II. The Doctrine of the Sacraments
boasted unity of the Church of Rome is a mere corporate uniformity rather than a unity of spirit and purpose.
Questions for Further Study: What special significance did Cyprian have for the development of the doctrine of the Church? Can
Augustine's views on the Church be reduced to a consistent unity?
How can we account for the duality in his representation? How did the priestly conception of the ministry arise? How do the Augustinian and the Roman Catholic conception of the Kingdom of God differ? What is the essential difference between the Roman
Catholic view of the Church and that of the Reformers? How do the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, and the Reformed respectively conceive of the relation between the Church and the State? How do present-day Modernists conceive of the Church?
Literature: Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Vol I; A. Taylor Innes, Church and State; Schaff, Church and State; Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, I, pp. 271–277; II, pp. 62–67, 312–319; III, pp. 122–140,
369–374; Neander, History of Christian Dogmas, I, pp. 218–228; II, pp. 394–398; Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrines, I, pp. 133–
136, 268–270, 384–391; II, pp. 182–191, 378–382; Otten, Manual of the History of Dogmas, I, pp. 171–179, 323–337; II, pp. 214–233;
Crippen, History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 170–172, 182–189, 209– 221; Seeberg, History of Doctrine, cf. Index.
II. The Doctrine of the Sacraments
1. THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
a. Development of the Doctrine Before the Reformation The term "sacraments" is derived from the Latin "sacramentum", by which the Vulgate rendered the Greek musterion, which is used in the New Testament to designate something that was not revealed in
the Old Testament, but later on acquired another connotation. It became the designation of all that was mysterious and incomprehensible in the Christian religion and in other religions, including mysterious actions or things. This meaning of the term was also transferred to the Latin word sacramentum, which originally designated an oath required of a soldier, or a sum of money deposited as security in cases of litigation and forfeited to the State or to the gods, if the case was lost.
This accounts for the fact that the word "sacrament" had a rather wide application in the early Christian centuries. It could be used of anything to which the idea of sanctity could be attached. Tertullian applies it to the works of the Creator, and to the work of the incarnate Son, particularly His death. The sign of the cross, the salt that was given to the catechumens, the ordination of the priests, marriage, exorcism, the celebration of the sabbath—they were all called sacraments. At the same time the term was applied predominantly to baptism and the Lord's Supper. The same loose usage of the term is found in the writings of Augustine, Hilary, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and others.
On the whole it may be said that the Scholastics followed the Augustinian conception of the sacraments as visible signs and mediums of an invisible grace. There was no unanimity as to their number which ranges all the way from five to thirty (Hugo of St.
Victor). Peter the Lombard was the first to name the well known seven of the Roman Catholic Church. In virtue of the fact that his
Sententiae became the general handbook of theology, his private opinion soon became a communis opinio, and finally the Council of Florence officially adopted these seven in 1439: baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, priestly consecration, marriage, and extreme unction.
This restriction of the number of sacraments naturally led to the delimitation of the concept. A doctrine of the sacraments was still a desideratum: the relation of the sensible to the spiritual element was
not clearly defined; neither was there a clear representation of the manner in which the sacraments work. Augustine had occasionally made the operation of the sacraments so dependent on faith in the recipient, that the external sacrament became only an image of what
God works in the soul. This notion was also clearly reflected in one of the views that was prevalent in the scholastic period and which, in fact, was dominant for some time, namely, that the sacraments do not contain but only symbolize grace, though God has covenanted to accompany the use of the sacraments with a direct operation of His grace in the souls of the recipients. This view is found in Bonaventura and Durandus, and became the prevailing one in the Middle Ages through the advocacy of Duns Scotus.
Alongside of this view, however, there was another, namely, that grace truly resides in the visible sacrament. This does not mean that it resides in the visible elements as a permanent power, but that "the words of the institution effect a spiritual efficacy (virtus) in the external sign, which resides in the latter until this virtus has accomplished its end." Hugo of St. Victor and Thomas Aquinas advocated this view, which was finally adopted by the Church.
In connection with the question, whether the operation of the sacraments depends in any way on the worthy or unworthy reception or administration of them, Scholasticism gravitated to the opinion that they are effectual ex opere operate, that is, in virtue of their objective administration. This means, of course, that the reception of sacramental grace is not dependent on the spiritual devotion of the recipient, nor on the character of the officiating priest, though a spiritual preparation for the reception of the sacrament will certainly bring its reward. The working of the sacraments ex opere operato was considered to mark the superiority of the New Testament sacraments over those of the Old Testament.
