and the wine his true blood, sacramentally, i. e. in the manner in which God has ordained and instituted the holy sacraments of both the Old and the New Test., that they should be visible and true signs of the invisible grace communicated by them; and in the manner in which our Lord himself signifies, that the holy Eucharist is a sign of the new testament (covenant), but not a mere sign, nor an empty one, and instituted for the commemoration of Christ's death......that thus it might afford us consolation, excite us to gratitude, and call forth in us feelings of love. And inasmuch as faith is, as it were, the mouth by which we receive the crucified body of Christ, and the blood shed for us, we always believe that this sacrament does not unfit unbelievers, or those who do not repent, and that they do not participate in the true body and blood of Christ. For further passages see Winer p. 138 ss.

11 Cat. Rac. qu. 334.: (Coena Domini) est Christi institutum, ut fideles ipsius panem frangant et comedant et ex calice bibant, mortis ipsius annunciandæ causa. Quod permanere in adventum ipsius oportet. Ip. qu. 335.: (Annunciare mortem Domini) est publice et sacrosancte Christo gratias agere, quod is pro ineffabili sua erga nos caritate corpus suum torqueri et quodammodo frangi et sanguinem suum fundi passus sit, et hoc ipsius beneficium laudibus tollere et celebrare. Ib. qu. 337: Nonne alia causa, ob quam cœnam instituit Dom. superest? Nulla prorsus etsi homines multas excogitarint, cum alii dicant esse sacrificium pro vivis et mortuis, alii usu ipsius se consequi peccatorum remissionem et firmare fidem sperant, et quod eis mortem Domini in mentem revocet, affirmant. Comp. Socinus de cœna Domini p. 753. 6. where the effects commonly supposed to be produced by the sacrament are ascribed to the word, with which the ceremony is only externally connected.—Concerning the views of the Arminians see Confess. Remonstrant. 23. 4. and Limborch, theol. christ. v. 71. 9 ss. (where he combats the doctrine of the Lord's Supper as held by orthodox Calvinists.) The opinions of the Mennonites on this point will be found in Ries Conf. Art. 34. Winer p. 135. 12 Comp. § 257. note 7.

The doctrinal differences of the various denominations are closely connected with their respective modes of celebrating this ordinance. The principal difference is this, that the Roman Catholic Church persisted in withholding the cup from the

laity, while all other parties, inclusive of the Greek Church, demanded that it should be restored to them. (See the passages quoted from their symbolical writings by Winer p. 145-147.) On the use of the hosts (in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches, partly also in the Reformed Church), and on that of bread (in the Greek and Reformed Churches, on the breaking of the bread, on the elevation of the host, on the manner in which the congregation receive the sacrament (whether they go to the table, or remain in their seats), on the modes distributionis, or private communion, auricular or general confession, etc., comp. the works on archæology and those on liturgies.

§ 259.

INTERNAL FLUCTUATIONS AND FURTHER DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT.

1

Though the existing differences of opinion rendered impossible a perfect union between the various sections of the Protestant Church, there were not wanting those who on the one hand may be styled Crypto-Calvinists, 1 and on the other Crypto-Lutherans.2 But the existence of these parties gave rise to increased efforts on the part of the orthodox theologians in either church to establish a more precise definition of their distinguishing doctrines, and to secure them against corruption and misinterprétation. The schoolmen made a threefold distinction in the Lord's Supper, viz., between material, form, and object, which were again subdivided. according to various categories.3 The mystics, abiding by the mysterious import of the doctrine in question, took no part in the ecclesiastical controversies; 4 some of them even showed that each of the principal sections of the church rests on a religious idea, the living appropriation of which is, in their opinion, the principal thing in this ordinance, whatever meaning may be attached to it. 5 Among Roman Catholic writers it was Bossuet who endeavoured to defend, on philosophical grounds, the doctrine of transubstantiation

U

and of the mass, while the Jansenists and Roman Catholics rigidly retained the doctrine of the church. But they directed their attention not so much to dialectical arguments for the mere idea, but to the mysterious ef fects which the sacrament in question produces upon the internal man.7

1 Compare § 215. note 7.

2 Marbach of Strassburg, and Simon Sulzer of Basle. The latter was opposed by H. Erzberger. Comp. Hagenbach, Geschichte der Basler Confess. p. 87 ss. The very remarkable creeds of Sulzer and Erzberger are given ibid. appendix C. p. 232, and appendix B. p. 218 ss.

3 The material is (a) terrestris (the elements bread and wine); (b) eœlestis, which is subdivided into a. corpus et sanguis Christi, B. gratia divina; 2. The form is (a) interna (unio sacramentalis), (b) externa, which is composed of a. consecratio, B. distributio, y. sumptio; 3. Finis (fructus) est collatio et obsignatio gratiæ divinæ. This object is subdivided into (a) finis ultimus (salus æterna); (b) intermedius, (a) recordatio et commemoratio mortis Christi, quæ fide peragitur, (8) obsignatio promissionis de remissione peccatorum et fidei confirmatio, (7) insitio nostra in Christum et spiritualis nutritio ad vitam, (8) dilectio mutua communicantium. See Hase, Hutterus redivivus p. 314-15. Among the Calvinistic theologians see Heidegger, Loci xxv. p. 13 ss.

4 Thus Paracelsus, Phil. Sagac. Lib. i. c. 5. § 10. comp. ii. 2. quoted by Preu, Theol. des Paracelsus p. 1; he there speaks rather of an internal (mystical) communion, than of a real participation of the elements. The regenerate must be nourished by Christ, and not only obtain the art and wisdom of nature, as we gather pears from the trees, but receive wisdom from him who has sent it. Respecting Christ, it is said, we must eat his flesh, and drink his blood, that is, we must be born of him; he is the first-born, but we fill up the number.

