to the fact that the moat important teacher of the early Western Church held a doctrine of the Lord's Supper scarcely distinguishable from that of the " heretics " Berengar, Wyclif, Calvin, and their followers. But the result of his actual teaching was also an important one. He checked the development toward transubstantiation in the West.
Among the theologians of the last period of the early Church, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Facundus of Hermiane, and Isidore of Seville represent a more or less genuine Augustinian view, while besides the pseudo‑Ambrose Ceesarius of Arles and 4. Transub‑ Gregory the Great belong to the realstsntistioa. istio‑dynamic school in which the dynamic was growing less and less as the realistic assumed prominence. Both traditions came down side by side to the Carolingian age. The renaissance of Augustinianism which characterizes that period brought the symbolic view to the front among theologians, though not, of course, in the popular mind, and though the theologians admitted a real dynamic change in the elements and asserted as freely as Augustine that the bread " receiving the benediction becomes the body of Christ." The stage which had been reached may be seen in the controversy between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus (qq.v.). There is little difference between their formulas; but Ratramnus showed a survival of the spiritualistic attitude, which was ended only in the conflict with Berengar (q.v., see also LANFRANC; TRANSUBSTANTIATION). Lanfranc went beyond Paschasius Radbertus only by .the single important step of asserting the real presence for the unworthy as well as for the worthy; but other opponents of Berengar went further. Guitmund of Averse, was the first of the Western upholders of this change to assert clearly the lotus ix toto et lotus in qualibet parts, " the whole in the whole and the whole in any particular " ; he also used the terms substance and accidents in their later sense ‑asserting that the substance was changed, while the " accidents of the former essence " remained. This completed the doctrine of transubstantiation, though the word first became a dogmatic expression in the first half of the twelfth century (1215), and by its use in the confession of the fourth Lateran Council. The subtle minds of the schoolmen found much ogcupation in further refinements upon it, to which, however, little attention was paid in the final settlement of the Roman Catholic doctrine at the Council of Trent (see below, IV.). The Cateckismus Romauus, indeed (IL, iv. 42), borrows from Thomas Aquinas the distinction that Christ is present not"by way of quantity" but "by way of substance "; and the doctrine of concomitance, first. brought up by Anselm, proved serviceable in defending the practise of the laity in communing only in one kind.
Considering the infinity of varying views which the first fifteen centuries produced, we shall not be surprised to find that the Reformation period was 6. Tea ohias able to evolve but few new ones.
of the Many abuses which had grown up
8eformers. around the sacrament were swept away,
many ideas which distorted and dis
honored it were denied; the sacrifice of the mass,
as a propitiatory offering, was no more; the adorer
tion of the sanctissimum, exposition, the festival of Corpus Christi, were abolished, and communion in both kinds restored. But the positive ideas of the Reformation, even Luther's own, are scarcely any of them new. If Luther, after 1520, replaced transubstantiation by the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the untranaformed elements, he was only following out a possibility already indicated by Nominalist schoohnen; he appeals to Pierre d'Ailly when he first brings forward this idea (De captivitate Babylonicd, in Tl'erke, vi. 508). He placed the benefit of the sacrament almost exclusively in the remission of sins, as the upholdders of the symbolio‑sacrificial view had done before him; and when he twice connected the immortality of the body with reception, he was adopting the Greek realistic‑dynamic view which he knew from IrenEeus. The doctrine of ubiquity on which he based his conception of the real presence (see UBIQUITY) was taken from the Nomina,liats, though carried further than scholasticism had carried it. [It seems probable that Luther's doctrine of ubiquity was closely connected with his doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum (q.v.), which latter came to him through mysticism from the Neo‑Plar tonic Christian thought. If so, it had its root in realism rather than in nominalism and was essentially Eutychian. Luther's mind was not sufficiently philosophical to grasp the points at issue between realism and nominalism, to which fact were due in part his inconsistencies.‑w. a. N.] The really new thing with Luther is the explanation of the "this is " by the grammatical figure of synecdoche, by which "one names a whole and means only a part," as when " a mother points to the swaddling‑clothes in which her child is wrapped, saying, ` This is my child."' Zwingli and Calvin followed Augustinian paths. The former accepted only the symbolic‑sacrificial idea, separated, of course, from any thought of a sacrifice in the Eucharist; Calvin has also the notion of the "spiritual eating of the body and blood of Christ " in a form modified by realiatiodynamic ideas. That both of them found the symbolic part of the " this is my body " in " is " ( = signifual) has, it is true, no exact parallel in ancient days. But the point where they placed the symbol is comparatively unimportant‑this " tropical " explanation was not new, and the gloss of (Ecolampadius‑" this is a figure of my body "‑‑combines Augustine's sense with words of Tertullian.
