VI

John Calvin, a native of Picardy, was born in 1509. In 1523 he received the tonsure, and was sent to Paris to prepare for the priesthood. Though holding and supported by ecclesiastical preferments, he gave most of his attention to law, which he studied at Paris and Orleans and Bourges. He never received Holy Orders. After 1532 he often preached at the meetings of the French Reformers. He spent some time in Angoulême, Poitiers, Orleans, Paris, Basle, and Strassburg, and eventually settled in Geneva in 1541; and he died at Geneva in 1564. The earliest and shortest form of his chief work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, was published at Basle in 1536. Its most enlarged and final form appeared at Geneva in 1559, five years before his death. The fourth book of the Institutes, entitled “Concerning the External Means and Helps by which God Invites Us into the Society of Christ, and Keeps Us in it,” contains six chapters on the Sacraments, of which two relate to the Eucharist. The teaching formulated by Calvin carried further the attempt of Bucer to find a middle position between Luther and the Zwinglians. He united a strong denial that the elements are by consecration the body and blood of Christ with a strong affirmation that the body and blood of Christ are received by the faithful communicant. In regard to the Eucharistic presence his ideas are clearly set out in the following passages:—

“There are two faults to be avoided, so that we may not unduly depreciate the signs and separate them from the mysteries to which in some way they are attached, or excessively exalt them and seem to obscure the mysteries themselves. That Christ is the Bread of life by which the faithful are nourished to eternal salvation no one who is not utterly irreligious would fail to admit. But there is not equal agreement as to what is the method of partaking of Him. For there are those who define eating the flesh of Christ and drinking His blood as nothing else than believing on Christ Himself. But to me Christ seems to have intended to teach something more express and lofty in that famous discourse in which He commends to us the eating of His flesh, namely, that we are quickened by a real participation of Him, which He described by the words eating and drinking so that no one should think that the life which we receive from Him is received merely by thought. For, as not the sight of bread but the eating of bread supplies the body with nourishment, so it is fitting that the soul should really and inwardly be partaker of Christ in order that by His power it may be quickened into spiritual life. Yet we acknowledge that this eating is the work of faith, as it cannot be imagined to be anything else. But between my statement and that of those whom I am opposing there is this difference, that to them to eat is only to believe, so that the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing that He is made ours by faith, whereas I say that this eating is the fruit and result of faith. Or, if you desire a clearer statement, to them eating is faith, to me it seems rather to ensue from faith. The difference may be small in words, but it is not unimportant in fact. For, though the Apostle teaches that Christ dwells in our hearts through faith, yet no one would interpret this dwelling to be faith, but all perceive that the splendid result of faith is described, that through it the faithful attain to the possession of Christ abiding in them. After this manner, in calling Himself the Bread of life the Lord willed to teach not only that salvation is laid up for us in faith on His death and resurrection but also that a real communication of Himself brings to pass that His life passes into us and becomes ours, not otherwise than bread, when it is taken for nourishment, supplies strength to the body.”

“Let it be a conclusion that our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ as our bodily life is guarded and sustained by bread and wine. For the analogy of the sign would not hold good if our souls did not find their nourishment in Christ, which cannot be unless Christ is really joined to us and refreshes us by the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. And, though in so great distance of place it seems incredible that the flesh of Christ should reach to us so as to be our food, let us remember how greatly the hidden power of the Holy Ghost surpasses all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish that His limitless force should be measured by our standard. What then our mind does not understand, let faith receive, namely, that the Holy Ghost really unites what are divided in place.… I acknowledge that the breaking of the bread is a symbol, not the thing itself. But when this has been laid down, we shall rightly infer that in the presentation (exhibitione) of the symbol the thing itself is presented (exhiberi).… Why does the Lord give into your hands the symbol of His body if it be not to assure you of real participation of Him? But, if it is true that a visible sign is bestowed on us to ratify the gift of the invisible thing, let us believe that, when the symbol of the body is received, the body itself is no less certainly given to us. I say then, as has always been received in the Church and as all right minded people teach to-day, that the mystery of the Holy Supper consists of two things, the bodily signs which are set before our eyes and represent to us invisible things in such way as our weakness can grasp, and the spiritual reality which is both denoted and presented (exhibetur) by the symbols.”

