priests should partake of the cup. The' Hussites de- manded the admission of the laity also to a partaking of the cup, and the refusal of this demand by the Coun- cil of Constance was one of the causes of the Hussite War, The doctrine that Christ existed wholly iii either of the elements (for which doctrine the theologians used the expression concomitance) was expressly confirmed by the Council of Basle. The number of those who during the Middle Ages expressed their dissent from the doc- trine of transubstantiation is limited.
The doctrine ofimpanation, or a coexistence of Christ's body with the bread, was first advanced by John of Paris, who was followed by William Ockham and Durandus de Sancto Porciano, Both transubstantiation and impana- tion were combated by Wickliffc, who, with Berengar of Tours, believed it a change from the inferior to the su- perior. His views were probably shared by Jerome of Prague, while Huss seems to have believed in transub- stantiation. The Reformers of the 16th century agreed in rejecting transubstantiation as unscriptural, but they differed among themselves in several points. Carlstadt believed that the words of institution were to be under- stood csiKTiKoJg, i. e. that Christ, while speaking to them, had pointed at his own body. Zuingle took the word "iV (tcrri) in the sense of signifies, and viewed the Lord's Supper merely as an act of commemoration, and as a visible sign of the body and blood of Christ. CEco- lampadius differed from Ziungle only grammatically, retaining the literal meaning of "is," but taking the predicate, " my body" {to aih^a i-iov'), in a figurative sense, Luther believed it impossible to put any of these constructions on the letter of the Scripture, and adhered to the doctrine of the 7-eal presence of Christ's body and blood in, rcilh, and xinder the bread and wine (consubstantiation). Together with this view he pro- fessed a belief in the ubiquity of the body of Christ. Calvin rejected the doctrine of the real presence ; but, af- ter the precedence of Bucer, Mj-ronius, and others, spoke of a real, though spiritual participation of the body of Christ which exists in heaven. This participation, however, he restricted to the believer, while Luther agreed with the Roman Church in maintaining that also infidels partook of Christ's body, though to their own hurt. Attempts at mediating between the views of Luther and Calvin were early made, and there were crypto-Calvinists in the Lutheran, and crj-pto-Luther- ans in the Calvinistic churches. But the Lutlteran view received a dogmatic fixation in the Formula Concordice, which shut out any further influence of Calvinism. The decline of Lutheran orthodoxy in general caused also the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper to grow into disuse, and the Protestant theologians generally adopted the views either of Calvin or of Zuingle, The latter, at length, prevailed, (See the Brit, and For. Ev. Rev. Oct. 18G0; Midler, De Ltitheri et Cahini sententice de Sacra Ccena, Hal. 1853.) It was, in particular, adopt- ed by the Arminian churches, as also by the Socinians. In the Church of England there was from the beginning a real-presence and a spiritual-presence party, and the controversy between them frequently became very hot. The real-presence party generally agreed with the doc- trine of the Lutheran Church, but some of its writers advanced views more resembling those ot the Roman Church. In the 19th century the High-Church parties of tlie German Lutheran Church, and of the Episcopal Church of England, Scotland, and America, revived and emphasized again the doctrine of the real presence. Under the influence of rationalistic theology and specu- lative theology a number of new interpretations sprang up like mushrooms, and disappeared again just as fast. The leading theologians of the United Evangelical Church of Germany in the 19th century fell back on the doctrine of Calvin, and emphasized the real and objective communication of the whole God-man Christ to the be- liever, and the same views have become predominant in the German Reformed Church of America. A'ery differ- ent from the doctrine of all the larger Christian denom-
LORD'S SUPPER
514
LORD'S SUPPER
inations were the views which some mystic writers of the ancient and mecliicval Church intimated, and whicli Tvere fully developed in the lOth century by Paracelsus, and afterwards adopted by the Society of Friends. They reo-ard communion as something essentially internal and mvstical. and deny the Lord's Supper to be an ordinance winch Christ desired to have perpetuated. — Lavater, Uistoria controversice Sacramentarice (Tig. 1672) ; Hos- pinianus, Hist, Sacramentaria (Tig. 1602) ; Planck, Ge- schichte d. Entstehung, etc., des protest. Lehrhegrijfs, ii, 204 sq., 471 sq. ; iii, (1.) 376 sq. ; iv, 6 sq. ; v, (1) 89 sq., 211 sq., (2) 7 sq. ; vi, 732 sq. See Transubstantiation.
lY.Fonn of Celebration.— \. The Elements.— (ii) At the institution of the Lord's Supper Christ used un- leavened bread. The primitive Christians carried with them the bread and wine for the Lord's Supper, and took the bread which was used at common meals, which was leavened bread. When this custom ceased, togeth- er with the Agape, the Greeks retained the leavened bread, while in the Latin Church the unleavened bread became commou since the 8th centurj'. Out of this difference a dogmatic controversy in the 11th century arose, the Greek Church reproaching the Latin for the use of unleavened bread, and making it heresy. At the Council of Florence, in 1439, which attempted to unite both churches, it was agreed that either might be used ; but the Greeks soon rejected, with the council also, the toleration of the imleavened bread, and still maintain the opposite ground at the present day.