THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
to the fact that the most important teacher of the early Western Church held a doctrine of the Lord's Supper scarcely distinguishable from that of the " heretics " Berengar, Wyclif, Calvin, and their followers. But the result of his actual teaching was also an important one. He checked the development toward transubstantiation in the West.
Among the theologians of the last period of the early Church, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Facundus of Hermiane, and Isidore of Seville represent a more or less genuine Augustinian view, while besides the
pseudo-Ambrose Cssarius of Aries and 4. Transub- Gregory the Great belong to the real- 8tantlatl0n- istic-dynamic school in which the dynamic was growing less and less as the realistic assumed prominence. Both traditions came down side by side to the Carolingian age. The renaissance of Augustinianism which characterizes that period brought the symbolic view to the front among theologians, though not, of course, in the popular mind, and though the theologians admitted a real dynamic change in the elements and asserted as freely as Augustine that the bread " receiving the benediction becomes the body of Christ." The stage which had been reached may be seen in the controversy between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus (qq.v.). There is little difference between their formulas; but Ratramnus showed a survival of the spiritualistic attitude, which was ended only in the conflict with Berengar (q.v., see also Lanfranc; Transubstantiation). Lanfranc went beyond Paschasius Radbertus only by the single important step of asserting the real presence for the unworthy as well as for the worthy; but other opponents of Berengar went further. Guitmund of Aversa was the first of the Western upholders of this change to assert clearly the totus in toto et totus in qualibet parte, " the whole in the whole and the whole in any particular " ; he also used the terms substance and accidents in their later sense — asserting that the substance was changed, while the " accidents of the former essence " remained. This completed the doctrine of transubstantiation, though the word first became a dogmatic expression in the first half of the twelfth century (1215), and by its use in the confession of the fourth Lateran Council. The subtle minds of the schoolmen found much occupation in further refinements upon it, to which, however, little attention was paid in the final settlement of the Roman Catholic doctrine at the Council of Trent (see below, IV.). The Catechismus Romanus, indeed (II., iv. 42), borrows from Thomas Aquinas the distinction that Christ is present not " by way of quantity " but " by way of substance "; and the doctrine of concomitance, first brought up by Anselm, proved serviceable in defending the practise of the laity in communing only in one kind.
Considering the infinity of varying views which the first fifteen centuries produced, we shall not be surprised to find that the Reformation period was _ _ ,. able to evolve but few new ones. of the Many abuses which had grown up Reformers, around the sacrament were swept away,
many ideas which distorted and dishonored it were denied; the sacrifice of the mass, as a propitiatory offering, was no more; the adora-
tion of the sanctissimum, exposition, the festival of Corpus Christi, were abolished, and communion in both kinds restored. But the positive ideas of the Reformation, even Luther's own, are scarcely any of them new. If Luther, after 1520, replaced transubstantiation by the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the untransformed elements, he was only following out a possibility already indicated by Nominalist schoolmen; he appeals to Pierre d'Ailly when he first brings forward this idea (De captivitate Babylonica, in Werke, vi. 508). He placed the benefit of the sacrament almost exclusively in the remission of sins, as the upholders of the symbolic-sacrificial view had done before him; and when he twice connected the immortality of the body with reception, he was adopting the Greek realistic-dynamic view which he knew from Irenseus. The doctrine of ubiquity on which he based his conception of the real presence (see Ubiquity) was taken from the Nominalists, though carried further than scholasticism had carried it. [It seems probable that Luther's doctrine of ubiquity was closely connected with his doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum (q.v.), which latter came to him through mysticism from the Neo- Platonic Christian thought. If so, it had its root in realism rather than in nominalism and was essentially Eutychian. Luther's mind was not sufficiently philosophical to grasp the points at issue between realism and nominalism, to which fact were due in part his inconsistencies. — a. h. n.] The really new thing with Luther is the explanation of the "this is" by the grammatical figure of synecdoche, by which " one names a whole and means only a part," as when " a mother points to the swaddling-clothes in which her child is wrapped, saying, ' This is my child.' " Zwingli and Calvin followed Augustinian paths. The former accepted only the symbolic-sacrificial idea, separated, of course, from any thought of a sacrifice in the Eucharist; Calvin has also the notion of the "spiritual eating of the body and blood of Christ " in a form modified by realisticdynamic ideas. That both of them found the symbolic part of the " this is my body " in " is " ( = significat) has, it is true, no exact parallel in ancient days. But the point where they placed the symbol is comparatively unimportant — this " tropical " explanation was not new, and the gloss of CEcolampadius — " this is a figure of my body " — combines Augustine's sense with words of Tertullian.
In order to understand the sequence of events among the Lutherans, three things must be borne in mind: the extremely conservative character of
Luther's original teaching and practise
6- Pootrine in thig matter; Melanchthon's gradual
r, X«i G departure from it, and the lateness of
Church. *^e real effect of Luther's teaching on
ubiquity. The popular mind paid little heed to fine distinctions, and saw no great difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Luther's catechisms, which soon became, if informally, the standard of teaching, asserted that " under " (or " in and under ") " the bread and wine the true body and the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is imparted [to all receivers] as a certain pledge and sign of the benefit