On account of the controversy on the subject of the real pres- ence which raged immediately after the Eeformation, between the Lutherans and the Keformecl, and between Calvin and the imme- diate followers of Zuingle, the early Reformed Confessions were composed generally under the bias of an effort to compromise radically distinct views, and hence a want of definiteness and con- sistency in their statements upon this subject has resulted. In all essentials, however, they agree, and immediately after the age of controversy, the language of all the confessions subsequently composed, and of theological writers, became both distinct and uniform. They agree in holding —
1st. That the human nature of Christ is confined to heaven.
2d. That the presence of his body and blood in the sacrament is not physical, nor local, nor to our bodily senses, but only by its gracious influences to the mind, and by the power of the Holy Ghost.
3d. That they are received only by the true believer, not by the mouth, but only spiritually, in the exercise of faith. See Consensus Tigminus, article 21 ; Helv. Conf., Chap. XXI. — Bib. Rep., April, 1848.
12. What is meant by the body and blood of Christ as received in the sacrament ?
" The whole church united in saying that believers received the body and blood of Christ. They agreed in explaining this
510 THE LORD'S SUPPER.
to mean that they received the virtue, efficacy, or vigor of his body and blood. But some understood thereby, the virtue of his body as broken, and his blood as shed, i. e., their sacrificial effi- cacy. Others said, that besides this, there was a mysterious vir- tue in the body of Christ, due to its union with the divine nature, which virtue was by the Holy Spirit conveyed to the believer/' The first view, or that which limits the reception of Christ's body and blood to their sacrificial efficacy, is the true one, and the only one which maintained its ground in the faith of the Keformed churches. — Bib. Kep., April, 1848.
13. What is meant by feeding upon the body and blood of Christ, as used in the Reformed confessions ?
" All the Keformed agree as to the following particulars : " 1st. This eating was not with the mouth in any manner. " 2d. It was only by the soul that they were received. " 3d. It was by faith, which is declared to be the hand and
mouth of the soul.
" 4th. It was by or through the power of the Holy Ghost." " But this receiving Christ's body is not confined to the Lord's
supper ; it takes place whenever faith in him is exercised." — Bib.
Kep., April, 1848.
14. What is the Zuinglian doctrine as to the relation be- tween the sign and the thing signified in the supper 1
The bread and wine in this view are regarded as simply signs, symbolizing the body and blood of Christ sacrificially broken and shed. There is no other presence of Christ than as he is thought of and believed in by the soul.
15. In what sense and on what ground do the Romanists re- present the eucharist as a sacrifice ?
" The sacrifice of the mass is an external oblation of the body and blood of Christ offered to God in recognition of his supreme Lordship, under the appearance of bread and wine visibly exhibited by a legitimate minister, with the addition of certain prayers and ceremonies prescribed by the church for the greater worship of God and edification of the people." — Dens, Vol. V., p. 358.
SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 511
With respect to its end it is to be distinguished into, 1st, Latreuticum, or an act of supreme worship offered to God. 2d. Eucharisticum, thanksgiving. 3d. Propitiatorium, atoning for sin, and propitiating God by the offering up of the body and blood of Christ again. 4th. Imperatorium, since through it we attain to many spiritual and temporal blessings. — Dens, Vol. v., p. 368.
The difference between the eucharist as a sacrament and a sacrifice is very great, and is twofold ; as a sacrament it is per- fected by consecration, as a sacrifice all its efficacy consists in its oblation. As a sacrament it is to the worthy receiver a source of merit, as a sacrifice it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction, expiating the sins of the living and the dead. — Cat. Rom., Pt. II., Chap. IV., Q. 55 ; Council Trent, Sess. 22.
They found this doctrine upon the authority of the church, and absurdly appeal to Mai. i., 11, as a prophecy of this perpetu- ally recurrent sacrifice, and to the declaration, Heb. vii., 17, that Christ is "a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec," who, say they, discharged his priestly functions in offering bread and wine to Abraham, Gen. xiv., 18.
16. How may this doctrine be refuted ?
1st. It has no foundation whatever in Scripture. Their ap- peal to the prophecy in Malachi, and to the typical relation of Melchizedec to Christ, is self-evidently absurd.
2d. It rests wholly upon the fiction of transubstantiation, which was disproved above, question 9.