5 Thus Poiret, in his treatise: Gewissensruhe. See Hagenbach, Vorlesungen vol. iv. p. 326.

6 Exposition de la doctrine catholique c. 10 ss.

In his opi

nion, there is no medium between the view of infidels who reject everything, and the orthodox doctrine of the Church. Every other view is of itself inconsistent; God has suffered the Protestants to fall into such an inconsistency, in order to facilitate their return to the Romish Church. The figurative interpretation, however, may be admitted in a certain sense (as implied in the real), p. 140: Nevertheless, the truth which the Eucharist contains in its internal aspect, does not prevent its being considered a sign of the external and tangible; but it is a sign of that sort which, so far from excluding the reality, necessarily implies it.

7 Concerning the views of the Jansenists comp. § 228. note 3. On the controversy respecting the Lord's Supper, between Peter Nicole and Anton Arnauld, on the one side, and Claude, a Calvinistic minister, on the other, see Schröckh vii. p. 367. Among the mystics similar opinions obtained to those of the preceding period. Thus Francis of Sales said Introd. ii. 14.: Hoc (sacramentum) religionis christianæ centrum est devotionis cor, pietatis anima, mysterium ineffabile, quodque divinæ charitatis abyssum in se comprehendit, ac per quod se Deus ipse realiter nobis applicans, gratias et dona sua nobis magnifice communicat. Comp. Bonæ tract. ascet. de sacrificio Missæ (Opp. p. 177 ss.) Fénélon, œuvres spirit. i. p. 414.

As regards the other Roman Catholic sacraments (respecting baptism see § 269.), their fundamental principles are considered by Protestant theologians in various parts of their works on systematic theology; thus, Penance is treated of in connection with the economy of redemption, though some of the earlier Lutheran divines placed it after the chapters on Baptism and the Lord's Supper (e. g., Hollaz p. 1141); the sacrament of Holy Orders, in connection with the doctrine concerning the church, that of Matrimony forms a part of ethics and the Canon Law, while some, e. g., Gerhard, still assigned to it a place in doctrinal theology (loci theol. Tom. xv.); and lastly, the sacraments of Confirmation (which has nothing in common with the Protestant rite of the same name), and of Extreme Unction, are only considered in a negative aspect, viz., as sacramenta spuria, see Heidegger Loci xxv. c. 23 ss.

As regards Penance, the Roman Catholic Church retained the scholastic division into contritio (different from attritio) cordis, confessio oris and satisfactio operis, while the only distinction made by Protestants was that between contritio and fides. Comp. Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 3., and in defence of the Protestant view Conf. Aug. Art. 12: Constat autem pœnitentia proprie his duabus partibus: Altera est contritio seu terrores incussi conscientiæ agnito peccato. Altera est fides quæ concipitur ex evangelio seu absolutione, et credit propter Christum remitti peccata, et consolatur conscientiam, et ex terroribus liberat. Deinde sequi debent opera bona, quæ sunt fructus pœnitentiæ. Art. Schmalk. p. 321, and the other passages quoted by Winer p. 150. Respecting confession, the two great sections

of the Protestant Church differed in this, that the earlier Lutherans attached importance to private confession, while the Calvinists were always satisfied (as a general rule) with public confession. But neither of them demanded, like Roman Catholics, a special enumeration of all sins, in consequence of which, both rejected auricular confession. It was especially Luther, in his treatise: de Captiv. Babyl. together with the authors of the articles of Schmalkald, who expressed themselves in strong terms against this confessio carnificina. Art. Schmalk. p. 323: Confessio sic instituabatur, ut homines juberentur omnia sua peccata enumerare, (quod factu impossibile est) haec ingens carnificina fuit. Et si quis quorundam peccatorum oblitus esset, is eatenus absolvebatur, ut si in memoriam illa recurrerent, ea postea confiteretur, etc. As to the relation between the confessor, and the person who confesses, the Roman Catholics entertained different views from the Protestants; see Winer 1. c. and the passages quoted by him. As regards satisfactio, Protestants from the first not only rejected pilgrimages and similar observances, but also looked on prayers, fastings, and alms, in a very different light. Concerning fasting, see Winer p. 155. The nova obedientia which some would have substituted for the satisfactio operis, is, properly speaking, the same with fides (the second part of penance); nevertheless it is said in the Apol. Conf. p. 165: Si quis volet addere tertiam [partem],videlicet dignos fructus pœnitentiæ, h. e. mutationem totius vitæ ac morum in melius, non refragabimur. The Protestant theologians further distinguished between 1. Pœnitentia prima (magna); 2. Continuata (quotidiana); 3. Iterata (lapsorum); 4. Sera (quæ fit ultimis vitæ momentis.) The question whether the last kind was admissible or not, gave rise to a controversy with the Pietists. Comp. Hase, Hutterus redivivus p. 394. Concerning the sale of indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church, and the various modifications of the theory of indulgences (which had their origin in the opposition made by the Reformers) see Winer, p. 159. Respecting the other sacraments (confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction, holy orders) see ibid. p. 160 ss. The differences of opinion among Protestants and Roman Catholics, as to the validity and dissolubility of matrimony (divortium), prohibited degrees of relationship, the marriage of the clergy, the vow of chastity (in connection with monachism), resulted from differences in fundamental principles. (For the respective passages see Winer 1. c.) Comp. Klee, Dogmengeschichte vol ii.

§ 260.

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING PURGATORY.

In connection with the doctrine of the mass and its efficacy, the Romish Church maintained the existence of a Purgatory to which the souls of all those pious persons depart who die without having made full satisfaction for their sins, and out of which they may be delivered by means of private masses and indulgences. 2 Not only the Protestants unanimously rejected this unscriptural doctrine, but also the Greek theologians,