The reformation of the 16th c. again raised the question on the nature of the enclia rist. The Lutheran church rejected froni the first the Catholic doctrine of transubstan tiation, as well as of the mass, e., the constant renewal of the sacrifice of Christ, and merely taught that, through the power of God, and in a way not to be explained, the body and blood of Christ are present in, with, and under the unchanged bread and wine. In opposition to this doctrine, it was laid down by Zwingli, that the Lord's-supper is a mere commemoration of the death of Christ, and a profession of belongiug to his church, the bread and wine being only symbols: a view which is adopted in substance by the Socinians, Arminians, and German Catholics. Luther bitterly opposed the symbolical view, especially towards the latter part of his career; Zwingli's doctrine was more repugnant to him than the deeper and more mystic Catholic doctrine. See IMPANATION.
Calvin sought to strike a middle course, which has been substantially followed by the reformed churches. According to him, the body of Christ is not actually present in the bread and wine, which he also holds to be mere symbols. But the " faithful" receiver is, at the moment of partaking, brought into union with Christ, throuab the medium of the holy Spirit, and receives of that heavenly power (efficacy) is always emanating from his glorified body in heaven. Melanclithon, in this coutroversy, WaS inclined to the views of Calvin; but he thought a union might be effected by adopt ing the declaration that Christ in the cucharist is " truly and really " present (not merely in faith). The endeavors of Melanchtlion and his party, by arbitrary alterations of the Augsburg confession, and other means, to effect a public reconciliation, only served to rouse among the partisans of Luther a furious theological storm, and the result was the establishment of the peculiar views of Luther, and the final separation of the Lutheran and reformed churches.
The whole controversy relates to the mode in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the Lord's-supper; for it was agreed on all hands that they are present in some way. The reformed theologians argued that presence is a relative term, opposed not to distance, but to absence; and that presence, in this case, does not mean local nearness, but presence in efficacy. Here they parted company both with the Roman Catholic church and with the Lutherans. They were willing to call this presence "real " ("if they want words," as Zwingli said), meaning true and efficacious, but they would not admit corporal or essential presence. 13ut while the reformed churches were at one in holding that, by receiving the body and blood of Christ, is meant, receiving their virtue and efficacy, there is some difference in their way of expressing what that efficacy is. Some said it was their efficacy as broken and shed—Le., their sacrificial efficacy; others, in addition to this, speak of a mysterious supernatural efficacy flowing from the glorified body of Christ With regard to the reformed churches, it may be remarked that their confessions on this point were mostly formed for the express purpose of compromise, to avoid a breach with the Lutherans. Hence the language of these confessions contains more of the mys tical element than the framers of them seem, in other parts of their writings, to favor. And it is remarkable that the Anglican confessions, which were framed under different circumstances, leau more to the symbolical view of Zwingli than those of any other of the reformed churches. The thirty-nine articles, after laying down that " to such as with faith receive the same, it is a partaking of the body of Christ," repudiate the notion of transubstantiation; and add: " The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith." The Presbyterian church of Scotland adopted substantially the views of Calvin. The words of the Westminster confession are: " That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood (com monly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other -way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason. . . . Worthy
receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really aud indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine: yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." This variety of dogmatical opinion as to the eucharist naturally gave rise to variety in the ceremonials of its observance. The Catholic notion of a mysterious transforma tion, produced the dread of allowing any of the bread and wine to drop, and led to the substitution of wafers (hostice oblatce) for the breaking of bread. The doctrine of the "real union," which declares that in the bread as well as in the wine, in each singly and and by itself, Christ entire is present and tasted—a doctrine which was attested by wafers visibly bleeding—caused the cup to be gradually withdrawn from the laity and non officiating priests; this practice was first authoritatively sanctioned at the council of Constance, 1415. All the reformed churches restored the cup: in the Greek church it had never been given. Froin the same feeling of deep reverence for the eucharist, the communion of children gradually came, after the 12th c., to be discontinued. The Greek church alone admits the practice. Grounded on the doctrine of transubstantia tion, the Greek and Roman Catholic churches hold the " elevation of the host" (hostia, victim or sacrifice) to be a symbol of the exaltation of Christ from the state of humilia tion; connected with this is the " adoration of the host," and the carrying it about in solemn procession. The use of leavened bread in the Greek church, and of unleavened in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran, of water mixed vvith wine in the Roman Catholic and Greek churches, aud of unmixed wine in the Protestant churches, are trifling dif ferences, mostly owing their origin to accidental circumstances; yet once magnified into importance by symbolical explanations, they have given occasion to the hottest contro versies. The greater part of the reformed churches agree in breaking the bread and letting the communicants take it with the hand (not with the mouth); and this practice is owing to the original tendency of those churches to the symbolical conception of the eucharist, in which the breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine are essen tial elements.
Although the great divisions of the Christian world have continued as churches to adhere to those doctrines about the Lord's-supper which were fixed and stereotyped in acts of council and articles and confessions about the time of the reformation, we are not to suppose that the opinions of individuals within those churches continue equally uniform and fixed. Even Roman Catholic theologians, like Bossuet, have sometimes endeavored to understand the doctrine of the church in a philosophical sense; and in the Lutheran church, the greatest variety of opinion prevails. Some uphold unmodified the dogmas of Luther; others accept them with explanation; Hegel even undertook to ground them on speculative reason. Others, as Schleiermacher, would have recourse to the views of Calvin as a means of reconciliation with the reformed churches. Even all " supernatural " theologians do not adhere strictly to the formulas of the church; while rationalimi in all its phases tends to the pure symbolism of Zwingli.
The Anglican church is divided on this, as on several kindred topics, into two parties: with one, the symbolical view of the rite is predominant; the other party reprobate this view as " low," and maintain an oljective "mystical presence" of the thing signified, along with the sign. Notwithstanding the "higher" doctrine of the Scotch confession., the tendency in Scotland seems to be more the other way; from the pulpit, the rite. is oftener spoken of in its commemorative character, and the signs as means of working upon the mind and feelings subjectively than as the vehicle of any objective, mystically operating grace.