The Council of Trent passed several decisions respecting the sacraments, of which the following are the most important: (1) The sacraments are necessary unto salvation, that is, they must be
received or at least desired by those who would be saved. It cannot be said, however, that they are all necessary for every man. (2) They contain the grace which they signify, and confer this ex opere operato, or through the act performed, upon one who does not present an obstacle to their operation, such as a mortal sin or some other obstacle. (3) The intention of the officiating priest to administer the sacrament in all sincerity, doing what the Church intends, is essential to its validity. He must intend to do what the Church does, but for the rest may be in mortal sin. (4) The sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and order (or, ordination) impress an indelible character on the soul of the recipient, and therefore are not repeated. (5) The priests, and the priests only are the legitimate administrators of the sacraments.
However, confirmation and ordination can be administered by bishops only, and baptism may in cases of necessity be administered by laymen.
Besides baptism and the Lord's Supper the following sacraments are recognized: confirmation, penance, extreme unction, ordination
(orders), and marriage. These may be briefly described as follows: (1) Confirmation is the sacrament in which, through the bishop's laying on of hands, unction, and prayer, those already baptized receive the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit, so that they may steadfastly profess their faith, and faithfully live up to it. (2) Penance is the sacrament by which forgiveness for post-baptismal mortal sins is obtained by those who are heartily sorry for their sins, sincerely confess them, and are willing to perform the penance imposed upon them. (3) Extreme unction is the sacrament in which those who appear to be near death, by the anointing with holy oil, and by the prayer of the priest, receive special grace to confide in the mercy of God and to resist the final attacks and temptations of the devil. (4)
Ordination or Holy Orders is the sacrament which communicates to those who receive it the full power of the priesthood, together with a special grace to discharge their duties well. (5) Marriage is the sacrament by which a man and a woman are joined in holy wedlock, and receive the necessary grace to discharge the duties of their state faithfully until death.
The following points deserve attention here: (1) Rome conceives of the grace communicated in the sacraments exclusively as an infused sanctifying grace that raises man to the supernatural order and makes him a partaker of the divine nature. It is regarded as a supernatural gift that comes to man from without. The forgiveness of sins, which is generally connected with baptism in Scripture, occupies a relatively unimportant place in the system of Rome. (2)
The connection of the sacrament with the Word is practically ignored. The Word has some, but only a preparatory significance in that it works a purely historical faith, which cannot really save, except when it is informed by love, that is, by a gratia infusa. Since this love is communicated only by the sacrament, the latter acquires an independent significance alongside of the Word and really surpasses it in value. (3) Faith is not an absolute requirement for the reception of the sacrament. Sanctifying grace is present as a material element in the sacrament, is communicated by it ex opere operato, and presupposes at most that the recipient places no insuperable obstructions in the way. b. The Doctrine of the Reformers and of Later Theology
In every one of the points just mentioned the Reformation subjected the doctrine of the sacraments to a scriptural revision. Luther,
Calvin, and Zwingli were agreed in their opposition to Rome. They united in the position that the grace imparted in the sacrament is first of all the forgiving grace of God, which bears on the guilt of sin rather than on the lower nature of man deprived of the donum superadditum. They also shared the conviction that the sacraments are signs and seals attached to the Word, which communicate no kind of grace that is not also imparted by the Word, and which have no value apart from the Word. And, finally, they also concurred in the opinion that, not the sacrament itself, but its operation and fruit is dependent on faith in the recipient, and therefore always presupposes saving grace.
But while they were at one on these particulars, it soon became manifest that they differed on important points. The sacraments became a bone of contention among them. In opposition to Rome,
Luther at first stressed the fact that the operation of the sacraments is dependent on faith in the recipient, and later on gave greater prominence to their intimate and essential connection with the Word, of which they are signs and seals. They differ from the Word especially in this that they are not addressed to the Church in general, but to individuals. As a result of his struggle with the Anabaptists he, after 1524, emphasized the absolute necessity of the sacraments and their objective character, making their effectiveness dependent on the divine institution rather than on the subjective state of the recipient. Cf. Heppe, Dogm. III, p. 380. The same controversy caused him to insist on the temporal, corporal, and local connection between the sign and the thing signified. In his opinion the divine power is present in the sacrament as the visible Word, and as such the vehicle of divine grace.
