Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume X.djvu/645

LOED'S SUPPER 639 should be given to the laity under both forms. But they differed among themselves concern- ing the true sense of the words of institution and what constituted the essence of the sacra- ment. Luther maintained the real and sub- stantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, taking place, not by a transmutation of the external elements, but by a super- natural and inconceivable union (unio sacra- mentalis) of the body and blood of Christ with the consecrated bread and wine. Christ is present, according to the words of the larger catechism of Luther, in, with, and under the bread, and is received not only by the good, but also by the wicked. In connec- tion with his doctrine of the Lord's supper Luther maintained the ubiquity of the body of Christ. The objective effect of the Lord's sup- per, according to Luther, is the remission of sins ; the subjective consists in the confirma- tion of the regeneration which commenced in baptism. Zwingli regarded the bread and wine only as signs of remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, which are in heaven. The effect, in his opinion, consists in a confirmation of our faith in the redemption of mankind through the death of Christ. He explained the "is" in the phrase "This is my body" in a figurative sense, as synonymous with "sig- nifies." (Ecolampadius differed from Zwingli only in the grammatical construction of the words of institution, taking not the word " is," but the whole phrase, and in particular the words " my body," in a figurative sense. Cal- vin agreed with Zwingli in taking bread and wine only as external signs, but with Luther he believed in a real though only spiritual par- ticipation of the body and blood of Christ. This participation does not consist in the infu- sion of a divine substance, but in a spiritual, animating power which from the glorified body of Christ streams over into our souls. As the glorified body of Christ is now only in heaven, the soul, in order to partake of it, must be elevated in a mysterious manner, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, to heaven, where it receives the body of Christ not with the mouth, but by faith. Unbelievers do not receive the body of Christ, but only the sign to their own condemnation. When, in the second half of the 16th century, some Lutheran theologians in- clined, after the example of Melanchthon, to the doctrines of Calvin, the Crypto-Calvinistic controversy arose in the electorate of Saxony ; it ended with the banishment of the Crypto- Calvinists. Most of the other Protestant de- nominations which arose in and after the 16th century adopted the views of Zwingli. The modern German theology of the United Evan- gelical church aims generally at a compro- mise between the views of Luther and Calvin, emphasizing real, objective communication of Christ to the worthy receiver, but dropping Luther's doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body. In the Lutheran church and the Prot- estant Episcopal church eucharistic controver- 508 VOL. x. 41 sies have often occurred, as one party in each church still lays great stress on the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Lord's supper, while another party strenuously opposes it. Those divines of the Lutheran church who adhere to Luther's views concerning the real presence, are generally opposed to an admission of members of the Calvinistic or Zwinglian confessions to the celebration of the Lord's supper in Lutheran churches, and still more to Lutherans receiving the sacrament in Calvin- istic or Zwinglian churches. A similar ques- tion (open or close communion) is agitated in the Baptist churches (see BAPTISTS), where one party maintains that none can be admitted to the Lord's supper save those who have been baptized (immersed) on a personal profession of their faith in Christ, while others admit all evangelical Christians. The elements used at the Lord's supper are generally bread and wine. Christ, when celebrating the passover with his disciples, used unleavened wheaten bread. The apostolic church took the leavened bread which Christians used to bring with them for offer- ings. When these offerings ceased together with the agapae, the Greek church retained the leavened bread, while in the Latin church since the 8th century unleavened bread has been used. At the separation of the Greek church from the Latin, the use of unleavened bread by the latter formed one of the principal charges brought against them by the Greeks, and proved after- ward one of the greatest obstacles to a reunion of the two churches. The council of Florence, in 1439, which attempted this reunion, deter- mined that either leavened or unleavened bread might be used ; but the eastern church soon re- jected this compromise together with the union of the churches. The Latin church gave to the bread the form of a wafer, which received the name "host" from the Latin hostia, offering. On one side of it symbolic signs are stamped, but the ritual prescribes nothing on this point. The Lutherans retained the wafer, but the Reformed and other Protestant denominations declared themselves against it, and took again common bread, and most of them also reintro- duced the custom of breaking it. The question whether the wine used by Christ in the institu- tion of the eucharist was fermented or not, is quite modern. The Roman Catholic church holds that the valid matter should be mnum de vite, wine of the grape. Its color is held of no account, though white wine is generally used. The custom of mingling water with wine is said to have been introduced by Pope Alexan- der I. ; it was expressly enacted in the 12th century by Clement III., and regarded as a sym- bol of the blood and water which streamed from Christ's side on the cross. The Roman Catholic church mingles water with wine once before the consecration ; the Greek church twice, cold water before and warm water after the consecration. The Armenian and Protes- tant churches take unmixed wine. It is admit- ted by all that in the primitive church the