« PreviousContinue »
Calvin, whose inflexible severity, in maintaining the rights of his consistory, raised him a great many enemies, and occasioned some disorders in the city. However, he surmounted all opposition, and also governed the Protestants in France, who almost all held the doctrine of Calvin, and received ministers from Geneva, who presided in their congregations,
An eminent Calvinist was against popular government; because the universal kingdom hath one king, and the: government of the world is monarchial. There is 10a thing more clear and certain, than that the ultimate end puts the due estimate on all the means of government : But, that is the best form of government, which most ( powerfully conduces to the spiritual and everlasting wel
fare of the people, their holiness, obedience, and pleasing 6 of God. If government be no imeans to this end, it is < not good, desirable, nor of God: For if it be not to, and • for God, it is not from him. The nearest end of go
vernment is order; the next is the maintenance and pro" motion of the prosperity and security of the people • together with the honour of the governor. The more
principal end is our present pleasing and honouring of · God: The ultimate end is our more perfect everlasting • pleasing him in our fruition of him in glory. The
good of the world, and the whole body of the faithful
subjects of God require more attention than the wela « fare of a particular commonwealth. The same prin-s ciples that prove it sordid and impious to value our • private personal prosperity before that of the common• wealth, prove it as bad to value the benefit of one com" monwealth before the universal kingdom of God ons ' earth. If a people could live most prosperously to " themselves in the state of some petty republics and free ( cities; but are hereby incapable of doing much for the r safety or welfare of their brethren abroad, it is not the • most desirable government. Civil order is the nearest < end of civil polity : But church order, for holy com
munion in God's worship, is the nearest end of church < polity. Yei he says, " That though variety of outrward states, and the neglects of either magistrates or s pastors, may be an exception, as to inward qualifica? tions, the same persons are generally fit to be members. of church and commonwealth.
Dupin says, "The doctrine of Calvin concerning the
sacrament, is not fundamentally different from that of -- the Zuinglians; though he uses very positive words to
(express the presence of the body and blood of Jesus
Christ. He affirms, that we are not only partakers of
the Spirit of Jesus Christ in the eucharist, but also of · his flesh which is distributed to us : That he nourishes • us there with the proper substance of his body and · blood : That it is not to be doubted but we receive his s very body : And that this communion of the body and · blood of Christ is given under the symbols of bread and swine to all that celebrate his supper, according to its o lawful institution; so that we truly receive what is sig« nisied by the symbols, that the body which is received is & not a symbolical body, as it was not a symbolical spirit, r which appeared in the baptism of our Lord; but the Holy
Spirit itself was really and substantially under the symbol, For outward form of a dove: That Jesus Christ is united ( to us in this sacrament, not by fancy and imagination, nor
by thought, or a bare apprehension of the mind, but • really and verily by a true and substantial union : That
the manner of our receiving the body of Christ, is very
different from the other manner of receiving him by « faith: That this mystery is incomprehensible, and con<tains a miracle, which exceeds the limits and capacity ( of the mind of man, and is the work of God, much • above the course of nature: That there is a divine and
supernatural change in it, which surpasses our sensible • knowledge: That the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are « truly given to the unworthy, as well as to the faithful
and elect; though they are not received with benefit, (unless by the faithful only' These sort of expressions, and several others, which are in Calvin's institutions, and his other writings, might make us believe, that he did not deny the real and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist: Yet, in other places, he clearly rejects not only transubstantiation, but also his real presence; by asserting, that the body of Jesus Christ is really and substantially present only in heaven; and that it is united to us only by faith, after a spiritual manner, by the incomprehensible working of the Holy Spirit, which joins things together that are separated by distance_ of place. These words, this is my body, ought to be un. derstood after a figurative manner, according to his notion ; and the sign is there put for the thing signified, as when it is said, The rock is Christ; the Lamb is the passover; s and circumcision is the covenant. The body and blood of Jesus Christ are united to us only by virtue and efficacy; and his flesh, remaining in heaven, infuses life into us
Theses together th working of the spiritua
from his substance: Lastly, though the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ are communicated to us by the sacrament of the eucharist, they are not really and substantially present there : And though the body and blood of Christ are there presented, and offered to all Christians, they are not really received, except by the truly faithful, and not by the unworthy.
Calvin differed not much from Luther in other points of doctrine. He held the same principles as to imputed righteousness, and the certainty of our justification, which he extended to an assurance of eternal salvation. He also added an impossibility of falling finally from grace; and he asserted the salvation of the children of believers, who die before they have been baptized. He likewise condemned, with more severity than the Lutherans, the invocation of saints ; the worship and use of images ; vows; celibacy of priests ; fasting; holy-days ; sacrifice of the mass ; adoration of the eucharist ; indulgences; the sacraments, except the eucharist and baptism ; and, in general, all the rites and ceremonies of the church, which the Lutherans had not entirely abolished.