“There is no one of the writers of antiquity who does not acknowledge in explicit words that the holy symbols of the Supper are bread and wine, although, as has been said, they sometimes dignify them with various epithets to commend the dignity of the mystery. For their saying that at the consecration there is a hidden conversion so that there is now something else than bread and wine, as I have just taught, does not mean that the bread and wine are reduced to nothing but that they are to be regarded differently from common food which is destined only to feed the body, since in them is presented (exhibeatur) to us the spiritual food of the soul. This is not denied by us.… The nature of a Sacrament is overthrown unless the earthly sign corresponds in the method of signifying to the heavenly thing. And consequently, the reality of this mystery is overthrown unless real bread represents the real body of Christ.”

“If these absurdities” (that is, “anything which does despite to the heavenly glory of Christ” or “is inconsistent with His human nature,” such as “binding Christ to the element of bread or enclosing Him in the bread” or “saying that His body is infinite or is at the same time in more places than one”) “are taken away, I gladly accept whatever can mark the real and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, which is presented (exhibetur) to the faithful under the holy symbols of the Supper, and in such a way that the faithful are understood to receive not merely by the imagination and perception of the mind but to enjoy the thing itself for the nourishment of eternal life.”

“They are greatly deceived who suppose that there is no presence of Christ in the Supper unless it is placed in the bread. For by such an idea they leave nothing to the secret operation of the Spirit which unites Christ Himself to us. Christ does not seem to them to be present unless He descends to us, as if we did not equally possess His presence if He draws us up to Him. Therefore the question is only about the manner. They locate Christ in the bread; we do not think it right for us to bring Him down from heaven. Let the readers judge which is the more right. Only let the slander cease that Christ is taken away from His Supper unless He is hidden under the covering of bread. For, since this mystery is heavenly, to bring Christ to earth is not necessary for uniting Him to us. If any one asks me about the manner, I am not ashamed to confess that the mystery is higher than my mind can grasp or my words express, and, to speak more openly, beyond my understanding. And therefore I here embrace without controversy the truth of God, in which I may safely rest. He declares that His flesh is the food, and His blood is the drink, of my soul. I give my soul to Him to be fed on such food. In the Holy Supper He commands me to take and eat and drink His body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that He really gives and that I receive.”

“A false charge is made against us that our teaching concerning spiritual eating is opposed to real and actual eating, as they say, since we are only considering the manner of eating, which with them is carnal, since they enclose Christ in the bread, but with us is spiritual because the hidden power of the Spirit is the bond of our union with Christ. There is no more truth in the other objection that we treat only of the fruit or result which the faithful receive from the eating of the flesh of Christ. For we said before that Christ Himself is the matter of the Supper, whence follows the result that we are expiated from sins by the sacrifice of His death, washed by His blood, raised by His resurrection to the hope of heavenly life.… The flesh itself of Christ in the mystery of the Supper is no less a spiritual thing than eternal salvation. Whence we infer that those who are without the Spirit of Christ can no more eat the flesh of Christ than one who cannot bear the taste can drink wine.… I acknowledge and maintain that the force of the mystery remains unimpaired although the impious may try to empty it as far as they can. Yet it is one thing to be offered, another thing to be received. Christ offers to all this spiritual food and spiritual drink. Some feed on it eagerly; others reject it fastidiously. Will the rejection cause the food and drink to lose their nature? Our opponents will say that their opinion is helped by this comparison, namely, that the flesh of Christ, though it be tasteless, is none the less flesh. But I deny that it can be eaten without the taste of faith, or, if it is more pleasing that I should speak with Augustine, I deny that men can take from the Sacrament more than they gather in the vessel of faith. So nothing is lost from the Sacrament. Its reality and efficacy remain unimpaired, although the impious depart empty after outwardly receiving it. If they object again that despite is done to the words ‘This is My body’ if the impious receive corruptible bread and nothing else, the answer is ready, that the true God does not wish to be acknowledged in the mere act of reception but in the persistence of His goodness, whereby He is prepared to bestow on, nay liberally offers to, the unworthy that which they reject. And this is the integrity of the Sacrament, which the whole world cannot violate, that the flesh and blood of Christ are given not less really to the unworthy than to the elect faithful of God; yet it is also true that, as the rain which falls on a hard rock flows away because there is no possibility of it sinking into the stone, so the impious by their hardness drive away the grace of God and prevent it from entering into them. Moreover, for Christ to be received without faith is no more reasonable than for a seed to sprout in the fire.”

