course between Paschasius and Scotus, and came very near, in the main points of his doctrine, to the Lutheran hypothesis. Vide Lessing's work, Berengarius von Tours; Braunschweig, 1770, 4to.

It is known from Beda Venerabilis, that during the eighth century there were violent contests in the Western church respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and on the question how the elements are changed. And even at that time they began to give various explanations of the passages found in the writings of the earlier Latin and Greek fathers on this subject. After the ninth century, the tone and taste which began to prevail made it certain that of different theories on any theological point, that which is the most gross and material would gain the predominance.

It is no wonder, therefore, that the following opinion, first distinctly advocated by Paschasius Radbertus, a monk at Corvey, in the ninth century, should have received so general approbation-viz., "that after the consecration of the bread and wine nothing but their form remains, their substance being wholly changed, so that they are no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ. Their form continues, that no one may take offence at seeing Christians eating human flesh and blood."

This doctrine was not, indeed, current at that time, for it caused much commotion, and was strongly opposed by the monk Ratramnus, and John Scotus Erigena, and many others. They did not deny the presence of the body and blood of Christ; but they taught that this conversio or immutatio of the bread and wine is not of a carnal but a spiritual nature; that these elements are not transmuted into the real body and blood of Christ, but are signs or symbols of them. In many points they approximated to the opinion of the Reformed theologians.

As yet the councils and popes had determined nothing on this subject. In the meanwhile the doctrine of Paschasius became more and more general during the tenth and eleventh centuries. When therefore Berengarius of Tours, in the eleventh century, attacked this doctrine, he was strongly resisted, and obliged to take back his opinion. He denied any transmutation of the elements; but maintained that the bread and wine are more than mere symbols, and that the body and blood of Christ are really present in

After the twelfth century the theory of Paschasius was further developed by the schoolmen, and carried out into its results. Even Peter of Lombardy, in the twelfth century,

though he still speaks somewhat doubtfully respecting it. The inventor of the word transubstantiatio is supposed to be Hildebert, Bishop of Mans, in the eleventh century. Before him, however, the phrase commutatio panis in substantiam Christi had been used by Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres. This term became current in the twelfth century through the influence of Peter of Blois. It was not, however, until the thirteenth century that this dogma became universally prevalent in the Romish church. At the IV. Concilium Lateranense, 1215, under Pope Innocent III., it was established as the doctrine of the church, and confirmed by the Council at Trent, in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the protestants. According to this doctrine, this transmutation is produced by the sacerdotal consecration. Vide Calixtus, De Transubstantiatione; Helmstädt, 1675.

(4) Principal opinions respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, among the protestant theologians, since the Reformation.

There were three forms of doctrine on this subject which for many centuries had prevailed in the Western church-viz., (a) the theory of transubstantiation, advanced by Paschasius Radbertus, which afterwards became the prevailing doctrine of the church; (b) the theory, that the bread and wine are merely symbols of the body and blood of Christ, advocated principally by Joh. Scotus Erigena; (c) a theory which takes a middle course between the other two, maintaining that the body and blood of Christ are actually present in the sacramental elements, but without any transmutation of their substance; supported by Berengarius in the eleventh century. These theories continued, though under various modifications, after the sixteenth century, and were designated by the characteristic words, transubstantiatio, figura, unio. The Greek church still adhered to its old word METABOλŃ.

