pascimus, quam qui ipsum Christum e cœlo detrahunt. Ingenue interes confiteor, mixturam carnis Christi cum anima nostra vel transfusionem, qualis ab ipsis docetur, me repudiare, quia nobis sufficit, Christum e carnis suæ substantia vitam in animas nostras spirare, imo propriam in nobis vitam diffundere, quamvis in nos non ingrediatur ipsa Christi caro. Comp. also 10: Nos vero talem Christi præsentiam in cœna statuere oportet, quæ nec panis elementa ipsum affigat, nec in panem includat, nec ullo modo circumscribat, etc....Cæterum his absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque corporis et sanguinis Domini communicationem, quæ sub sacris cœnæ symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter recipio atque ut non imaginatione duntaxat aut mentis intelligentia percipere, sed ut re ipsa frui in alimentum vitæ æternæ intelligantur. Against the Hamburg preacher, Westphal (1552), Calvin defended himself in the most definite way from the charge of holding to a merely spiritual presence; but he also equally denied a local presence of Christ's body, and limited his statements to a dynamical. Defensio II. p. 68-72: Ita Christum corpore absentem doceo nihilominus non tantum divina sua virtute, quæ ubique diffusa est, nobis adesse, sed etiam facere, ut nobis vivifica sit sua caro.... Reclamat hic Westphalus, me spiritus præsentiam opponere carnis præsentiæ; sed quatenus id faciam, ex eodem loco clare patere malevolentia excæcatus non inspicit. Neque enim simpliciter spiritu suo Christus in nobis habitare trado, sed ita nos ad se attollere, ut vivificam carnis suæ vigorem in nos transfundat.

Slightly as Zwingle and Calvin differed respecting the Lord's Supper, the divines at Zurich at first looked with some mistrust upon the theory of the latter (Lavater, Histor. Sacram. p. 98.) But the Agreement

between the churches of Zurich and Geneva was set forth in the Consensus Tigurensis, where it is said distinctly, No. 21: Tollenda est quælibet localis præsentiæ imaginatio. Nam quum signa hic in mundo sint, oculis cernantur, palpentur manibus: Christus, quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in cœlo, nec aliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quærendus est. Quare perverso et impia superstitio est, ipsum sub elementis hujus mundi includere. 22: Proinde, qui in solennibus cœnæ verbis; Hoc est corp. m. etc., præcise literalem, ut loquuntur, sensum urgent, eos tamquam præposteros interpretes repudiamus. Nam extra controversiam ponimus, figurate accipiendia esse, ut esse panis et vinum dicantur id quod significant.-Comp. also Conf. Gall. Art. 36. Helv. II. c. 21. Belgica 35. Anglica 34. Scot. 21. In some Calvinistic symbols the positive element is prominently brought forward, but something is always added in order to prevent any close approach to the Lutheran view. Thus it is said in the Catechism of Heidelberg, Qu. 76: "What do ye understand by eating the crucified body of Christ, and drinkthe blood which he shed on the cross? Answ. By this we understand, not only that we accept with a believing heart the sufferings and death of Christ, but also, that by the influence of the Holy Ghost, who dwells at the same time in Christ and in ourselves, we are so intimately united to his blessed body, that although he be in heaven and we on earth, we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, and eternally live, and are governed by one spirit (as the members of our body are governed by one soul.")-Confess. Sigism. c. 8:...." Therefore we simply abide by the words pronounced by

Christ at the institution of this ordinance-viz. that the bread is his true body, and the wine his true blood, sacramentally, i. e. in the manner in which God ordained and instituted the holy sacraments of both the Old and the New Test., that they should be visible and true signs of the invisible grace communicated by them; and in the manner in which our Lord himself signifies, that the holy Eucharist is a sign of the New Testament (covenant), but not a mere sign, nor an empty one, and instituted for the commemoration of Christ's death.. ..... that thus it might be a memorial of consolation, a memorial of gratitude, and a memorial of love." 9: "And inasmuch as faith is, as it were, the mouth by which we receive the crucified body of Christ, and the blood shed for us, his electoral grace holdeth with steadfastness, that this sacrament does not help unbelievers, or those who do not repent, and that they do not participate in the true body and blood of Christ." For further passages see Winer, p. 138, ss. Schenkel, i. 561, sq. Ebrard, ii. 402, sq. The idea of an elevation of the soul to heaven is from à Lasco; see Ebrard, ii. 535.