In order to understand the sequence of events among the Lutherans, three things must be borne in mind: the extremely conservative character of Luther's original teaching and practise e. Doctrine in this matter, Melanchthon's gradual
is the departure from it, and the lateness of
Lab~,othe real effect of Luther's teaching on
ubiquity. The popular mind paid
little heed to fine distinctions, and saw no great
difference between transubstantiation and conaub
stantiation. Luther's catechisms, which soon be
came, if informally, the standard of teaching, as
serted that " under " (or " in and under ") " the
bread and wine the true body and the true blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ is imparted [to all re
ceivers] as a certain pledge and sign of the benefit
of the sacrament (to the faithful only), the remission of sins." The manner in which the form of public worship was but slightly changed from the pre‑Reformation mass produced a similar impression on the ordinary mind. The fact, then, was all the more notable that from 1531 Melanchthon drew away more and more from this position. As early as that date he dropped the doctrine of ubiquity, and somewhat later the "in the bread"; by 1535 he was sympathizing with the " tropical " meaning given to the words of institution, and then, though obscurely, abandoning the reception by the wicked; while toward the end of his life he agreed in all essentials with Calvin. About 1555 the doctrine of ubiquity began to have its effect. The Philippista (q.v.) were then directly attacked, after Melanchthon's death, as " crypto‑Calvinieta," and theological discussion turned with considerable heat to the question of the Lord's Supper, and to the doctrine of the Incarnation which the teaching on ubiquity connected closely with it. After the downfall of the Philippists in Saxony, it was possible to formulate definitely the anti‑Philippiat, anti‑Calvinist teaching in article VII. of the Formula Conr cordite (see section IV. and the article, FoRnarrre
Among the " Reformed " Churches‑4hose which were neither Lutheran nor Anabaptist‑there was a general agreement from Zwingli's time that " the body and blood of Christ " were not, as with Luther and the Roman Catholics, the " sign of the sacrament " but the benefit which only the faithful,
" spiritually eating," received; that 7. The accordingly the " this is" must be
great majority of the strictly " Reformed " bodies;
but to take a wide general view of the infinite gra
dations between the strict Calvinistic belief and the
rationalizing of the Zwinglian view into a mere ob
servance in commemoration of Christ would re
quire far too much space. (F. Loop,)
The position taken on the subject by the great Church of England divines represents a via media between the opposing views already cited, and differs essentially from that of any other reformed
church. It is true that, with the extraordinary latitude allowed in that church to the teaching of the clergy, all possible views from absolute transubstantiation to fiat Zwinglianism
8. The may be found at the present day; but A.usN°an none the lees there is a traditional Doctrine. attitude which may be designated se characteristically Anglican. Ire exponents call it simply the doctrine of the real presence, and lay distinguishing emphasis on the fact that " our dootrine leaves this subject in the sacred mystery with which God has enveloped it " (William Palmer, Treatise on the Church of Christ, London, 1838). The same idea is expressed at greater length by Bishop Andrewes (1555‑1628) in his answer to Bellarmine: " The Cardinal is not unless ` willingly, ignorant' that Christ bath said ` This is my body,' not ` This is not my Body in this mode.' Now about the object we are both agreed; all the controversy is about the mode. The ` This is' we firmly believe; that' it is in this mode' (the Bread, namely, being transubstantiated into the Body), or of the mode whereby it is wrought that ` it is,' whether in, or with, or under, or transubstantiated, there is not a word in the Gospel." In another place he quotes with approval, as does also Jeremy Taylor, a saying attributed to Durandus, " We hear the word, feel the effect, know not the manner, believe the Presence." Archbishop Laud (15731845) asserted in his conference with Fisher, " As for the Church of England, nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist." The denial, in the so‑called " Black Rubric " appended to the communion service, of the " corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood " is intended, not to deny the real presence, but to strike at certain gross material views current among insufficiently educated people in the period just before the Reformation.