Since the sacraments are administered only to believers, Zwingli conceives of them as being first of all signs and proofs of faith, and only secondarily means for the strengthening of faith as reminders of the blessings appropriated by faith, and as directing our faith away from ourselves to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. For him the sacraments were memorials and badges of profession, though he also uses expressions which seem to point to a deeper significance.
Calvin also regards the sacraments as acts of confession, but only secondarily. To him they are first of all signs and seals of the promises of God which direct attention to the riches of His grace. He finds their essential element in the word of promise, in the covenant of grace, and in the person of Christ with all his blessings. But he did not conceive of these spiritual blessings as deposited in the visible elements, as inherent in these, making them more or less independent distributors of divine grace. For him God is and remains the only source of grace, and the sacraments are merely the instruments by which it is communicated. God communicates this
grace only to believers by nourishing and strengthening their faith.
Unbelievers may receive the external sign, but do not participate in the thing signified.
Outside of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches the Zwinglian conception of the sacraments enjoyed great popularity. The Anabaptists denied that the sacraments are seals and regarded them as signs and symbols only. They give a visible representation of the blessings conveyed to believers, but do this merely as acts of confession; they communicate no grace.
Socinians regarded the Lord's Supper as a memorial of Christ's death, and baptism merely as a primitive rite of profession for Jewish and pagan converts, without any permanent validity. The Arminians do speak of the sacraments as exhibiting and sealing the blessings of grace, but do not want to convey the idea that they are seals of the promise of God and communicate grace. They are rather simply signs of the covenant between God and man, in which the former exhibits His grace, and the latter pledges to lead a holy life.
Rationalists reduced the sacraments to mere memorials and badges of confession, aiming at the promotion of virtue. Schleiermacher made an attempt to maintain their objective character, and to unite all the different views in a higher synthesis, but did not succeed. In the nineteenth century many Neo-Lutherans and the Puseyites in England advocated a doctrine of the sacraments that reminds us very strongly of the Roman Catholic conception.
2. BAPTISM
a. Development of the Doctrine Before the Reformation Baptism was foremost among the sacraments as the rite of initiation into the Church. Even in the Apostolic Fathers we find the idea that it was instrumental in effecting the forgiveness of sins and in communicating the new life of regeneration. In a certain sense it may be said, therefore, that some of the early Fathers taught baptismal
regeneration. Yet this statement requires some limitations: (1) They held baptism to be efficacious in the case of adults only in connection with the right inner disposition and purpose, though Tertullian seemed to think that the very reception of the rite carried with it the remission of sins. (2) They did not regard baptism as absolutely essential to the initiation of spiritual life, or the life of regeneration; but viewed it rather as the completing element in a process of renewal.
Infant baptism was evidently quite current in the days of Origen and Tertullian, though the latter opposed it on the ground of the inexpediency of placing young children under the heavy responsibility of the baptismal covenant. The general opinion was that baptism ought in no case to be repeated; but there was no unanimous opinion as to the validity of baptism administered by heretics. The bishop of Rome asserted that it could be regarded as valid, but Cyprian denied this. The former finally gained the upper hand, and it became a fixed principle not to re-baptize those who had been baptized according to the trinitarian formula. The mode of baptism was not in dispute. While immersion was practiced, it was not the only mode, and certainly was not considered to be of the essence of baptism.
From the second century on the conception of baptism gradually changed. The idea gained ground ever increasingly that the sacrament works more or less magically. Even Augustine promoted this view to some extent, though he considered faith and repentance as the necessary conditions of baptism in the case of adults. In the case of infants, however, he seems to have assumed that the sacrament was effective ex opere operato. He held that children which die unbaptized are lost, and that in the case of those who are baptized the faith of the Church, represented by the sponsors, can be accepted as that of the child. Moreover, he maintained that baptism in every case impresses on the child a character indelibilis, in virtue of which it belongs by right to Christ and His Church. He defined the effect of baptism more specifically than was customary by stating
that, while it wholly removes original sin as a matter of guilt, it does not wholly remove it as a corruption of nature. In general baptism was now considered as absolutely necessary, though martydom was regarded as a full equivalent for baptismal washing. In view of these facts, it stands to reason that infant baptism was generally practiced.
