As to the coincidence of the opinions of Zwingle with those of the Socinians, while he and they differed so widely respecting the evanoelical truth, they could have maintained very little agreement in their interpretation of the emblems by which it is represented. With regard to the benefits de rived from devout communion in the Eucharist, the difference between Zwingle and Calvin seems to have been more defined and certain. Zwingle was disposed to regard the sacraments chiefly, if not exclusively, as emblems of evangelical truth ; Calvin looked rather to their spiritual influence, by which they wrought as means of grace upon the hearts of devout communicants. With Zwingle they were signs of truth ; with Calvin seals of grace. But even here the difference between them has been often exaggerated, especially by Lutheran writers. Thus Mosheim says, Zwingle asserted that all Christians without distinction regenerate or unre generate, could be partakers o'f the body and blood of Christ ; Calvin confined the privilege to the pious and regenerate alone.' What can these words mean more than an assertion, on the part of Zwingle, that all Men could partake of the sacra mental emblems, and another assertion on the part of Calvin that only the pious could derive any benefit from the participation ? In the two appa rent counter-statements there is no real contrariety.
In an interesting article of the late Principal Cunningham, on ' Zwingle and the Doctrine of the Sacraments,' reprinted from the Brit. and For. Evang. Review, Oct. 1860, he notices three great general principles which guided Zwingle in the formation of his doctrine of the sacraments. xst, That great care should be taken to avoid any thing which may appear to trench upon the grace of God, the meritorious efficacy of Christ's work, and the almighty agency of his Spirit, in bestowing upon men all spiritual blessings.' 2d, That whatever external means of grace may have been appointed, and in whatever way those means may operate, God must not be held to be tried or re stricted in the communication of spiritual benefits to the use of anything of an external kind, though he has himself appointed and prescribed it.' 3d, That the most important matter connected with the subject of the sacraments is the state of mind and heart of the recipient ; and that with respect to this the essential thing is, that the state of mind and heart of the recipient should correspond with the outward act which, in participating of the sacrament, he performs.' Of these several views, it vvill probably be ac knowledged that Presbyterians generally adhere to the doctrine of Calvin ; that Congregationalists more generally incline to the views of Zwingle ; while in the formularies of the Episcopal churches several expressions may be attributed to the in fluence of Melancthon and other Lutheran divines.
The remarks which we have made in reference to the nature and design of the Lord's Slipper, as they are taught by the words This do for the remembrance of me ;' will enable us to notice more briefly the part of the evangelists' account which refers to the communion in the cup of wine. He took the cup.' Although Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul say, Jesus took the cup •' no one of them tells us what liquid it contained. 'That it contained wine there can be uo reasonable doubt ; but whether it was fermented or unfer mented, undiluted or mingled with water, has been the subject of frequent controversy. We may witb good reason suppose that our Lord took a cup of the wine which was usually drunk at the passover, and that we have no doubt was fermented wine diluted with water. That it was fermented we infer from the frequent references of Jewish autho rities to the reason for introducing, it at the paschal feast, to cheer and exhilamte the company in re membrance of their possession of the promised land ; which exhilaration, we presume, could not be got out of water in which raisins had been steeped, though in later times it has been the Jewish practice to provide unfermented wine. The later practice has arisen from the excessive scrupulosity of the Jews about the presence of leaven in the wine of the passover.
So customary was it for the Jews to mingle their cup,' when they ` furnished their table,' that we should expect to find the custom observed at the passover. The rabbinical authorities con firm such expectation, as they give very particular directions about the due proportions of the mingled water and wine. That this was the practice of the early Christians in celebrating the Eucharist, is evi dent from many citations of the fathers. Titus in the account of Justin we read, Bread and a cup of wine and water are brought to the president.' Irenoeus speaks of the diluted cup (temperamentum calla's), and of the mingled cup (mistus callx). Reference is made to the mingled drink (the xpaAa of the Greeks and mistum of the Latins) by Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, and many other Greek and Latin writers. In the Romish Church, the mingling of wine and water is not only retained, but elevated into a great mys tery and symbol of the blood and water which flowed from the wounded side of Jesus. An ancient sect mentioned by Epiphanius used only water, and another milk instead of wine.