essence of the bread into the body, and of the whole essence of the wine into the blood; which change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation."1

The same doctrine meets us in the canons of the Council of Trent:

"If any one denieth that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue: let him be anathema,"

"If any one saith that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species only of the bread and wine remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema." 112

The doctrine of the Greek Church is for substance the same as the doctrine of the Roman Church. According to the Roman liturgy the bread and wine are literally transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ by the consecration of the priest when he repeats the words of institution: This is my body. According to the Greek liturgies the presence of the body and blood of Christ is effected by the invocation of the Holy Ghost, which follows the recital of the words of institution.3

2. The original Lutheran doctrine as taught by Luther in his Smaller Catechism, 1529, and by the Formula of Concord, written in 1576, published in 1580, differs on the one side from the Roman dogma, and on the other from the doctrine of Zwingli and Calvin.

1 Creeds of Christendom, I., p. 99. 2 Creeds of Christendom, II., p. 136. 3 Creeds of Christendom, I., p. 325.

It denies that the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. It denies also that in the celebration the crucified body and shed blood of Christ are absent and wanting. The doctrine affirms that the crucified body is present and eaten by the mouth in, with and under the bread, that the shed blood is present and by the mouth drunk, in, with and under the wine. The words of the New Testament are not to be otherwise received than as the words themselves literally sound, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of the sacramental union the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ. The believer and the unbeliever alike partake of the body and blood by the mouth, the former unto salvation, the latter unto condemnation. Says the Formula of Concord:

"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 together with the bread and wine."

"We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are taken with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith, but also by the mouth, nevertheless not Capernaitically, but after a spiritual, heavenly manner, by reason of the sacramental union."

"We believe, teach, and confess that not only true believers in Christ and such as worthily approach the Supper of the Lord, but also the unworthy and unbelieving receive the true body and blood of Christ; in such wise, nevertheless, that they derive thence neither consolation nor life, but rather so as that receiving turns to their judgment and condemnation, unless they be converted and repent."1

The words of Christ: Take, eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood, are "understood in the simple and literal sense as they sound." "The true and natural body of

Formula of Concord, Art. VII., 1, 2, 6, 7. Schaff's Creeds, III., 137.

139, 140.

Christ which hung on the cross, the true and natural blood which flowed from the side of Christ, are exhibited and received" in the Supper, "not only spiritually, but by the mouth, with the bread and wine, yet in an inscrutable and supernatural manner, not only by the worthy, but also by the unworthy," though with different effect.'

Lutherans and Reformed alike emphasized the necessity of personal faith in Jesus Christ in order to a worthy participation in the Lord's Supper. The difference between the two Confessions comes to view chiefly on three questions:-(1) Whether the natural body of Christ and the natural blood of Christ were exhibited and received in, with and under the bread and wine. (2) Whether the body and blood of Christ are by the mouth received in the Supper with the bread and the wine. (3) Whether the unworthy and unbelieving receive the true body and blood of Christ. The Lutherans gave an affirmative answer to each of these questions. The Reformed gave a negative answer to each. The Reformed Church denied. the presence in the Supper of the natural body of Christ and of His natural blood; by logical consequence they denied also the oral manducation of His natural body, whether by the worthy or the unworthy. Instead the Reformed Church affirmed a spiritual manducation, a communion of Christ in His glorified humanity with believers, and with believers only, in the observance of the Supper.

This difference of teaching respecting the Supper implies a difference concerning the person of our Lord, especially concerning His humanity and the relation which His humanity bears to His Deity.

1 Cf. The Saxon Visitation Articles, 1592, Art. I., 1, 4, 5, 6.

3. There is no room to question the truth of the proposition that the Supper is a commemorative ordinance. According to Luke and to Paul our Lord says: This do in remembrance of me.' The bread broken represents the body crucified; the cup represents the shedding of His blood. The transaction stands as the memorial of Christ offering Himself a sacrifice for the sin of the world. Too much emphasis cannot be put on the commemorative aspect of the ordinance, provided that its commemorative significance be held in conjunction with the truth that the ordinance is in the Holy Spirit a communion of the body and blood of Christ. If the reality of communion be ignored or overlooked, the doctrine of commemoration becomes a defective doctrine. Its deficiency is evident even if we do no more than apply to the entire transaction the idea of symbol.

Not only is the bread broken, not only is the wine poured forth into the cup, but the disciples were commanded to cat the bread and drink the cup. The eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup are symbolical acts no less

The Revisers and the great body of biblical scholars take Luke xxii. 20 to be genuine, whilst Westcott and Hort put the passage in brackets. A brochure on "The Origin of the Lord's Supper," by Percy Gardner, Litt. D., has recently revived the question respecting the genuineness of the words of Luke: "This do in remembrance of me." Considered historically and scientifically, the argument does not justify reasonable doubt. Whatever may be the final issue of textual criticism, the commemorative significance of the Supper will be unaffected, for that does not hinge on the words of Luke xix. 20 or of Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24. The representation of the institution as given by the evangelists, the words of Paul occuring at other places in this Corinthian Epistle and all direct and indirect references to it throughout the New Testament, imply both the symbolism of the Supper and the obligation of perpetual observance by the Church.

than the breaking of the bread and the pouring forth of the wine. If the eating and the drinking are symbolical as truly as the bread and the cup, the meaning can be no other than this, that the 'body' of Christ which the bread represents is the 'true meat' of the believer, and that His 'blood' which the cup represents is the 'true drink.' As the believer eats the bread and drinks of the cup so he partakes of the body and blood of Christ. Thought cannot logically stop short of this conclusion. Otherwise the principle of symbolical interpretation becomes inconsistent with itself, being applied only to a part, not to the whole, of the sacramental transaction.

Among the Reformers of the 16th century Zwingli stands as the chief representative of the symbolical construction; but his doctrine does not exclude the idea of a communion of the body and blood of Christ. The controversy which he conducted against the Church of Rome was directed principally against the doctrine that in the Mass there is offered to God a propriatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, which led him antithetically to lay stress on the symbolism of the natural elements and of the celebration of the sacrament. Developing his conception in opposition to this Roman dogma, he was in a degree betrayed into overlooking the reality of the presence of Christ in the Supper and of His communion with His people. When compared with the subsequent development of the Reformed doctrine by Calvin, Zwinglian teaching is to be pronounced defective; yet the defect is only relative. In truth Zwingli does emphasize the communion of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper as really as the symbolism of the Supper, as really, but not adequately nor consistently.