Accordingly, not only those who have been sufficiently denounced as heterodox, have abandoned the doctrines of the symbols, but also the so-called orthodox, such as Doederlein, Morus, Michaelis, the venerable Reinhard, Knapp, Storr, Schott, Schwartz, Augusti, Marheinecke, as well as Hahn, Oltshausen, Tholuk, and Hengstenberg.  In like manner has the public pledge to the symbols been greatly relaxed, and is nowhere unconditional; but in fidelity to the principles of Protestantism, and guarding it, the obligation is always expressed with the explicit reservation of the supreme authority of the Scriptures, as is evident from an inspection of the pledges prescribed in the different Protestant countries.” [Note 2] Again:  “It may as well be confessed and openly avowed, for the good of the church, that, there are but few theologians who still believe and teach the doctrines of the symbols.” [Note 3]

Professor Schultz, in his work on the Eucharist, [Note 4] in 1831, says:  “If, in the most recent times, individuals have here and there arisen in the Lutheran Church itself, as defenders of Luther’s views of the Lord’s Supper, it must not be overlooked, that even they, sensibly feeling the difficulty of their undertaking, resort to all manner of subtle explanations and arbitrary additions, in order to explain away the objectionable aspects of this view.”

Finally, listen to the testimony of Dr. Hagenbach, of Basel, one of the most distinguished orthodox divines of Europe:  “How few Lutherans, in this rationalizing period, firmly adhere to the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist:  and how few Reformed adhered consistently to the doctrine of unconditional election.  If, therefore, the one, party relinquished the one, and the other party the other point (or dividing doctrine,) then the union between them was of course effected in the most natural way possible.” [Note 5]

We close our observations on this topic with the impressive counsels of the venerable Dr. Knapp:  [Note 6] “Speculations concerning the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ, have not the least influence upon the nature and efficacy of the Lord’s Supper.  What the Christian chiefly needs to know is the object and uses of this rite, and to act accordingly.  Vide Sec.145.  He must there therefore believe from the heart that Christ died for him; that now, in his exalted state, he is still active in providing for his welfare; and that hence it becomes him to approach the Lord’s table with feelings of the deepest reverence and most grateful love to God and to Christ.  Upon this everything depends, and this makes the ordinance truly edifying and comforting in its influence.  These benefits may be derived from this ordinance by all Christians; and to all who have true faith, or who allow this ordinance to have its proper effect in awakening attention to the great truths which it exhibits, it is a powerful, divinely-appointed means of grace, whatever theory respecting it they may adopt—­the Lutheran, the Reformed, or even the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, gross as this error is.”