III. Confessional Statements: * The Roman Catholic doctrine is officially given in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Seas. XIII., Oct. 11, 1551 (ii. 128‑139). The principal points are:
" In the Eucharist are contained truly, really, sad substantially, the body and blood, togothor with the COIF bid divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ "‑Can. 1.
" The whole substance of the bread is [converted] into the body," and " the whole substance of the wine into the blood."‑Can. 2.
The whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when eepasated."‑Can. 8.
" The principal fruit of the moat holy Eucharist is the remission of sins."‑‑‑Can. b.
" In the Eucharist, Christ is to be adored."‑Can. 8.
" All and each of briet'e faithful are bound to communicate every year."‑Can. 9.
" Sacramental confession is to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin."‑‑Can. 11:
The same view is taught, though lees distinctly, in the Greek Church in the Orthodox Confession q/'
the Eastern Church, Ques. CVL, CVII. (ii. 380‑38b); in the Confession of Dositheua (ii. 427‑432); in the Longer Catechism of the Eastern Church, quest 310; " 't u8t i the 1:011l11lbnion / ' A sacraiment, in which the
believer, under the forma of bread and wine, partakes of the very Body and Blood of Christ to everleetiug life" (ii. 49b)
e The references are to Philip Schaff. TAa Crtcde of Chriatandoal. 8 voL.. New York, 1877.
Lord's Supper THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG S8
" The true body end blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine, and are there communicated to and received by those that eat in the Lord's Supper " (iii. 13).
Afterward Melanchthon changed this article in the edition of 1540, substituting for distribuantur (" communicated ") ezhibemntur (" shown "). This departure occasioned much controversy. The Lutheran doctrine is thus given in the Formula of Concord (1576), Art. VIL, Affirmative:
" We believe, teach, and confess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and that they are truly distributed and taken togather with the bread and wine " (iii. 137).
The authoritative teaching of the Reformed Churches is thus given: First Helvetic Confession (1536), XXIIL:
" The bread and wine [of the Supper] are holy, true symbols, through which the Lord offers sad prevents the true communion of the body and blood of Christ for the feeding sad nourishing of the spiritual and eternal life " (iii. 22b).
So also in the Second Helvetic Confession, Cap. XXI. (iii. 291‑295).
The French Confession of Faith (1559), XXXVL, =VIII.:
" The Lord's Supper is a witness of the union which we have with Christ, inasmuch as he not only died and rose again for us once, but also feeds and nourishes us truly with his flesh and blood, so that we may be one in him, and that our life may be in common."
" The bread and wine in the sacrament serve to our spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as they show, as to our eight, that the body of Christ is our meat, and his blood our drink"' (iii. 380, 381).
The Scotch Confession of Faith (1560), Art. XXL:
" The faithful in the richt use of the Lord's Table do so eat the bodie and drinks the blade of the Lord Jesus that he remains in them and they in him " (iii. 467‑474).
The Belgic Confession (1561), Art. XXXV.:
" Christ that he might represent unto us this spiritual and heavenly bread bath instituted an earthly and visible bread as a Sacrament of his body, and wine as a Sacrament of his blood, to testify by them unto us, that, as certainly as we receive and hold this Sacrament in our hands, and eat and drink the same with our mouths, by which our life is afterward nourished, we also do as certainly receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our scale, for the support of our spiritual life " (iii. 428‑431).