“This thought will take us away from the carnal adoration, which some with perverse rashness have introduced in the Sacrament.… That pious minds may rightly lay hold of Christ, they must be raised to heaven. But, if this is the office of the Sacrament, to raise the weak mind of man so that he may rise to grasp the height of spiritual mysteries, they who are detained in the outward sign wander from the right way of seeking Christ.… Rather is Christ to be adored spiritually in the glory of heaven than this so dangerous way of adoration devised, full of a carnal and gross idea of God.… What is idolatry if it is not to worship the gifts instead of the Giver? In which there is doubly a sin; for the honour is taken away from God, and bestowed on a creature; and God Himself is dishonoured in His polluted and profaned gift, when from His Holy Sacrament a dreadful idol is made.”

Calvin rejected the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass as taught in his time, and described it as a “most pestilent error” and an “abomination”. In this rejection he repudiated any idea of a sacrificial offering in the Eucharist other than that which is to be found in all Christian prayer. The following passages are representative of the general position taken up in his long treatment of the subject:—

“The Levitical priests were commanded to typify the sacrifice which Christ was to offer; there was a victim, which was in the place of Christ Himself; there was an altar, on which it was offered; all things were done in such a way that there might be before men’s eyes a likeness of the sacrifice which was to be offered in expiation to God. But, when the sacrifice was accomplished, the Lord instituted another method for us, namely, to bestow on the faithful people the fruit of the sacrifice offered to Him by His Son. Therefore He has given us a Table at which to feast, not an altar on which to offer a sacrifice; He has not consecrated priests to sacrifice but ministers to distribute the sacred banquet.”

“A sacrifice of expiation has as its object to appease the wrath of God and satisfy His judgment, and thus to cleanse and wash away sins, so that the sinner cleansed from the filth of them may be restored to the purity of righteousness and brought back to the favour of God Himself. Thus under the Law the sacrifices which were offered to expiate sin were so called, not because they were able to reconcile the grace of God and blot out iniquity, but because they foreshadowed the real sacrifice of this kind, which at length was actually offered by Christ alone, by Him alone, because it could not be offered by any other. And it was offered once for all, because the efficacy and power of that one sacrifice which was offered by Christ is eternal, as He Himself bore witness with His own mouth when He said that it was complete and fulfilled, that is, whatever was necessary to reconcile the grace of the Father, to obtain remission of sins, for righteousness, for salvation, all this was done and finished by that one offering of His; and therefore there is nothing lacking so as afterwards to leave room for another sacrifice to-day.… In the other kind of sacrifice, which we have called Eucharistic, are contained all the offices of love with which, while we embrace our brethren, we honour the Lord Himself in His members, then all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and whatever is done by us for the worship of God. And all these depend on the greater sacrifice by which we are consecrated in soul and body to be a holy temple unto the Lord. For it is not enough that our outward actions be applied to His service; but we ourselves first, and then all that is ours, must be consecrated and dedicated to Him, so that whatever is in us may serve His glory and be animated by the desire of increasing it. This kind of sacrifice has nothing to do with appeasing the wrath of God, or obtaining remission of sins, or gaining righteousness, but it deals only with glorifying and exalting God; for nothing can be pleasing or acceptable to God which is not from the hand of those who have already received the remission of sins, whom He has otherwise reconciled to Himself and set free by expiation.… This kind of sacrifice the Lord’s Supper cannot be without, in which, while we announce His death and return thanks, we offer nothing else than a sacrifice of praise. From this duty of sacrifice we Christians are all called a royal priesthood, because by means of Christ we offer to God that sacrifice of praise of which the Apostle speaks, the fruit of lips which make confession to His name. For neither can we with our gifts appear in the presence of God without an Intercessor. Christ is He by whose intercession as our Mediator we offer our gifts to the Father. He is our High priest, who has entered into the sanctuary of the heaven and has opened a way of approach for us. He is the altar on which we lay our gifts, so that in Him we dare whatever we dare. He it is, I say, who has made us a kingdom and priests to the Father.”

The first draft of the Gallican Confession of Faith of 1559 was made by Calvin; in its final form it was the work of his pupil Chandieu and a council of the French Reformers held at Paris in 1559. The teaching contained in it is the same as that in the writings of Calvin. The twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth articles are as follows:—

“We confess that the Holy Supper, which is the second Sacrament, is a witness to us of the union which we have with Jesus Christ, inasmuch as He not only died and rose for us once, but also really feeds and nourishes us with His flesh and His blood, so that we may be one with Him, and that His life may be in us. Although He is in heaven until He shall come to judge all the world, yet we believe that by the hidden and incomprehensible power of His Spirit He nourishes and quickens us with the substance of His body and His blood. We hold that this is done spiritually, not that we put imagination or fancy in the place of fact and reality, but because the height of this mystery surpasses the measure of our senses and the whole order of nature. In short, because it is heavenly, it can be apprehended only by faith. We believe … that in the Supper … God gives us actually and in fact that which is there represented; and that, consequently, besides the signs there is the real possession and enjoyment of that which is there presented to us. And thus all who bring to the Holy Table of Christ a pure faith, like a vessel, really receive that which the signs represent; that is, the body and the blood of Jesus Christ are no less the food and drink of the soul than the bread and the wine are of the body.”