Both the German and Swiss reformers were agreed in rejecting the doctrine of transubstantiation as wholly unfounded. In this too they were agreed, that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the sacramental elements, and are imparted to the communicant when he

But in explaining the manner of this presence they differed from each other. Luther had a great attachment to many of the scholastic opinions and distinctions, and at first entertained a very high idea of clerical power and the pre-eminence of the priesthood. He therefore retained the doctrine of the schoolmen, de præsentia reali et substantiali, in such a way, however, as to exclude transubstantiation. His doctrine at first was, that "in, with, and under (in, cum, and sub, terms which he took from Bernhard) the consecrated bread and wine, the true and essential body and blood of Christ are imparted to the communicant, and are received by him, although in a manner inexplicable by us, and altogether mysterious." He held, therefore, that the body of Christ, which in its very essence is present in the sacred symbols, is received by the communicant, not spiritually merely, but (and here is the point of difference between him and the Swiss Reformers) realiter et substantialiter; so that both believing and unbelieving communicants partake of the real, substantial body and blood of Christ; the former to their salvation, the latter to their condemnation. The bread and wine are visibly and naturally received, the body and blood of Christ invisibly and supernaturally; and this is the unio sacramentalis, such as takes place only in this sacrament. In one passage he explains this unio sacramentalis by the image of heated iron; and in employing this illustration, borders close upon the error of Consubstantiation. He says also that what the bread and wine do or suffer, the same is done or suffered by the body and blood of Christ-they are broken, distributed, poured out, &c. By degrees, however, he abandoned these views, and was content with affirming the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, and with an indefinite manducatione orali.

The doctrine of the Swiss theologians, on the contrary, as exhibited by Calvin, who in some respects modified the view of Zuingle, was this: "The body and blood of Christ are not, as to their substance, present in the sacramental elements, but only as to power and effect; they are vere et efficaciter represented under the bread and wine; dari non substantiam corporis Christi in sacra eœna, sed omnia quæ in suo corpore nobis beneficia præstitit." Accordingly the body and blood of Christ are not present in space, and are not orally received by communicants, but spiritually, with a kind of manducatio spiritualis. Zuingle, however, maintained that the bread and wine are mere symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and seemed wholly to reject the idea of his real presence in these symbols.

Calvin, then, designed to take a middle course between Luther and Zuingle. Luther appealed to the words in which this rite was instituted, especially to iorí. He referred also to the divine omnipotence, by which the body of Christ might be made substantially present in many places at once. Cf. Morus, p. 266, s. 8. This was wholly denied by the Swiss theologians, as being contradictory. They contended, also, that there is no occasion or use for this substantial presence and communication of the body and blood of Christ, since it cannot contribute to make one more virtuous, pious, or holy. With regard to iori they remarked that, according to common use, even in the New Testament, it often means to signify, shew forth, (vide s. 143;) and the subject here requires that it should be so understood, since otherwise Christ is made to say what is untrue.

Luther, however, adhered to his opinion, especially after it became the subject of controversy. Melancthon was more calm and impartial, and wished to promote peace between the two parties. He therefore took the ground, especially after Luther's death, that it is better merely to affirm the presence and agency of Christ in the sacred symbols, without attempting minutely to define and limit the manner of this presence. He was not favourable either to the præsentia corporalis Christi, or to the manducatio oralis, but only affirmed præsentiam rɛalem et efficacem Christi in sacra cœna. therefore chose a middle way between Luther and Zuingle, and very nearly agreed with Calvin, who also pursued this middle course.

He

Many of the more moderate Lutheran theologians agreed with Melancthon, and seemed with him to incline to the side of Calvin. On the other hand, the zealots for the Lutheran theory insisted upon all the distinctions which Luther adopted, and even on some points went further than Luther himself. But in the electorate of Saxony the party of Melancthon became more and more numerous, and after his death the dreadful Crypto-Calvinistic controversies and persecutions broke out, (a. D. 1571.)

