excellent. "The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when and where the bread is his body, or the cup his blood; but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really, nor do they really contain in themselves, that grace which with them, or by them, it pleaseth God to bestow." Again he remarks (V. lxvii.), "No side denieth but that the soul of man is the receptacle of Christ's presence. Whereby the question is driven to a narrower issue, nor doth anything rest doubtful but this, whether, when the sacrament is administered, Christ be whole [wholly] within man only, or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves. Which opinion, they that defend are driven either to consubstantiate and incorporate Christ with elements sacramental, or to transubstantiate and change their substance into his; and so the one to hold him really, but invisibly, moulded up with the substance of those elements, the other to hide him under the only visible show of bread and wine, the substance whereof, as they imagine, is abolished, and his succeeded in the same room."

With this statement of Hooker, Calvin (Inst., IV. xvii. 31) agrees. "They are exceedingly deceived, who cannot conceive of any presence of the flesh of Christ in the supper, except it be attached to the bread. For on this principle they leave nothing to the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites us to Christ. They suppose Christ not to be present unless he descends to us; as though we cannot equally enjoy his presence, if he elevates us to himself. The only question between us, therefore, respects the manner of this presence; because they place Christ in the bread, and we think it unlawful for us to bring him down

from heaven.

Let the reader judge on which side the truth lies. Only let us hear no more of that calumny, that Christ is excluded from the sacrament unless he be concealed under the bread. For as this is a heavenly mystery, there is no necessity to bring Christ down to the earth, in order to be united to us."

This view of Hooker and Calvin respecting the solely spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper was that of the founders of the English Church, and entered into their form of worship. In the Office for the Communion of the Sick, in the Episcopal Prayer Book, it is said: "If a man by reason of extremity of sickness, or any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, the minister shall instruct him that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth."

The Romish theory of the sacraments is, that they convey both regenerating and sanctifying grace by their own nature and efficiency: by the mere external muscular performance (ex opere operato) of the rite of baptism, or of the supper, the effect is produced in the soul. Bellarmine (De Sacramentis, II. i.) defines the theory thus: "The sacraments convey grace by the virtue of the sacramental action itself instituted by God for this end, and not through the merit of either the agent or the receiver."

The Lutheran doctrine of the sacrament of the Supper

The presence of Christ in the bread and wine themselves would be a local and extended presence, because bread and wine are local and extended substances. But the presence of Christ to "the faith of a believer " is a presence in his soul, which is an illocal and spiritual presence, because the soul is an illocal and spiritual substance.

teaches: (a) That its efficacy is conditioned upon faith in the recipient. In this, it agrees with the Reformed doctrine. (b) That its efficacy is due to an intrinsic virtue, resulting from the presence of Christ's glorified body in and with the bread and wine. This co-presence of Christ's glorified body in the emblems makes the sacrament efficacious to the believer. In this, the Lutheran differs from the Calvinistic doctrine. The latter finds the efficacy of the sacrament of the Supper solely in the operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. "The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost." Westminster L. C., 161.

The Lutheran asserts that Christ is "spiritually present in the sacrament of the Supper as to the manner, but corporeally present as to the substance." That is to say, the substance of Christ's spiritual and glorified body as it now exists in heaven, not of his material and unglorified body as it once existed on earth, is actually present in and with the sacramental emblems. Consequently, the spiritual and glorified body of Christ is present in the bread and wine, wherever and whenever the sacrament is administered. This requires the ubiquity of Christ's glorified body, whereby it can simultaneously be in heaven and on earth. But the glorified body of Christ, like that of his people, though a spiritual body, has form, and is extended in space. The description of Christ's body after his resurrection and at his ascension proves this. But one and the same form cannot occupy two or more spaces at one and the same moment. Christ's glorified body can pass from space to space instantaneously, but cannot fill two spaces at the same instant. When Christ's body passed through, the "doors being shut" (John 20: 26), and stood in the midst of the disciples, his body was no longer on the outside of the doors, and could not be.

Hooker (V. lxvii.) defines the Lutheran, the Romish, and

6

the Reformed views of the Supper as follows: "There are but three expositions made of the words,' This is my body.' The first: This is in itself, before participation, really and truly the natural substance of my body, by reason of the co-existence which my omnipotent body hath with the sanctified element of bread '-which is the Lutheran's interpretation. The second: This is in itself, and before participation, the true and natural substance of my body, by force of that deity which with the words of consecration abolisheth the substance of bread, and substituteth in the place thereof my body'—which is the Popish construction. The third: This hallowed food, through concurrence of Divine power, is, in verity and truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and their souls do presently need. This is to them, and in them, my body."

According to this statement of Hooker, which agrees with that of the Reformed symbols, there are but three generic. theories of the Sacraments: the Reformed, the Lutheran, and the Romish. Some would find a fourth theory represented by Zwingle. This comes from a misapprehension of the views of the Swiss reformer. The difference between Zwingle and Calvin upon sacramentarian points has been exaggerated. Zwingle has been represented as denying that the sacrament of the Supper is a means of grace, and that Christ is present in it. The following positions in his Ratio Fidei disprove this. He asserts that the sacraments are: 1. Res sanctae et venerandae. 2. Testimonium rei gestae praebunt. 3. Vice rerum sunt quas significant; since they represent what cannot in itself be directly perceived. 4. Res arduas significant: having value not for what they are materially, but for what they signify; as a bridal ring is not worth merely the gold of which it is made. 5. They enlighten and instruct through the analogy between the

symbol and the thing symbolized. 6. They bring aid and comfort to faith. 7. They take the place of (vice) an oath. These positions accord entirely with those in the First Helvetic Confession, which contains Calvin's view of the sacraments; and also with those presented in the Articles of Agreement between the churches of Zurich and Geneva. Hagenbach (§ 258) asserts that Zwingle taught that the sacrament is "both a symbol (signum), and a means of strengthening faith." Sigwart and Zeller, in their monographs upon Zwingle, take the same view. The writer of the article, Lord's Supper, in Kitto's Encyclopedia, represents Zwingle as holding that the Lord's Supper, by presenting under sensible emblems the sufferings and death of Christ, and bringing them to vivid remembrance, deepens penitence, stimulates faith, calls out love, and in this way is a means of sanctification equally with hearing the word, or any other means of grace employed by the Holy Spirit.

Zwingle asserted as strongly as Calvin the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, denying with him the carnal and corporeal presence, either in the form of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. "Christ," he says, "is spiritually present in the consciousness of the believer (fidei contemplatione). In the recollection of his sufferings and death, and by faith in these, his body is spiritually eaten. We trust in the dying flesh and blood of Christ, and this faith is called the eating of the body and blood of Christ." Ratio Fidei (De Eucharistia). Compare Ratio Fidei, IV. 63, 64; Ed. Niemeyer. The corporeal presence of Christ he denied, appealing to the authority of Augustine, as follows: "Augustinus dixit Christi corpus in aliquo coeli loco esse oportere, propter visi corporis modum. Non est igitur Christi corpus magis in pluribus locis quam nostra corpora." Ratio Fidei, IV. 51. Ed. Niemeyer.

Zwingle regarded the sacrament of the Supper as a means of grace and sanctification, because of its didactic character; because, by "evidently setting forth before the eyes Jesus