The Mercersburg Review (Volume 17) (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1870 Excerpt: ... A single citation from two great authorities, the first Roman Catholic, the second Calvinistic, will demonstrate this. Bellarmine in his Discussion of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, ch. xix. says, "These words: 'This is My body, ' necessarily lead to the inference either that there is a true mutation of the bread, as the Catholics will have it, or a metaphorical mutation, as the Calvinists will have it; but in no way admit of the Lutheran view." Ursinus, in his Explanation of the Catechism, II., Q. 78: "As it is not true that the Papists retain the verbally literal, so it is much less true (multo minus verum) that those (Lutherans) retain the letter and true sense of the words." "The letter is: 'This, that is, this bread, is My body;' the meaning is, 'That visible, broken, and distributed bread is My true and essential body'--not by essential conversion, but mystically or by sacramental metonomy, because the words according to the verbally literal, have a sense repugnant to the verity of the Christian faith: therefore we say, that in the words of Christ a fitting (conveniens) meaning is to be taught." Do. p. 541. This then is the genesis of the two views: Body cannot be be bread, but as there is body there is no bread: bread cannot be body, but as there is bread there is no body. With such a principle, only a third possibility remains: it is to apply it rigidly and consistently to every part of the Institution, to take away the bread with the Romanist, and the body with the Rationalist, and then we have the Lord's Supper of the Quaker and other mystics, with neither supernatural reality nor outward element--all idea, all spirit. The extravagance of the Romish materializing of the presence of Christ's body, and of the rationalistic exaggeration, which leaves...