THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
communion remained uppermost. That by this process the substance of the bread was affected was more or less self-evident to their realistic minds; but whether this was by " change " or " transubstantiation " was to them of comparative indifference. The latter has repeatedly been sanctioned by the authorities of the Greek Church, and is doubtless " official," though conveying an outer rather than inner view of the miracle. The earliest passage in which metousiosis occurs is the letter, or confession of faith, sent by the Emperor Michael Palaeologus to Gregory X. in 1247, and based on Roman dictation. True appreciation of the doctrine of transubstantiation was shown, about 1360, by the devoted Thomist Manuel Calecas, though he translates substantia not by ousia, but by hypokeimenon (" substratum "), thus not arriving at the term. Such important theologians as Nicolaus Cabasilas and Symeon of Thessalonica (qq.v.) do not use the term metousiosis, but content themselves with metabole and the like. Yet it was evidently prominent at the Council of Florence (1438-39), though it is not used by Marcos Eugenicos (q.v.). In the fifteenth century Johannes Plusiadenus, defending the Council of Florence, declares it proper to teach a metabole from " out of substance into substance "; but fa the next century the expression makes its frequent and pronounced appearance. The controversies roused by the " Calvinism " of Cyril Lucar (q.v.) after 1629 led to the official sanctioning of the term metousiosis, which was dogmatized by the synods of Constantinople (1638, 1691), Jassy (1642), and Jerusalem (1672), which in a sense revised the entire doctrinal system of the Greek Church, especially the sacraments, and set forth the documents which the Greeks are wont to call their " symbolical books." However, the decrees of these synods do not occupy the eminence nor exercise the authority of the one symbol erected by the ancient Church, and deviation from those not embraced in that symbol is not necessarily a breach of orthodoxy. It seems that the doctrine of metousiosis may to this day be declined, provided the concept of metabole, the full and unconditioned reality of the real presence, be retained.
(F. Kattenbusch.)
V. Roman Catholic Arguments in Defense of
the Doctrine, with their Refutation: (1) A literal
interpretation (beginning with Paschasius Rad-
bertus, q.v.) of the words of institution, " This is
my body "; " this " (which, however, refers to the
preceding " cup," the wine not being mentioned)
" is my blood of the covenant " (Matt. xxvi. 26, 27).
The Lutheran symbols agree with this
I. Exeget- exegesis, but nevertheless reject tran-
icaL substantiation. The Reformed sym-
. bols reject it for the following reasons:
/(a) the word " is " may indicate a figurative as well
' as a real relationship between the subject and the
predicate, and often means " represents," or " sets
forth," in the Septuagint and the Greek Testament
(e.g., Gen. xli. 26, 27; Matt. xiii. 38, 39; Gal. iv. 24;
Rev. i. 20). (b) The surrounding circumstances of
the institution of the Holy Supper (the living Christ
amidst his disciples, his body not yet broken, his
blood not yet shed, etc.) forbid a strictly literal in-
terpretation and application to the first celebration, (c) The literal interpretation can not be carried out, inasmuch as the Lord himself (Matt. xxvi. 27; Luke xxii. 19-20) and the Apostle Paul, in quoting the words of institution (I Cor. xi. 25, " this cup," etc.; x. 16, " the cup of blessing," etc.), substitute the " cup " which contains the wine, for the wine itself, i.e., they use the figure of synecdoche, the container for the contents, and yet no Roman Catholic assumes the transubstantiation of the vessel. (2) The* mysterious discourse of our Lord in the synagogue of Capernaum, about eating his flesh, and drinking his blood (John vi. 52-59). To this may be objected, that this discourse serves theologians as basis for different theories of the Lord's Supper; that the reference of this section to the Lord's Supper is not certain; that in any case the words of John vi. 63, " It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life," point to a spiritual reference in the preceding figures (so Ratramnus as early as the ninth century); and that, finally, if any theory of the Lord's Supper is favored by that discourse, it is one which confines the fruition of the Lord's flesh and blood to the believer, since every one that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood is said " to have eternal life," " to abide in Christ and Christ in him," and " to live forever " (vi. 54, 56, 58), — all of which can be said of believers only; while the Roman Church teaches that unworthy as well as worthy communicants partake of the literal body and blood of Christ, though with opposite effect.
The Roman Church appeals to the Fathers, especially Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Ambrose. As has been already indicated, the conceptions of the real 2. His- bodily presence of Christ and its matorical. terialistic fruition are easily drawn from the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irensus. But it must be remembered that these writers had in mind chiefly, if not altogether, the gracious effect the Eucharist had, rather than the nature of the elements. On the other hand, it is equally true that the representations of the Fathers differ. The African divines, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, teach a symbolical and spiritual, rather than corporeal, presence; and the Alexandrian school of Clement and Origen put the whole design of the Eucharist in feeding the soul on the spiritual life and the divine word of Christ. Hence the Fathers have been appealed to for the Lutheran, Calvinistic, and Zwinglian theory, as well as for the Roman Catholic. Ratramnus already appeals to Augustine for the spiritual interpretation. VI. Opposition to the Doctrine: This was begun by the forerunners of the Reformation, especially by Wyclif. He called transubstantiation a " doctrine of the moderns." In 1381 he issued twelve theses against the doctrine, which he followed up with an elaborate treatise on the Eucharist, De eucharistia (ed. J. Loserth for the Wyclif Society, London, 1892), and he returned to the subject again and again in his writings, pronouncing the doctrine idolatry and a lying fable. He taught the spiritual though real presence of Christ's body. In its di-