14 Formula Concordiæ, vii., p. 732: Non propter alicuius aut personam aut incredulitatem verbum Dei (quo Cœna Domini instituta est et propter quod rationem Sacramenti habet) irritum et vanum fieri potest. Quia Christus non dixit: Si credideritis aut digni fueritis, tum in Cœna sacra corpus et sanguinem meum præsentia habebitis, sed potius ait: Accipite, edite et bibite, hoc est corpus meum, etc.... Verba Christi hoc volunt: Sive dignus sive indignus sis, habes hic in Cœna Christi corpus et sanguinem. Comp. 743: Quod autem non tantum pii et credentes in Christum, verum etiam indigni, impii, hypocritæ (v. g. Judas), et hujus farinæ homines.... etiam verum corpus et verum sanguinem Christi ore in Sacramento sumant, et grande scelus indigne edendo et bibendo in corpus et sanguinem Christi admittant, id D. Paulus expresse docet, etc.

16

By doing violence to the rules of grammar (viz. by inverting the order of subject and predicate) Schwenkfeld and Krautwald made out this sense : My body which is given for you, is the very thing which I distribute among you-viz. bread, a real food, and the efficacious means of preserving eternal life. As analogous instances they adduced: the seed is the Word of God; the field is the world; the rock was Christ. See Das Buch vom Christenmenschen (Werke, Bd. i. p. 898). Schenkel, i. 556; Planck, v., i., p. 90. Schwenkfeld also insisted upon the mystical aspect of the Lord's Supper: "From the fountain of God's love and sweetness, we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, to strengthen the conscience, quicken the heart, and for the increase of the inner man in all the spiritual riches of God." "The bread of eternal life must be well masticated (i. e. thoroughly contemplated) by all who eat it. They eat it, and have eaten thereof, who have grasped this act of the New Testament and of our salvation with true faith, and who know, that they are not only redeemed by this same body of Christ which was broken for us, but that it also has other food and nourishment, and power to everlasting life." (Werke, i. 911; in Schenkel, ubi supra). Comp. Erbkam's Protest. Secten im Zeitalter der Reform., 468.

"Cat. Rac. qu. 334: (Cœna Domini) est Christi institutum, ut fideles ipsius panem frangant et comedant et ex calice bibant, mortis ipsius annunci

andæ causa. Quod permanere in adventum ipsius oportet. Ib. qu. 335:, (Annunciare mortem Domini) est publi ceet sacrosancte Christo gratias agere, quod is pro ineffabili sua erga nos caritate corpus suum torqueri et quodammodo frangi et sanguinem suum fundi passus sit, et hoc ipsius beneficium laudibus tollere et celebrare. Ib. qu. 337: Nonne alia causa, ob quam cœnam instituit Dom., superest? Nulla prorsus, etsi homines multas excogitarint, cum alii dicant esse sacrificium pro vivis et mortuis, alii usu ipsius se consequi peccatorum remissionem et firmare fidem sperant, et quod eis mortem Domini in mentem revocet, affirmant. Comp. Socinus, De Coena Domini, p. 753, 6, where the effects commonly supposed to be produced by the sacrament are ascribed to the word, with which the ceremony is only externally connected.-Ostorodt, Underichtung, says, p. 230, that the Lord's Supper is only a ceremony, and is called a sacrament without any reason: see Fock's Socinianismus, p. 573 sq. The Socinians regarded the controversy between the Lutherans and Calvinists as mere logomachy, and sharply criticised their entire forgetfulness of Christian love in strife about such a matter. They avowed their agreement with Zwingle. See Fock, p. 577.-Concerning the views of the Arminians, see Confess. Remonstrant, 23, 4, and Limborch, Theol. Christ. v. 71, 9 ss. (where he combats the doctrine of the Lord's Supper as held by orthodox Calvinists). The opinions of the Mennonites on this point will be found in Ries, Conf., Art. 34 (Winer, p. 135).

"Comp. § 258, note 7.

