ut noster fiat, vivatque in nobis, et nos in ipso. Ex quibus omnibus claret nos, per spiritualem cibum, minime intelligere imaginarium, nescio quem, cibum, sed ipsum Domini corpus pro nobis traditum, quod tamen percipiatur a fidelibus, non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter per fidem. Fit autem hic esus et potus spiritualis, etiam extra Domini cœnam, et quoties, aut ubiqunque homo in Christum crediderit. Quo fortassis illud Augustini pertinet, Quid paras dentem et ventrem? crede, et manducasti.

"Præter superiorem manducationem spiritualem, est et sacramentalis manducatio corporis Domini, qua fidelis non tantum spiritualiter et interne participat vero corpore et sanguine Domini, sed foris etiam accedendo ad mensam Domini, accipit visibile corporis et sanguinis Domini sacramentum."

We have thus furnished, as it appears to us, adequate materials for a clear and decided judgment as to what was the real doctrine of the Reformed Church as to the Lord's Supper. We propose now to review these materials and apply them to the decision of the various questions agitated on this subject.

§ 4. In what sense is Christ present in the Lord's Supper?

The authorities above cited, and the private writings of the Reformed theologians, are abundant in teaching that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper. They represent it as a calumny, when the Lutherans asserted that the Reformed regarded the bread and wine as representing the body and blood of Christ in no other sense than a statue represents Hercules or Mercury. Zuingle says, " We have never denied that the body of Christ is sacramentally and mystically present in the Lord's Supper." They admitted not only that he is present as God and by his Spirit, but in an important sense as to his body and blood. The whole controversy relates to this latter point, viz., to the mode in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the Lord's Supper. In deciding this point, the Reformed theologians are very accurate in determining the different senses in which a thing may be said to be present. The word presence, they say, is a relative term, and cannot be understood without reference to the object said to be present, and the subject to which it is present. For presence is nothing but the application of an object to the faculty suited to the perception of it. Hence, there is a twofold presence, viz., of things sensible and of things spiritual. The former are present, as the word imports, when they are præ sensibus, so as to be perceived by the senses; the latter, when they are presented to the intelligence so as to be apprehended and enjoyed. Again, presence even as to sensible objects is not to

be confounded with nearness. It stands opposed, not to distance, but to absence. The sun is as near to us when absent at night as when present by day. A thing, therefore, may be present as to efficacy and virtue which is at a great distance locally. In which of these senses are the body and blood of Christ present in the Lord's Supper? All the Reformed, in answer to this question, say that it is not in the sense of local nearness. The bread is neither transmuted into the body of Christ, as Romanists say, nor is his body locally present in, with, and under the bread, according to the Lutheran doctrine. The presence is to the mind, the object is not presented to the senses, but apprehended by faith. It is a presence of virtue and efficacy, not of propinquity. All these statements, both negative and positive, are found in the authorities referred to in the preceding pages. The Helv. Conf., chap. xxi., says: "The body of Christ is in heaven at the right hand of God. ... Yet the Lord is not absent from his church when celebrating his Supper. The sun is absent from us in heaven, nevertheless it is efficaciously present with us; how much more is Christ, the Sun of righteousness, though absent as to the body, present with us, not corporally indeed, but spiritually, by his vivifying influence." Calvin, in the Consensus Tigurinus, art. xxi., says: "Every imagination of local presence is to be entirely removed. For while the signs are here on earth seen by the eyes, and handled by the hands, Christ, so far as he is a man, is no where else than in heaven, and is to be sought only by the mind and by faith. It is, therefore, an irrational and impious superstition to include him in the earthly elements." In the 10th art. it is taught that he is present in the promise, not in the signs.

Ursinus, the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, in his exposition of that formulary, says: "These two, the sign and the thing signified, are united together in this sacrament, not by any copulation, or corporal and local existence of one in the other, much less by transubstantiation, or changing the one into the other, but by signifying, sealing, and exhibiting the one by the other; that is, by a sacramental union, whose bond is the promise added to the bread, requiring the faith of the receivers. Whence it is clear, that these things in their lawful use are always jointly exhibited and received, but not without faith of the promise, viewing and apprehending the thing promised, now present in the sacrament, yet not present or included in the sign as in a vessel containing it; but present in the promise, which is the better part, the life and soul of the sacrament. For they want judgment who affirm that Christ's body cannot be present in the sacrament except it be in or under the bread; as if forsooth the bread alone without

NO. V.

U

the promise were either the sacrament or the principal part of the sacrament." *

There is, therefore, a presence of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper, not local, but spiritual; not for the senses, but for the mind and to faith; not of nearness, but of efficacy. This presence (as Zuingle said, "if they want words"), the Reformed were willing to call real; if by real was understood, not essential or corporal, but true and efficacious, as opposed to imaginary or ineffective. So far as this point is concerned, there is no doubt as to the doctrine of the Reformed Church.

§ 5. What is meant by feeding on the body and blood of Christ?