The Scholastics at first shared the view of Augustine, that baptism in the case of adults presupposes faith, but gradually began to consider the sacrament as effective ex opere operato, and to minimize the importance of subjective conditions. Thus the way was paved for the Roman Catholic conception of baptism, according to which it is the sacrament of regeneration and of initiation into the Church. It contains the grace which it signifies and confers it ex opere operato on all those who do not put an obstacle in the way. The grace so conferred is of the utmost importance, since it includes: (1) The character indelibilis, which brings one under the jurisdiction of the Church. (2) Deliverance (a) from the guilt of original sin and from the guilt of sins committed up to the time of baptism; (b) from the pollution of sin, though concupiscence remains as the fomenting agent of sin; and (c) from eternal punishment and also from all temporal punishments, except in so far as these are the natural results of sin. (3) Spiritual renewal by the infusion of sanctifying grace and of the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love. (4)
Incorporation into the communion of the saints, and into the visible Church of believers. Because of this importance of baptism, it was deemed quite essential that it should be administered as soon as possible, and in cases of necessity by laymen or even by nonChristians. b. The Doctrine of the Reformers and of Later Theology
The opposition of the Reformation to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacraments did not center in baptism, but in the Lord's Supper.
In fact, the German Reformers adopted much of the baptism of the Roman Catholic Church, even retaining many of the ceremonies connected with it, such as the sign of the cross, exorcism,
sponsorship, and so on. Luther taught that the Word of God with its intrinsic divine power makes the water of baptism a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration. It is not simply common water, but "the water comprehended in God's command and connected with God's Word." Smaller Catechism IV. 1. At first he made the salutary effect of baptism dependent on faith, but in view of the fact that children can hardly exercise faith, he next held that God by His prevenient grace works faith in the unconscious child, and finally he turned the question involved over to the doctors, saying, "We do not baptize upon that (faith in the infant), but solely upon the command of God." Many of the Lutheran theologians, however, retained the doctrine of an infant-faith, either as a pre-condition for baptism, or as an immediately produced effect of its administration. In the latter case the implication is, of course, that the sacrament works ex opere operato. It works regeneration and takes away the guilt and power of sin, but does not entirely remove its pollution. The radix aut fomes peccati remains.
In opposition to both Luther and Zwingli a new sect arose, during the Reformation, in Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, which denied the validity of infant baptism. Its adherents were called
Anabaptists by their opponents, since they insisted on rebaptizing those who were baptized in infancy, when these desired to join their circle. They did not consider this a rebaptism, however, because they did not regard infant baptism as a true baptism. In their estimation there was no true baptism that was not preceded by a voluntary profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Children really have no standing in the Church. The spiritual successors of the Anabaptists prefer to speak of themselves as Anti-Pædo-Baptists.
The Reformed proceeded on the assumption that baptism was instituted for believers and therefore does not work but strengthens faith. But by proceeding on this assumption they faced a twofold difficulty. They had to prove in opposition, especially to the Anabaptists, but also to the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans, that children can be regarded as believers before baptism, and as such
ought to be baptized. And in addition to that they had to define the spiritual benefit which the child receives in baptism, seeing that it is not yet in a position to exercise active faith, and therefore cannot be strengthened in it. On the whole little attention was paid to the last point. It was generally said that baptism gives the parents the assurance that their child is incorporated in the covenant, is a rich source of consolation for the child as it grows up, and gives it, even in its unconscious state, a title to all the blessings of the covenant.
The answers to the question, how the children that receive baptism are to be considered varied from the start. There was general agreement in establishing the right of infant baptism by an appeal to Scripture and particularly to the scriptural doctrine of the covenant.
Children of believers are covenant children, and are therefore entitled to the sacrament. Opinions differed, however, as to the implications of this covenant relationship. According to some it warrants the assumption that children of believing parents are regenerated until the contrary appears in doctrine or life. Others, deeply conscious of the fact that such children often grow up without revealing any signs of spiritual life, hesitated to accept that theory.
They admitted that regeneration before baptism was quite possible, but preferred to leave it an open question, whether elect children are regenerated before, at (during), or perhaps long after baptism. It was felt that the cases varied and did not conform to a general rule. In harmony with this idea the spiritual effect of baptism as a means of grace was not limited to the time of the administration of the sacrament. Some even regarded baptism as nothing more than a sign of an external covenant. Under the influence of Socinians,
Arminians, and Anabaptists it became quite customary in some circles to deny that baptism was a seal of divine grace, and to regard it as a mere act of profession on the part of man.