18

[Westminster Confession, chap. xxix.: Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body. 2. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but only a commemoration of that once offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. 5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before. 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally nor carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses. 8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive

the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord to their own damnation.]

19 Article xxviii. of XXXIX Articles. Of the Lord's Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another: but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, can not be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.-The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.-The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.Article xxix. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper. The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather to their condemnation, do eat and drink, the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing. [The quotation from Augustine is an interpolation; the words are not found in any of the 20 MSS. of Augus tine collated for the Louvain and Paris edition. See Porson's Letters to Travis, p. 229.] Article xxx. Of both kinds.-The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.—Article xxxi. Of the One Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross. The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.-On the general subject of the position of the English Church in respect to the doctrine, see Tracts for the Times, No. 81: The testimony of writers of the later English Church to the Doctrines of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, with an Historical Account of the Changes made in the Liturgy as the Expression of that Doctrine. Burnet on the Articles, pp. 402-465. Pusey on the Real Presence, ubi supra. W. Goode, Nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, 2, 8vo., 1856. John Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unveiled, 1st ed., 1714, 2nd ed., 1724, in Oxford Library of Anglo-Catholic Divines, 2 vols., 1847. Rev. John Patrick, Fall View of Doctrine and Practice of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist, Lond., 1638, reprinted in Gibson's Preservative.]

The doctrinal differences of the various denominations are closely connected with the

respective modes of celebrating this ordinance. The principal difference is this, that the Roman Catholic Church persisted in withholding the cup from the laity, while all other parties, inclusive of the Greek Church, demanded that it should be restored to them. (See Note 3, and the passages quoted from their symbolical writings by Winer, p. 145– 147.) On the usage about the host (in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches, partly also in the Reformed Church), and as to the bread (in the Greek and Reformed Churches); on the breaking of the bread in the Reformed Church, and the reception with the hand instead of the mouth; on the elevation of the host; on the manner in which the congregation receive the sacrament (whether they go to the table, or remain in their seats); on the modes and formulas of distribution; on private communion, auricular or general confession, etc., comp. the works on archæology and those on liturgies. Ebrard, Abendmahl, ii. 794– 796.-The strict Lutherans opposed the breaking of the bread, for the following, among other reasons, in the Consensus Repetitus Fidei Vera Luth. punct. 72 (in Henke, p. 56): Profitemur et docemus, panis fractionem et vini effusionem in ora fidelium non fuisse factam a Christo ob repræsentationem mortis dominicæ, sed ob distributionem inter communicantes, adeoque úproxλacíav non fuisse formalem seu essentialem ritum hujus sacramenti, sed tantum ministerialem, qui facerat ad meliorem distributionem.-It was a fundamental principle of Protestantism, that the participation in the Lord's Supper should be a communion shared in common: Luther also at first adopted this view (see his Letters, ed. De Wette, iv. p. 160), and sanctioned even the communion of the sick only conditionally (ibid. V., p. 227). Differences of usages were introduced into the Lutheran and Reformed Churches only at a later period.

§ 260.

INTERNAL FLUCTUATIONS AND FURTHER DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT.

Though the existing differences of opinion rendered impossible an immediate union between the various sections of the Protestant Church, there were not wanting those who, on the one hand, may be styled Crypto-Calvinists,' and, on the other, Crypto-Lutherans.' But the existence of these parties gave rise to increased efforts on the part of the orthodox theologians in either church to establish a more precise definition of their distinguishing doctrines, and to secure them against corruption and misinterpretation. The schoolmen made a three-fold distinction in the Lord's Supper-viz. between matter, form, and end, or object, which were again subdivided according to various categories.' The mystics, abiding by the mysterious import of the doctrine, took no part in the ecclesiastical controversies;" some of them even showed that each of the principal sections of the church rests on a religious idea, the living appropriation of which is, in their opinion, the principal thing in this ordinance, whatever meaning may be attached to it.' Among Roman Catholic writers, Bossuet endeavoured to defend, on philosophical grounds, the doctrine of transubstantiation and of the mass," while the Jansenists and Roman Catholic Mystics rigidly retained the doctrine of the church. But they directed their attention not so much to dialectical arguments for the mere notion, as to the mysterious effects which this sacrament produces upon the internal man."