This question does not relate to the thing received, but simply to the mode of receiving. What is intended by sacramental manducation? In reference to this point, all the Reformed agreed as to the following particulars: 1. This eating was not with the mouth, either after the manner of ordinary food, which the Lutherans themselves denied, or in any other manner. The mouth was not in this case the organ of reception. 2. It is only by the soul that the body and blood of Christ are received. 3. It is by faith, which is declared to be the hand and the mouth of the soul. 4. It is by or through the power of the Holy Ghost. As to all these points there is a perfect agreement among the symbols of the Reformed Church. Con. Tig., art. 23: "That Christ feeds our souls with his body and blood, here set forth, by the power of the Holy Ghost, is not to be understood as involving any mixture or transfusion of substance, but that we derive life from his body once offered as a sacrifice, and from his blood shed as an expiation." Belgic Con., art. 35: God, it is said, sent Christ, as the true bread from heaven, "which nourishes and sustains the spiritual life of believers, if it be eaten; that is, if it be applied and received by the Spirit through faith." Ursinus: "There is then in the Lord's Supper a double meat and drink— one external, visible, and terrene, namely, bread and wine; and another internal. There is also a double eating and receiving: an external and signifying, which is the corporal receiving of the bread and wine; that is, that which is performed by the hands, mouth, and senses of the body; and an internal, invisible, and signified, which is the fruition of Christ's death, and a spiritual ingrafting into Christ's body; that is, which is not performed by the hands and mouth, but by the spirit and faith."

As to the question whether there is any difference between eating and believing, the authorities differ. The Zurich Con

* Quoted by Dr Nevin, p. 91.

fession, and the Helvetic, quoted above, distinctly say there is not. The former says, "Eating is believing, and believing is eating." The latter The latter says, "This eating takes place as often as and whenever a man believes in Christ." So the Belgic Confession just quoted. Calvin, however, makes a distinction between the two; eating, he says, is not faith, but the effect of faith. "There are some," he says, "who define, in a word,

that to eat the flesh of Christ and to drink his blood is no other than to believe on Christ himself. But I conceive that in that remarkable discourse in which Christ recommends us to feed upon his body, he intended to teach us something more striking and sublime; namely, that we are quickened by a real participation of him, which he designates by the terms eating and drinking, that no person might suppose the life which we receive from him to consist in simple knowledge. . . . . . At the same time, we confess there is no eating but by faith, and it is impossible to imagine any other; but the difference between me and those whose opinion I now oppose, is this: they consider eating to be faith itself, but I apprehend it to be rather a consequence of faith." We do not see the force of this distinction. It all depends upon the latitude given to the idea of faith. If you restrict it to knowledge and assent, there is room for the distinction between eating and believing. But. if faith includes the real appropriation of Christ, it includes. all Calvin seems to mean by both terms, eating and believing. This question is of no historical importance. It created no diversity of opinion in the church.

The question, whether eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood, is confined to the Lord's Supper-in other words, whether there is any special benefit or communion with Christ to be had there, and which cannot elsewhere be obtained--the Romanists and Lutherans answer in the affirmative; the Reformed unanimously in the negative. They make indeed a distinction between spiritual and sacramental manducation. What is elsewhere received by faith, without the signs and significant actions, is in the sacraments received in connection. with them. This is clearly taught in the Confession of Zurich, 1545, quoted above; also in the second Helvetic Confession, as has already been shown. That Confession vindicates this doctrine from the charge of rendering the sacrament useless. For, as says, though we receive Christ once, we need to receive him continually, and to have our faith strengthened from day to day. Calvin teaches the same doctrine in the Con. Tig., art. 19 "The verity which is figured in the sacraments believers receive extra eorum usum. Thus in baptism, Paul's sins were washed away, which had already been blotted out. Baptism was to Cornelius the laver of regeneration, though he had before received the

it

Spirit. And so in the Lord's Supper, Christ communicates himself to us, though he had already imparted himself to us and dwells within us." The office of the sacraments, he teaches, is to confirm and increase our faith. In his defence of this Consensus, he expresses surprise that a doctrine so plainly proved by experience and Scripture, should be called into question.—(Niemeyer's Col. p. 212.) In the decree of the French National Synod of 1572, already quoted, it is said, "The same Lord Jesus, both as to his substance and gifts, is offered to us in baptism and the ministry of the Word, and received by believers."

We find the same doctrine in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. In the Office for the communion of the sick, the minister is directed to instruct a parishioner who is prevented receiving the sacrament, "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." On this point there was no diversity of opinion in any part of the Reformed Church. There was no communion of Christ, no participation of his body and blood, not offered to believers and received by them, elsewhere than at the Lord's table and by other means. This is exalting the grace of God, without depreciating the value of the sacraments.

§ 6. What is meant by the body and blood of Christ as received in the sacrament?

The language employed in answer to this question is very various. It is said, we received Christ and his benefits, his flesh and blood, his true body, his natural body, his substance, the substance of his flesh and blood. All these forms of expression occur. Calvin says, we receive the substance of Christ. The Gallican Confession says, "We are fed with the substance of his body and blood." The Belgic Confession, that we received his natural body." The question is, What does this mean? There is one thing in which all parties agreed, viz., that our union with Christ was a real union, that we receive him and not his benefits merely; that he dwells in his people by his Spirit, whose presence is the presence of Christ. Though all meant this, this is not all that is intended by the expressions above cited. What is meant by saying we receive his flesh and blood, or the substance of them? The negative answer to this question given by the Reformers uniformly is, they do not mean that we partake of the material particles of