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Ques. 76:
" What is it to eat of the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ? It is not only to embrace with s believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and life eternal, but moreover, also, to be so united more and more to his sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that although he is is heaven, sad we ere upon the earth, we are nevertheless flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by the one soul " (iii. 332, 333).
The Thirty‑Nine Articles of the Church of England (1562), Art. XXVIIL:
" 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 it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to ouch as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a [heavenly and spiritual] partaking of the Body of Christ: and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ " (iii. 505).
So the Irish Articles of Religion (1615; iii. 542, 543).
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), chap. XXIX.:
" The Lord's Supper [is] to be observed for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing of all benefits thereof with true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement is and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be s bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body."
" Worthy believers do inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally,'but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death " (iii. 863‑687).
The WeatminsterShorterCatechism (1647), Ques.96:
" What is the Lord's Supper? A sacrament wherein by the giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, his death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all its benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace " (iii. 897.
The Confession of the Society of Friends (1675), Thirteenth Proposition:
" The communion of the body and blood of Christ is inward and spiritual, which is the participation of his flesh and blood, by which the inward man is daily nourished in the hearts of those in whom Christ dwells; of which things the breaking of bread by Christ with his disciples was a figure, which they even used in the Church for a time, who had received the substance, for the cause of the weak; even as ' abstaining from things strangled, and from blood'; the washing one another's feet, and the anointing of the sick with oil; all which are commanded with no leas authority and solemnity than the former; yet seeing they are but the shadow of better things, they cease in such as have obtained the substance " (iii. 797).
Reformed Episcopal Articles of Religion (1875),
" The Supper of the Lord is a memorial of our Redemption by Christ's death, for thereby we do show forth the
Lord's death till by come. It is also a symbol of the soul's feeding upon Christ. And it is a sign of the communion that we should have with one another " (iii. 823).
IV. The Liturgy in the Churches of the Reformation.‑1. Luther and the Lutheran Church: Although Luther hoped for a complete renewal of the whole life of the people by the preaching of a pure gospel, he did not try to attain this end by making his own external arrangement of the 1. Luther's ordinances of public worship. LookFirst Form. ing upon himself as a member of the one Church, and bearing in mind how the people were accustomed to liturgical forma, he concluded to retain as much of the Roman mass as did not conflict with the word of God. His order for the celebration of the Lord's Supper is, therefore,, only to be fully understood by a comparison with the Roman Mass (q.v.). He kept the first part of it almost unchanged as far as the creed; but the introduction of a sermon at this point made a sharp division between the misam catechtcmenprtcm and the offertory and canon which followed. In regard to the offertory of the mesa, Luther declares in his Formula misam (1523) that from that point nearly everything savors of a sacrifice, and that nocordingly, repudiating all that has this meaning, he has retained what is pure and holy. On this basis, he struck out the offertory and the five following prayers, and went on, after the creed and sermon, to (a) the preface of the Roman mesa, somewhat abridged, and then immediately to (b) the words of institution in Latin, beginning, as in the mesa, " Qtti pridie quam pateretur," but leaving out all
the additions not found in the Scriptural text and adding the Scriptural words " good pro vobis stator " after " hoc est corpus meum "; (c) the Sanctus and Hosanna, during the singing of which (d) the elevation was to take place. Then followed (e) the Lord's Prayer, (f) the Pax Domini, (g) the Communion, during which the choir was to sing (h) the Agnus Dei. He left optional a prayer from the mesa, and the old formula of .administration " Corpus (Sartguis) Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodial animam loam." The service closed with (i) two poet‑communion prayers from the mass, (j) the Benedicamus Domino, to be sung invariably with the addition of Alleluia; (k) the blessing of Aaron (Nom. vi. 24‑27), which had never been used except in the Spanish liturgy.
