In the usual schema, there are four views of the Lord's Supper:
The Memorialist/Zwinglian/Baptist view. Jesus is not present in the elements, but believers reap a spiritual benefit from partaking because they remember his death.
The Calvinist/reformed/"spiritual presence" view. Christ's body and blood are spiritually consumed by the communicants as they physically partake of the bread and wine.
The Lutheran/"consubstantiation"/"in, with, and under"/sacramental union" view. Christ is united to the elements.
The Catholic view ("transubstantiation"). When the elements are blessed, they become Christ's body and blood.
Sometimes a fifth view is considered, that of the Orthodox, who are close to Catholicism but don't like to explain it in Aristotelian terms.
(If you feel any of these descriptors are inaccurate, you're probably right. Please don't get too hung up on any of these definitions. If you're unfamiliar with any of these views, please research them for yourself.)
My question is, which of these did John Wesley believe? I suppose it's possible that he would be hard to categorize here; if that's the case, I'll be satisfied with an answer stating which view he's closest to, and how his views differ from that one. A good answer will include direct quotes from Wesley.