3. THE LORD'S SUPPER
a. Development of the Doctrine Before the Reformation. At first the Lord's Supper was accompanied with a common meal, for which the
people brought the necessary ingredients. These gifts were called oblations and sacrifices, and were blessed by the bishop with a prayer of thanksgiving. In course of time names derived from this practice, such as prosphorai (oblations), thusiai (sacrifices), and eucharistia (thanksgiving), were applied to the Lord's Supper itself.
This was rather harmless in itself, but led to a dangerous development, when the clerical idea was strengthened and the bishop became a priest. Then the thanksgiving was regarded as a consecration of the elements in the Lord's Supper, and the Supper itself assumed the character of a sacrifice brought by the priest
(bishop). This, in turn, affected the representation of the sacramental union. The symbolical or spiritual conception found in Origen, and essentially also in Eusebius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianze, and others, was supplanted by the doctrine that the flesh and blood of Christ were in some way combined with the bread and wine in the sacrament (Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, John of Damascus), and this again passed into the doctrine of transubstantiation.
In the West the development of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper was slower, but led to the same result. Augustine admitted that the sacrament was in a sense the body of Christ, and in the language of Scripture often spoke of bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. At the same time he clearly distinguished between the sign and the thing signified, and asserted that the substance of bread and wine remains unchanged. He stressed the commemorative aspect of the rite, and maintained that the wicked, though they may receive the elements, do not partake of the body. He even protested against the superstitious reverence that was paid to the ordinance by many in his day. In fact, the views of Augustine retarded the full development of the realistic theory for a long time.
During the Middle Ages the doctrine as taught by Augustine gradually gave way for the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. In 818 A. D. Paschasius Radbert formally propounded the doctrine that the material elements in the sacrament are by divine power literally changed into the very body that was born of Mary, the outward
appearance of bread and wine being, after consecration, a mere veil that deceives the senses. This doctrine was opposed by the foremost theologians of the day, and particularly by Rabanus Maurus and Ratramnus, who points out that the new teaching confounds the sign with the thing signified and replaces faith by a gross materialism.
The new doctrine was defended, however by Gerbert (1003), and shortly after that became the subject of a furious controversy. About the year 1050 Berenger of Tours affirmed that the body of Christ is indeed present in the Eucharist, not in essence, but in power; that the elements are changed but not in substance; and that, in order to secure this change and power, not merely consecration, but faith on the part of the recipient as well is needed. His views were strenuously opposed by Lanfranc (1089) and Humbert (1059), who made the crass statement that "the very body of Christ was truly held in the priest's hands, broken and chewed by the teeth of the faithful." This view was finally defined by Hildebert of Tours (1134), and designated as the doctrine of transubstantiation. It became an article of faith, when it was formally adopted by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215.
This doctrine suggested a good many problems to the Schoolmen, such as those respecting the duration of the change effected, the relation of substance and accidents, the manner of Christ's presence in both elements and in every part of them, the adoration of the host, and so on.
The Council of Trent dealt with the subject of the eucharist as recorded in Sessio XIII of its Decrees and Canons. The gist of what is contained in eight Chapters and eleven Canons may be stated as follows: Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the holy sacrament. The fact that He is seated at the right hand of God according to the natural mode of existence does not exclude the possibility that He may be present in several other places at the same time according to a higher, spiritual and supernatural mode of existence. We may not be able to explain how, but we can conceive of the possibility of His substantial and sacramental presence in several places simultaneously. By the words of consecration the whole substance of bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of
Christ. The entire Christ is present under each species and under each particle of either species, so that he who receives one particle of the host receives the whole Christ. He is present not only in the moment of the administration, but even before the reception of the elements by the communicant, since the Lord called the bread his body even before the disciples received it. In view of this presence of Christ in the eucharist the adoration of the host and the festival of the Corpus Christi are but natural. The chief effects of the sacrament are: "increase of sanctifying grace, special actual graces, remission of venial sins, preservation from grievous (mortal) sin, and the confident hope of eternal salvation." b. The Doctrine of the Reformers and of Later Theology
The Reformers one and all rejected the sacrificial theory of the Lord's Supper and the mediæval doctrine of transubstantiation. But that is about as far as their agreement in the matter went. When they addressed themselves to the positive task of constructing a scriptural doctrine of the Lord's Supper, their ways parted. Luther at first taught that bread and wine were signs and seals of the forgiveness of sins, but soon adopted another view, in which he opposed Zwingli's figurative interpretation of the words of the institution. He asserted the necessity of taking these words literally and assumed a real bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. At the same time he rejected the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, substituting for it the doctrine of consubstantiation, defended at length by Ockham in his De Sacramento Altaris. In his larger Catechism Luther expresses himself as follows: "The very body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ are, by the word of Christ, instituted and given to us Christians to be eaten and drunk in and under bread and wine."
