« PreviousContinue »
• 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 • very body: And that this communion of the body and • blood of Christ is given under the symbols of bread and • wine to all that celebrate his supper, according to its
lawful institution; so that we truly receive what is sig• nified by the symbols, that the body which is received is • not a symbolical body, as it was not a symbolical spirit, " which appeared in the baptism of our Lord; but the Holy « Spirit itself was really and substantially under the symbol, cor 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 conotains a miracle, which exceeds the limits and capacity o 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 understood 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; • 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
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 6 without the bread and wine; for we need only say, that
the bread and wine being taken away, GOD continues
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, « after this, to have recourse to a new miracle : Because
it follows, from the very essence of the mystery, which is, 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 takes 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.
custom whence the bread, tha ing to
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 catholics 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 striv. ing to part people that are fighting. This book coneerned 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 understood 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, proa vided it was understood in a certain sense, and not to intclude 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 " and promised, will make us partakers of his own sub
“ 'stance, that we may be united to him in one life. “ Min. But how can that be, since the body of Jesus “ Christ is in heaven, and we are in this earthly pilgri“ mage ? Sch. It is by the incomprehensible power of his “ Spirit, which unites things that are distant in place “ from one another."
Ponet's diallecticon was afterwards joined to the treatise
De copore et sanguine Domini,' wrote by Bertram, who also endeavoured to reconcile the controversies about the eucharist, and whose notions are very particular concerning this important article.
Calvin was intimidated at nothing, and settled the peace of Geneva. It would be difficult to believe, that in the midst of violent agitations at home, he could shew so much care as he did, of the churches abroad, in France, England, Germany, and Poland; and write so many books and letters. But there are incontestible proofs of it; for he lived in continual action, and almost constantly with his pen in his hand, even when sickness confined him to his bed ; arising from his zeal for the general good of the churches. He was a man on whom God had conferred extraordinary talents, a great deal of wit, an exquisite judgment, a faithful memory, an able, indefatigable, and elegant pen; an extensive knowledge, and a great zeal for the truth. But he could not escape slander abroad, nor opposition at home.
He was full thirty years old when he married Idolette de Bure, the widow of John Stordeur, a native of Liege, and an Anabaptist, whom he had converted. He married her at Strasburg, in 1940, by the advice of his friend Martin Bucer. She had children by her former husband, and also brought Calvin a son, who died before his father. She died in the beginning of 1549, to the great grief of Calvin, who continued a widower all the rest of his life.
As the Reformers married to prove their conversion from the Papists, the latter reproached them, as if they warred against Rome for the same reasons the Grecians warred against Troy. “ Our adversaries (says Calvin) pre• tend we wage a sort of Trojan war for a woman. To " say nothing of others at present; they must allow my« self at least to be free from this charge : Since I am « more particularly able, in my own case, to refute this “ scurrilous reflection. For notwithstanding I was at « liberty to have married under the tyranny of the pope, « I voluntarily led a single life for many years."