Three years passed between the publication of Luther's Formula misses and his Deutsche Mesas and Ordnung des Gotteadienatea. During this time a number of other services came into use. The earliest German mass known is that composed in
1524 by Kantz, a preacher of Nord2. Lather's lingen. There is a Latin one of 1524
Revised at Nuremberg, which in the following
Form. year began to be used in German with a few changes; this is characterized by the introduction of a German exhortation to the communicants immediately before the Pax. The same feature is found in a Prussian vernacular service of 1525, but is lacking in the Strasburg order of the same year. Luther's new service of 1526 retained his earlier Latin form for week‑days, but introduced the German form for Sundays. In the latter the preface was replaced by a paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer and an exhortation supposed to be written beforehand, of which Luther gives an example not intended to be binding; this was no innovation, but a medieval custom, which seems to have arisen in South Germany. During the communion of the people, either a German paraphrase of the Sanctus, or another German hymn, or the Agnus Dei was to be sung, followed by a new German prayer.
Although Luther did not regard the form drawn up by him as in any way generally obligatory, the types appearing in these two services became models for the Lutheran liturgies of the sixteenth century. These Kirchenordnungen may be generally described as follows: At the beginning of the
celebration, as prescribed by Luther, $• vsriaat the communicants were to take their
Lutheran places in the choir, the men on the
~°"n'' south and the women on the north. The preface was either retained as in Luther's two forms, or replaced for ordinary SUpdg3rg by an exhortation, or both preface and exhortation were used. In Southern Germany a general confession and absolution followed. The same variety appears in regard to the retention of the Sanctus and Hosanna, which were still sung in Latin in North Germany, elsewhere in either Latin or German. During the Saws, some liturgies prescribed three German prayers to be said by the celebrant; one for secular rulers, one for the ministers of the word, and one for Christian unity. Other new prayers were added in different places before the
consecration. As the moat important and indispensable part of the liturgy, all retained the words of institution, through which the tell consecration of the elements for their sacred purpose was auppoaed to take place. Luther omitted the sign of the cross made over the elements, and no aixteenthcentury service has it, while the Hanover form of 1536 directly forbids it. It is first mentioned in the Lutheran Church by Johann Gerhard in the begining of the seventeenth century as " an indifferent ceremony," possessing " no spiritual force "; and afterward it occurs not infrequently. The breaking of the bread and the placing of a fragment of it in the chalice were dropped because the former was connected with the Roman Catholic theory of sacrifice, and the latter with the denial of the cup to the laity. Unleavened bread was still generally used, but the mixture of wine and water was discontinued; the recitation of the words of institution was ordered to be in a loud voice, con. trary to the Roman usage. The elevation of the elements after consecration was retained by Luther expressly for the sake of weak brethren who might be offended by too many striking changes in the service; and it was retained also in a number of sixteenth‑century forms. The place of the Lord's Prayer, generally sung in German, varied. Though Luther had omitted the Pox Domini in his German
I mass, it was frequently retained in the light of a formula of absolution. The usual manner of distribution was for the minister to communicate first himself and then the people, placing the bread directly in their mouths. First the men and then the women were to approach; occasionally the young were to come before the old. Stress was frequently laid on provision that none of the consecrated elements should remain or be thrown away at the conclusion of the service. Luther first retained the Roman formula of administration as permissible, but gave no formula in his German mass. The other services show a great variety in this regard; but ultimately the struggle against Crypto‑Calvinism (see PHILIPPIaTS) brought about an agreement to adhere either to something like the Latin formula, or to the other one which had been frequently used, " Take and eat; this is the body of Jesus Christ, which is given for you." The later Lutheran formula. came into use first in 1647 at Ltibeck, where through Bugenhagen's influence no formula had previously been used. The blessing of Aaron generally concluded the service after Luther's example. The old liturgies tended more and more to fall into disuse, under the influence of Pietism, with
its depreciation of lituT01 (Qrui ana gull mom
Under that of rationalism. The preface was al‑
most universally omitted and replaced by exhortations in the spirit of the time. The words of in‑
stitution, however, and the Lord's Prayer (the latter frequently in a weak paraphrase), were still
8. Zwingli: Zwingli at first (1523), in relation to the order of di‑trine service, adhered to the canon of the mass; but in his treatise De canoree misses
errichireais he expressed himself with much severity about this part of the mass. In place of the offertort' he inserted a general prayer. Then he went