The manner in which Emanuel Maignan, one of the greatest philosophers of the seventeenth century, explained the retaining of accidents, without a subject, in the mystery of the eucharist, is more ingenious than that of Des Cartes. He was a divine of the order of the Minims, and says, there is nothing so easy, as to explain the
manner how the accidents of bread and wine subsist (without the bread and wine; for we need only say, that • the bread and wine being taken away, GOD continues s still to make the same impressions upon our senses, as
they did, before they were changed.' Rohault, who was a Cartesian, blames this hypothesis ; because it admits two miracles, where only one is wanting. Though it be « true, (says he,) that GOD can produce in our senses the impressions of bread and wine, after they have been
changed by transubstantiation ; yet there is no necessity, 5 after this, to have recourse to a new miracle : Because <it follows, from the very essence of the mystery, which cis, that the bread is really changed into the body of Jesus « Christ, that we must continue to perceive all the same ( appearances as we perceived before ; that is, the ac<cidents of bread and wine must subsist.' This Cartesian pretends, that the body of Jesus Christ take up the place of the bread in such a manner, that the same spaces exactly, which served for a place for the bread, are those VOL. II.
wherein the body of Jesus Christ is disposed, leaving to the matter, which filled the pores of the bread, the same spaces it filled before. From whence it follows, that the parts of the body of Jesus Christ assume the figure, situation, and in general all the other modes of bread, and consequently they are bread : For, according to him, the essence of bread, or the form, which distinguishes it from all other bodies, is nothing but a particular concurrence of modifications; therefore, wherever this concurrence is, there must be bread ; and so, it being found in the body of Jesus Christ, at the sacrament of the eucharist, this body is nothing else but bread : From whence it follows, that this great mystery consists in destroying a bit of bread, and replacing another bit of bread in the room of that which was annihilated. But this hypothesis includes such absurdities, as are inconsistent even with Popery, and the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Calvin introduced the Lutheran expressions regarding the eucharist, as mentioned in Bucer's life, which seem to admit of a corporal presence. Judocus Harchius, a physician of Mons, wanted to find a middle way in the doctrine of the eucharist between the Roman ca. tholics and the Protestants, to compose their differences ; but he was laughed at by both. John Ponet, bishop of Winchester, who retired to Strasburg in the reign of Q., Mary, composed a book with this title, · Diallecticon viri
boni et literati de veritate, natura, atque substantia corporis " et sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia;' wherein he endeavoured to reconcile the controversies about the eucharist, and particularly those of the Lutherans and Zuinglians. He was zealously attached to the Reformation ; but he rightly judged what would be the fate of his book ; • that neither (of the contending parties would approve of it; and
that, while he endeavoured to reconcile persons who were 6 at war with one another, he should expose himself to " the indignation of both sides :' And he compared himself to a man who receives a wound with a sword in striving to part people that are fighting. This book concerned the reality, nature, and substance of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist; which this famous bishop published with no other design but to set the faith and doctrine of the church of England in a clear light. He first shews, that the eucharist is not barely the figure of our Lord's body; but that it also comprehends the reality, nature, and substance of it : For which reason these words, nature and substance, are not to be rejected, since
the fathers, in discoursing of this sacrament, made use of them. Secondly, he enquires, whether these words, reality, nature, and substance, were upderstood by the fathers in this mystery, according to their general signification, or in a sense that was peculiar and better adapted to the sacraments? For that we should not only observe what words the fathers made use of, but likewise what meaning they put upon them. And that though he was ready with the fathers, to acknowledge a difference between the body of Christ, which had the natural form of a human body, and his mystical body in the sacrament; yet he inclined to think that this difference should be applied to the manner in which it is present and exhibited, rather than to the thing itself, the true body of Christ: It being most certain, that the body which believers receive in the sacrament, is the same which Christ offered up by his death for their salvation. Lastly, he maintains, that it must be understood in a spiritual sense, according to the general and unanimous exposition of the ancient fathers ; and that every carnal thought or imagination should be excluded. Ponet laid great stress upon the authority of the fathers, who speak in strong terms of the presence of our Lord's body in the symbols of the eucharist; and he entirely rejected the opinion that was ascribed to the Lutherans. However, he condemned those who admit of the oral manducation of the body of Jesus Christ: And was willing to allow of the word transubstantiation, provided it was understood in a certain sense, and not to include oral manducation. He had no reason to think that the Romanists would be satisfied with his allowing of a term which he modified in that manner. But as for those who desired to have a miracle granted in the eucharist, he might fancy his hypothesis would satisfy them, if they only asked a great miracle in general ; for what he teaches on this head is one of the most incomprehensible things that can be imagined. He admits a real and substantial presence of the body of Jesus Christ; but which is no more than sacramental at the same time : And he affirms, that, by virtue of this presence, the bread in the eucharist may purify our souls, and unite us into one body with our Redeemer.
The catechism of the reformed churches, composed by Calvin, does not differ much from the opinion of this bishop of Winchester; as may be seen in these words : “ Thus I doubt not but Jesus Christ, as he was signified *6 and promised, will make us partakers of his own sub