αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου τεθεωμένον, αὐτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου εἰπόντος. Τοῦτό μου ἐστὶν, οὐ τύπος τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλὰ τὸ σῶμα· καὶ οὐ τύπος τοῦ αἵματος, ἀλλὰ τὸ αἷμα. (Compare John vi.) He also used in illustration (applied likewise in Christology) the coal spoken of by Isaiah vi. 6: "Av@paž dè žúλov λitòv OŬK ÈOTIV, ἀλλ ̓ ἡνωμένον πυρί. Οὕτω καὶ ὁ ἄρτος τῆς κοινωνίας οὐκ ἄρτος λιτός ἐστιν, ἀλλ ̓ ἡνωμένος θεότητι· σῶμα δὲ ἡνωμένον θεότητι, οὐ μία φύσις ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ μία μὲν τοῦ σώματος, τῆς δὲ ἡνωμένης αὐτῷ θεότητος ἑτέρα· ὥστε τὸ συναμφότερον, οὐ μία φύσις, ἀλλὰ δύο. See p. 273, where he shows in what sense the elements may be called ȧvτíтvña (after the example of Basilides). [Baur, Dogmengesch. 217: In the Greek Church the development of doctrine attained in John of Damascus the point in which the old theology is summed up. He expressly declares, that the body in the Lord's Supper is the body of Christ born of the Virgin Mary: only with this dif ference, that the body raised to heaven does not actually descend; but it is his body, because the bread and the wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. The Holy Ghost effects this change in a supernatural way. On Zacharias of Chrysopolis, see Neander, Hist. Dogm. 531.] The views which the Greek theologians entertained with respect to the Lord's Supper, were also connected with the part which they took in the controversy concerning images; those who opposed the worship of images appealed to the fact, that we have an image of our Saviour in the Lord's Supper, which was denied by the advocates of that doctrine. Hence the decisions of the Synod of Constantinople (A. D. 754), and of the second Council of Nice (A. D. 787), contradict each other: see Mansi, T. iii., Col. 261, ss. 265, and Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 222. In the decrees of the Council of Nice it is distinctly stated, that neither Christ nor his apostles had called the elements used at the Lord's Supper images. Comp. Rückert, Das Abendmahl, 441, 37. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 533. [Constantinople declared the bread and |