These and other controversies and disorders in the Lutheran church, and the necessity of doing something to establish the Lutheran form of doctrine, led to the adoption of the Formula of Concord, in the year 1577, which was then made a standard of faith, and adopted as an authorized symbol. In this the most minute boundary lines are drawn between the theories of the Lutheran and the Reformed church, by applying the new distinctions introduced into the doctrine of the union of the two natures in

s. 103, II., and s. 104. The Lutheran theologians of that period, especially Andreä, Chemnitz, and their followers, endeavoured to shew, by the theory of the intimate union of the two natures in Christ, and the communicatio idiomatum resulting from it, how Christ, as God-man, might be everywhere present, even as to his bodily nature, and that therefore he might be present at the sacrament of the Supper, and might unite himself with the elements, and through them with the communicants, and thus act upon them. This doctrine was called ubiquitatem corporis Christi, and the advocates of it were named contemptuously by their opponents Ubiquitista. The manner of the union of the body of Christ with the bread and wine was declared to be a mystery, (mysterium unionis sacramentalis.) And on this account the framers of the Formula of Concord would not decide positively of what nature it is, but only negatively, what it is not. It is not a personal union, as it is explained to be by many of the older fathers, (vide No. 2,) nor is it consubstantiatio; still less is it a union in which a change of the substance is effected, (transubstantiatio;) nor is it a union in which the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread and wine, (impanatio ;) but of an entirely different nature from any of these mentioned, and one which exists only in this sacrament, and therefore called sacramentalis. Cf. Plank, Geschichte des Protestantischen Lehrbegriff's bis zur Einführung der Concordienformel.

But these fine distinctions established in the Formula of Concord were never universally adopted in the Lutheran church. And especially in those places where this formula had no symbolic authority were its subtleties rejected. Many of the Lutheran theologians are more inclined to the moderate theory of Melancthon, or rather, have approximated towards it. Morus truly remarks (p. 268, n. A.) that the whole theory established in the Formula of Concord respecting the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, from the union of natures in his person, is justo subtilior.

II. Critical Remarks on these different Hypotheses. (1) All the different theories here stated are attended with difficulties. Transubstantiation contradicts the testimony of our senses, and has no scriptural authority, since these symbols are called in the scriptures bread and wine, and are therefore supposed to have the substance of bread and wine.

there are other objections to the Lutheran theory. If the substantial body and blood of Christ are present in the sacramental elements, and are received by the communicants, how, it might be asked,

(a) Could Christ, at the institution of the Supper, give his real body to his disciples to be eaten by them, and his real blood to be drunken by them, while they saw this body before their eyes, and he, yet alive, sat with them at table?

(b) How can the body of Christ be present, as to its very substance, in more than one place at the same time? and what object is answered by such a supposition? The conclusions deduced from the doctrine of the union of natures afford no satisfactory answer to these questions.

(c) How can the theory of the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, and of their being eaten and drunken by communicants, be reconciled with the words in which this supper was instituted? For Christ did not speak of his body then living upon the earth, which they saw before their eyes, and of the blood flowing in it; still less of his glorified body in heaven, but of his body slain on the cross, (víèp vμôv didóμevov,) and of his blood there shed, (aiua èxxvvóμevov.) If, therefore, the substantial and corporeal presence of Christ were meant, it must be the substance of that martyred body and of that perishable blood. But in this case we cannot understand how either of these can be still present, and imparted to communicants.

Difficulties of this nature induced Melancthon, as has been before remarked, to modify the Lutheran doctrine, and to adopt a theory less repulsive. But the theory of Calvin, though it appears to be so easy and natural, is also attended with difficulties; for even he admits of the presence of the body and blood of Christ, only not as to their substance, but, according to his view, believers alone receive the body and blood of Christ. But as soon as I admit that the body of Christ is present to believers only, this cannot be reconciled with 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29, as the opponents of Calvin have always remarked.

diversity of speculation on this point, may have alike in the Lord's Supper. Christ, when he was about to leave the world, no more to be seen by his followers with the mortal eye, left them this Supper as a visible pledge of his presence, his protection, and love.

