stances, err, but it can be corrected by the others; whereas all the senses together cannot and do not err. It is (3) repugnant to reason, which convinces us that the material body of Christ cannot possibly be in heaven and on earth at the same moment; that is, at the right hand of the Majesty on high and on thousands of earthly altars‘at the same time. In this case the flesh and blood of Christ would be present, while their sensible qualities are absent; on the contrary, the sensible qualities of bread and wine would be present, while those substances themselves are absent. Thus we should have the subject without the accidents in the one case, and the accidents without the substance in the other. But this is palpably absurd, for sulstances are known by their qualities, and qualities do not exist apart from their substances. Once more, (4) this dogma is derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ—that great sacrifice offered once for all and for ever, because it repre- sents it as needing continuous repetition in the so-called sacrifice of the altar. More- over, (5) it destroys the very nature of a sacrament, for every sacrament necessarily consists of two parts, a sign and a thing signified—‘‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace ;” in other words, a sensible object and certain spiritual blessings set forth and sealed by that object. But transubstantiation does away with the sign altogether, and puts the thing signified in its place. We reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, then, because of the absurdities it involves, as also because of the superstitions connected with it, and the idolatrous practices engrafted on it. 2, In the second place, we reject the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, which teaches that though the substance of the elements is not changed, yet the body and blood of Christ are mysteriously but really and corporeally present in, with, and under the elements, and are received corporeally with the mouth by communicants along with the symbols. Though this opinion is rather speculative than otherwise, though it does not convert the sacrament into a sacrifice, though it does not lead to the adoration of the elements, and though it does not impart to the sacrament a physical virtue apart from the dispo- sitions of the recipient, yet it involves several grave difficulties. It necessitates a literal interpretation of the words of institution, and so a substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in this sacrament. The Lutherans are at pains to define this presence. It was not a change of one substance into another (uerovola), nor the mixing of one substance with another (evyovola), nor the inclusion of one substance in another
évovola), nor the absence of substance (axovcla\; but the real coexistence or presence eens of the one substance with the other, that is, the earthly with the heavenly. For this purpose, however, a communication of properties is requisite, so that the humanity of Christ shares the omnipresence of his divinity. The Lutheran doctrine, it is true, makes the ubiquitous presence of the body of Christ unique and peculiar to the Lord’s Supper. It is further alleged that the humanity of Christ\is at the right hand of God, and that the right hand of God is everywhere; therefore Christ, as to his humanity, is every where present. It is plain, however, that this omnipresence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Supper is contrary to the nature of a body, and thus self-con- tradictory. Besides, this omnipresence of the body and blood of our Lord would imply their presence in every ordinary meal as well as in the Lord’s Supper. Neither is it a sufficient or at all satisfactory answer to this to say, as Lutherans do, that omnipresence in this case means no more than accessibility, that is, the fact of being everywhere given, for the body and blood, if thus given and received everywhere, would be every- where operative. 3, In the third place, we do not agree with the Zwinglians, including Zwingle himself, Carlstadt, Myconius, Bucer, Bullinger, and the reformers of Zurich, who went to the opposite extreme from the Lutherans, They regarded the elements as signs or symbols, and nothing else and nothing more ; these they held to be memorials of the absent body of our Lord. The tendency of the Zwinglian doctrine was to lessen the efficacy and lower the character of this sacrament. Looking upon the elements as mere signs, viewing them as memorials and not means of grace, denying the special presence of the Saviour, they made the sacrament of the Supper little, if anything, more than @ bare act of commemoration or a mere badge of profession. And so it happens that the doctrine of the Supper, as set forth by Zwingle himself, is that still held by Remonstrants and Socinians to the present day. Here we are reminded of the memor- able conference that once took place on this subject. For a full account of the dis- cussion, the district where it was held, and the disputants on the occasion, we must refer the reader to the description by D’Aubigne, which, as usual, is at once picturesque
284 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [on. x1v. 1—72
nn nee EEE