The Belgic Confession was drawn up in the first instance in 1561 by Guy de Brès, Adrian Saravia, and others, and after some revision was adopted by councils of Reformers held at Antwerp in 1566, at Wesel in 1568, at Emden in 1571, at Dort in 1574, at Middelburg in 1581, and at Dort in 1619. It became a recognised statement of belief of the Dutch and Belgian Reformers. The teaching of the thirty-fifth article, entitled “Concerning the Lord’s Supper,” is the same as that of Calvin. It contains the following sentences:—

“For the preservation of the spiritual and heavenly life which the faithful possess God has sent living Bread, which came down from heaven, namely, Jesus Christ, who nourishes and sustains the spiritual life of the faithful, when He is eaten, that is, applied and received in the spirit by means of faith. That He might represent to us this spiritual and heavenly Bread, Christ has instituted earthly and visible bread and wine as the Sacrament of His body and blood, to testify to us that as really as we receive and hold this Sacrament in our hands, and eat and drink it with our mouths, whence afterwards our life is maintained, so really do we by faith, which is the hand and mouth of our soul, receive the real body and the real blood of Christ our only Saviour in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life.… We do not err when we say that what is eaten is the identical and natural body of Christ, and what is drunk is His real blood. But the manner in which (la manière par laquelle in the French text; instrumentum seu medium quo in the Latin text) we eat and drink is not the mouth but the spirit through faith. Thus Jesus Christ always sits at the right hand of God the Father in heaven, but none the less for that He communicates Himself to us through faith. This feast is a spiritual table, at which Christ communicates to us Himself with all His benefits, and causes us there to enjoy both Himself and the merits of His passion and death, nourishing and strengthening and comforting our poor afflicted souls, by the eating of His flesh, and sustaining and renewing them by the drinking of His blood.”

The Heidelberg Catechism was drawn up through the influence of Frederic III. Elector of the Palatinate. It was largely the work of Zacharias Baer, usually known as Ursinus, and Caspar Olewig. It was published in 1563. Like the Belgic Confession it became a recognised statement of belief of the Dutch and Belgian Reformers as well as of the Germans who followed the Swiss rather than the Lutherans; and it was of the widest influence among many Protestant bodies. It consists of 129 questions and answers, many of the answers being of considerable length. Eight of these relate to the Eucharist. The doctrinal teaching on this subject is the same as that in the writings of Calvin and in the Belgic Catechism. One of the questions with its answer, that of the “difference between the Lord’s Supper and the Popish Mass,” was added after the completion of the Catechism because of the orders of the Elector Frederic III. The five questions and answers which are of chief doctrinal importance are the following:—

“Question 75. How are you shown and confirmed that in the Lord’s Supper you are partaker of the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross and of all His benefits?

“Answer. Thus, that Christ has commanded me and all the faithful to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, for His memorial, and has joined therewith these promises: first, that His body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and His blood was shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup communicated to me; and, further, that with His body which was crucified for us and with His blood which was shed for us He feeds my soul to eternal life as certainly as I receive from the hand of the minister, and taste with the mouth of my body, the bread and the cup of the Lord, which are given to me as certain tokens of the body and blood of Christ.

“Question 76. What is it to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His shed blood?

“Answer. It is not only to embrace with a believing heart the whole passion and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain remission of sins and eternal life, but also to be united more and more to His blessed body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us, so that, though He is in heaven and we are on earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, and live and are governed for ever by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.

“Question 78. Do then the bread and wine become the actual body and blood (der wesentliche Leib und Blut in German text; ipsum corpus et sanguis in Latin text) of Christ?

“Answer. No; but as the water in Baptism is not changed into the blood of Christ, and does not become the washing away of sins itself, but is only a divine token and assurance thereof, so also in the Supper the holy bread does not become the body of Christ itself, though according to the nature and usage of Sacraments it is called the body of Christ.