According to him the body is also received by unbelievers who partake of the sacrament, but only to their condemnation.
Zwingli opposed especially the idolatry of the mass, and denied absolutely the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. He interpreted the words of the institution figuratively, taking the word
"is" to mean "signifies", as in Gen. 41:26; John 10:9; 15:1. In the bread and wine he saw mere symbols, and in the sacrament itself an act of commemoration. Yet he did not deny the spiritual presence of Christ. "The true body of Christ", says he, "is present to the contemplation of faith; but that his natural body is really and actually present in the Supper, or is eaten with our mouths.… we constantly assert to be an error repugnant to the Word of God."
While he says, "There is nothing in the eucharist but commemoration", he also uses expressions that would seem to point to a deeper significance. His position is not altogether clear.
Calvin held an intermediate position. He agreed with Zwingli in rejecting absolutely the bodily, local, and substantial presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. But he had especially two objections to the view of the Swiss Reformer, namely that the latter, (1) stresses the activity of the believers rather than the gracious gift of God in the sacrament, and therefore conceives of the Lord's Supper one-sidedly as an act of profession; and (2) sees in the eating of the body of Christ nothing else and nothing more than an expression of belief in His name and confident trust in His death. While denying the bodily and local presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, he yet agreed with Luther, that Christ is really and essentially present in his entire person, and is received as such by believers. His view is succinctly and correctly expressed by Sheldon when he says: "His theory" in brief was that the glorified humanity of Christ is a fountain of spiritual virtue or efficacy; that this efficacy is mediated by the Holy
Spirit to the believing recipient of the eucharistic elements; that accordingly the body of Christ is present in the eucharist in virtue of efficacy; that the eating of Christ's body is entirely spiritual, by means of faith, the unbelieving having no part in it, and an oral manducation being out of the question." History of Christian
Doctrines II, p. 207. This view was incorporated in the Reformed Confessions, and became the common property of Reformed theology. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England are not very definite on the subject.
After the Reformation the Zwinglian conception of the Lord's Supper found favor in some circles. It was sometimes regarded as a sacrament of a purely external covenant, to which all who gave no offense were entitled. Thus the way was paved for Rationalism, which adopted the views of the Socinians, the Arminians, and the Mennonites, who saw in the Lord's Supper only a memorial, an act of profession, and a means for moral improvement. Under the influence of Schleiermacher the objective character of the sacrament as a means of grace was again stressed. Many of the mediating theologians (Vermittelungs-theologen) rejected the Lutheran consubstantiation and manducatio oralis, and approached the doctrine of Calvin by teaching that Christ is spiritually present in the Lord's Supper, and in the sacrament imparts Himself and His spiritual blessings to believers. Others, such as Scheibel, Rudelbach, and Philippi reaffirmed the old Lutheran position. In England the Oxford Movement marks a return to the position of Rome. Many of the High Church party teach that the consecrated elements in the Lord's Supper are really, be it mystically, the body and blood of Christ.
Questions for Further Study: What are the marks of a sacrament?
Are the sacraments necessary unto salvation? Do Roman Catholics defend the position that their sacraments were instituted by Jesus?
What scriptural grounds do they adduce for their various sacraments? How did the idea of baptismal regeneration arise? How did the Anabaptist view of baptism differ from that of the Reformers? On what grounds do they deny infant baptism? How did the sacrificial idea of the Lord's Supper arise? Why do Roman
Catholics withhold the cup from the laity? How did Calvin conceive of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper?
Literature: Wahl, History of Infant Baptism; Dimock, The Doctrine of the Sacraments; Hebert, The Lord's Supper, History of Uninspired
Teaching; Ebrard, Das Dogma vom heiligen Abendmahl; Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, I, pp. 277–299; II, pp. 67–86, 319–377; III, pp.
140–173, 219–226, 374–381; Neander, History of Christian Dogmas,