(2) There are some theologians who think that the whole doctrine respecting the presence of Christ is destitute of proof, and is derived merely from the misunderstanding of the passage, 1 Cor. xi., and from the false interpretation of it given by the fathers. Their hypotheses, it is said, have not been sufficiently examined, but have been too credulously admitted, and other theories have been built upon them, after they had been previously assumed as true. This opinion might be called the Pelagian theory; not because it can be shewn that it was held by Pelagius himself, but because it has been usually adopted by those who are of the Pelagian way of thinking respecting the influences of grace. On this subject, vide Art. xii. They contend that in partaking of the Lord's Supper we are merely reminded of Christ, especially of his body offered and his blood shed on our account. According to this view, his body and his blood, while we thus commemorate his death, are present to our thoughts, in the same figurative way as the body of a deceased friend or benefactor may be present to our minds when we are thinking of him. This view is contrary to the New Testament; for it comes to nothing more than a mere remembrance of Christ, and an assistance from him, improperly so called. Vide s. 98.

They go on to say that Paul, indeed, in 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29, uses the words oua xai aiua Xpierov with reference to this ordinance; but that he does not affirm that the communicant eats the body or drinks the blood of Christ, but merely the bread and wine, ver. 28; and that although the ancient Christians sometimes spoke as if the body and blood of Christ were really received by communicants, (as was very natural, in accordance with John, vi.,) yet the same is true here which was spoken by Cicero, (Nat. Deor. iii. 16,) Cum fruges CEREREM, vinum LIBERUM dicimus, (panem, corpus Christi, vinum, sanguinem Christi,) genere nos quidem sermonis utimur usitato; sed quem tam amentem esse putas, qui illud, quo vescatur, Deum (corpus Christi) credat esse?

The difficulties in the way of this Pelagian theory, which leaves the Lord's Supper a mere ceremony, are stated by Morus, p. 267, note 5. He shews very clearly that this theory is not in the spirit of the other Christian ordinances. Cf. Storr on this article, in his System. The attempts of many modern writers who have discussed this point (those, e. g., cited by Morus, p. 266, s. 7, in the note) come to the same thing; for to many of them the doctrine of the nearness of Christ and his assistance-i. e., of his uninterrupted

activity in behalf of his followers, is extremely repugnant, because they do not see how they can reconcile it with their philosophical hypotheses, which, however, are wholly baseless. But this doctrine is clearly taught in the holy scriptures, and is one of the fundamental truths of apostolical antiquity.

(3) Many moderate protestant theologians are now of opinion that nothing was plainly and definitely settled by Jesus and the apostles respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, and that this doctrine cannot therefore be regarded as essential, but rather as problematical. Formerly this doctrine, relating merely to the manner of this presence, was regarded as a fundamental article of faith; hence each of the contending parties adhered zealously to its own theory, regarding it as the only scriptural one, and looking upon all who thought differently as heretics. This was the cause of that unhappy and lasting division which took place in the sixteenth century between two churches which agreed on fundamental doctrines, and which ought mutually to have tolerated their disagreement on this particular point. So judged Melancthon, and disapproved of the violent controversies of his age. Even in his learned writings he passed briefly over topics of this nature, and assigns as the reason of his not going more deeply into them, "ut a quæstionibus illis juventutem abducerem.”

Speculations respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ have not the least influence upon the nature or the efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What the Christian needs to know is, the object and the uses of this rite, and to act accordingly. Vide s. 145. He must therefore believe from the heart that Christ died for him; that now in his exalted state he is still active in providing for his welfare; and that hence it becomes him to approach the Lord's table with feelings of the deepest reverence and most grateful love to God and to Christ. Upon this everything depends, and this makes the ordinance truly edifying and comforting in its influence. These benefits may be derived from this ordinance by all Christians; and to all who have true faith, or who allow this ordinance to have its proper effect in awakening attention to the great truths which it exhibits, it is a powerful, divinely-appointed means of grace, whatever theory respecting it they may adopt,-the Lutheran, Calvinistic, or even the Roman-catholic transubstantiation, gross as this error is.

It is obvious, then, that all subtle speculation respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ should have no place in popular instruction, but should be confined to learned and scientific theology. In the present state of things, however, these disputed points cannot be wholly omitted in public teaching.