“Question 79. Why then does Christ call the bread His body and the cup His blood or the new covenant in His blood, and St. Paul the communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

“Answer. Christ speaks thus not without great cause, namely, not only to teach us thereby that like as bread and wine sustain this temporal life, so also His crucified body and shed blood are the true food and drink of our souls to eternal life, but much more by this visible sign and pledge to assure us that we are as really partakers of His real body and blood through the working of the Holy Ghost as we receive with the mouth of the body these holy tokens for His memorial, and that all His sufferings and obedience are as certainly our own as if we had ourselves suffered and done all in our own persons.

“Question 80. What difference is there between the Lord’s Supper and the Popish Mass?

“Answer. The Supper testifies to us that we have full remission of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He has Himself once for all accomplished on the cross, and that by the Holy Ghost we are ingrafted into Christ, who with His real body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and wills there to be worshipped. But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead have not remission of sins through the sufferings of Christ unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priests of the Mass, and that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine and is therefore to be worshipped therein. And thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ and an accursed idolatry.”

The Second Helvetic Confession was composed by Henry Bullinger for his own use and to be a testimony after his death of the beliefs which he had held. On being asked by the Elector Frederic III. for a statement of doctrine he sent this Confession, and in 1566 it was published and adopted both in Switzerland and Germany as an expression of belief on the part of those who followed the Swiss Reformers. After the Heidelberg Catechism, it became the most authoritative of the documents of this school of Reformers. On the subject of the Eucharist the position taken up in it is again the same as that of Calvin; and it may be sufficient to make a few extracts from the lengthy treatment in the twenty-first chapter.

“In this Holy Supper there is a pledge that the body of the Lord was really given up for us, and that His blood was shed for the remission of sins, that our faith may not fail. And indeed that is outwardly and visibly represented in the Sacrament by means of the minister, and as it were is set out to be seen by the eyes, which is accomplished invisibly within in the soul by the Holy Ghost Himself.… The faithful receive that which is given by the minister of the Lord, and they eat the bread of the Lord, and they drink from the cup of the Lord; within by the operation of Christ through the Holy Ghost they receive the flesh and blood of the Lord, and they feed on them unto eternal life.”

“Eating is not only of one kind. There is bodily eating, whereby food is received in man’s mouth and is crushed by the teeth and is swallowed into the stomach.… Neither did pious antiquity believe nor do we believe that the body of Christ is bodily or essentially eaten by the mouth of the body.”

“There is also the spiritual eating of the body of Christ, not that indeed whereby we might think that the food itself is changed into spirit but that whereby, while the body and blood of the Lord remain in their essence and own nature, they are spiritually communicated to us, not in a bodily way but in a spiritual, through the Holy Ghost, who applies and grants to us those things which were obtained for us by the surrender to death of the flesh and blood of the Lord, that is, the remission of sins, deliverance, and eternal life, so that Christ lives in us and we live in Him, and He brings to pass that by true faith we receive Him in whom is this spiritual food and drink of ours, that is, our Life.… This eating of the flesh, and drinking of the blood of the Lord, is so necessary to salvation that without it no one can be saved. And this spiritual eating and drinking can take place apart from the Supper of the Lord, and as often as, and wherever, a man believes in Christ.”

“Besides the above-mentioned spiritual eating there is also the sacramental eating of the body of the Lord, whereby the believer not only spiritually and within partakes of the real body and blood of the Lord, but also by outwardly approaching the Table of the Lord receives the visible Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. Formerly, indeed, when the believer believed, he received the life-giving food, and he still enjoys it, but, when he now receives also the Sacrament, therefore he receives something. For he goes on in the communication of the body and blood of the Lord, and therefore is enkindled more and more, and faith increases, and he is refreshed with spiritual nourishment. For as long as we live faith has continual accessions. And he who receives the Sacrament outwardly with real faith does not receive the sign only, but enjoys the thing itself also, as we have said.”

“We do not so join the body of the Lord and His blood with the bread and the wine that we say that the bread itself is the body of Christ in any but a sacramental fashion, or that the body of Christ lies hidden bodily under the bread, so that it ought to be adored even under the species of bread, or that every one who receives the sign receives also the thing itself. The body of Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. And therefore our hearts are to be lifted up and not to be fixed on the bread, nor is the Lord to be adored in the bread. And yet the Lord is not absent from His Church celebrating the Supper. The sun is absent from us in the sky, yet is none the less efficaciously present to us; how much more Christ the Sun of righteousness, absent from us in heaven in His body, is present to us, not indeed bodily but spiritually by life-giving operation.”