The Calvinists Faith.The Third is of those, that, denying both these, do affirm, That the Body of Christ is not there corporally or substantially, but yet that it is really and sacramentally received by the Faithful in the Use of Bread and Wine; but how or what Way it is there, they know not, nor can they tell; only we must believe it is there, yet so that it is only properly in Heaven.
It is not my Design to enter into a Refutation of these several Opinions; for each of their Authors and Assertors have sufficiently refuted one another, and are all of them no less strong both from Scripture and Reason in refuting each their contrary Parties Opinion, than they are weak in establishing their own. For I often have seriously observed, in reading their respective Writings, and so it may be have others, that all of them do notably, in so far as they refute the contrary Opinions; but that they are mightily pained, when they come to confirm and plead for their own. Hence I necessarily must conclude, that none of them had attained to the Truth and Substance of this Mystery. Let us see if Calvin,[129] after he had refuted the two former Opinions, be more successful in what he affirms and asserts for the Truth of his Opinion, who, after he hath much laboured in overturning and refuting the two former Opinions, plainly confesseth, that he knows not what to affirm instead of them. J. Calvin’s faith of Christ’s Flesh and Blood uncertain.For after he has spoken much, and at last concluded, That the Body of Christ is there, and that the Saints must needs partake thereof, at last he lands in these Words, Sect. 32. “But if it be asked me how it is? I shall not be ashamed to confess, that it is a Secret too high for me to comprehend in my Spirit, or explain in Words.” Here he deals very ingenuously; and yet who would have thought that such a Man would have been brought to this Streight in the Confirming of his Opinion? considering that a little before, in the same Chapter, Sect. 15. he accuseth the School-men among the Papists, and I confess truly, The like the Papists.In that they neither understand nor explain to others how Christ is in the Eucharist, which shortly after he confesseth himself he cannot do. If then the School-men among the Papists do neither understand nor yet explain to others their Doctrine in this Matter, nor Calvin can comprehend it in his Spirit, which I judge is as much as not to understand it, nor express it in Words, and then surely he cannot explain it to others, then no Certainty is to be had from either of them. There have been great Endeavours used for Reconcilement in this Matter, both betwixt Papists and Lutherans, Lutherans and Calvinists, yea, and Calvinists and Papists, but all to no Purpose; and many Forms and Manners of Expressions drawn up, to which all might yield; which in the End proved in vain, seeing every one understood them, and interpreted them in their own Way; and so they did thereby but equivocate and deceive one another. The Reason of all this Contention is, because they had not a clear Understanding of the Mystery, and were doting about Shadows and Externals. For both the Ground and Matter of their Contest lies in Things extrinsick from, and unnecessary to, the main Matter. Satan busies People in outward Signs, Shadows, and Forms, whilst they neglect the Substance.And this hath been often the Policy of Satan, to busy People, and amuse them with outward Signs, Shadows, and Forms, making them contend about that, while in the mean Time the Substance is neglected; yea, and in contending for these Shadows he stirs them up to the Practice of Malice, Heat, Revenge, and other Vices, by which he establisheth his Kingdom of Darkness among them, and ruins the Life of Christianity. For there have been more Animosities and Heats about this one Particular, and more Bloodshed and Contention, than about any other. What hath been hurtful to the Reformation.And surely they are little acquainted with the State of Protestant Affairs, who know not that their Contentions about this have been more hurtful to the Reformation than all the Opposition they met with from their common Adversaries. Two Errors the Ground of the Contention about the Supper.Now all those uncertain and absurd Opinions, and the Contentions therefrom arising, have proceeded from their all agreeing in two general Errors concerning this Thing; which being denied and receded from, as they are by us, there would be an easy Way made for Reconciliation, and we should all meet in one spiritual and true Understanding of this Mystery: And as the Contentions, so would also the Absurdities which follow from all the three fore-mentioned Opinions, cease and fall to the Ground.
[129] Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 17.
The First of these Errors is, In making the Communion or Participation of the Body, Flesh, and Blood of Christ to relate to that outward Body, Vessel, or Temple, that was born of the Virgin Mary, and walked and suffered in Judea; whereas it should relate to the Spiritual Body, Flesh, and Blood of Christ, even that heavenly and celestial Light and Life, which was the Food and Nourishment of the Regenerate in all Ages, as we have already proved.
The Second Error is, In tying this Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to that Ceremony used by him with his Disciples in the Breaking of Bread, &c. as if it had only a Relation thereto, or were only enjoyed in the Use of that Ceremony, which it neither hath nor is. For this is that Bread which Christ in his Prayer teaches to call for, terming it [Greek: ton arton ton epiousion: τον αρτον τον επιουσιον], i. e. the Super-substantial Bread, as the Greek hath it, and which the Soul partakes of, without any Relation or necessary Respect to this Ceremony, as shall be hereafter proved more at Length.
These two Errors being thus laid aside, and the Contentions arising therefrom buried, all are agreed in the main Positions, viz. First, Believers Souls do really feed upon the Flesh and Blood of Christ.That the Body, Flesh, and Blood of Christ is necessary for the nourishing of the Soul. Secondly, That the Souls of Believers do really and truly partake and feed upon the Body, Flesh, and Blood of Christ. But while Men are not content with the Spirituality of this Mystery, going in their own Wills, and according to their own Inventions, to strain and wrest the Scriptures to tie this spiritual Communion of the Flesh and Blood of Christ to outward Bread and Wine, and such like carnal Ordinances, no Wonder if by their carnal Apprehensions they run into Confusion. But because it hath been generally supposed that the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ had some special Relation to the Ceremony of breaking Bread, I shall first refute that Opinion, and then proceed to consider the Nature and Use of that Ceremony, and whether it be now necessary to continue; answering the Reasons and Objections of such as plead its Continuance as a necessary and standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ.
§. V.
First, It is not from the Nature of it; because to partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ is a spiritual Exercise, and all confess that it is by the Soul and Spirit that we become real Partakers of it, as it is the Soul, and not the Body, that is nourished by it. But to eat Bread and drink Wine is a natural Act, which in itself adds nothing to the Soul, neither has any Thing that is spiritual in it; because the most carnal Man that is can as fully, as perfectly, and as wholly eat Bread and drink Wine as the most spiritual. Secondly, Their Relation is not by Nature, else they would infer one another; but all acknowledge that many eat of the Bread and drink of the Wine, even that which they say is consecrate and transubstantiate into the very Body of Christ, who notwithstanding have not Life eternal, have not Christ dwelling in them, nor do live by him, as all do who truly partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ without the Use of this Ceremony, as all the Patriarchs and Prophets did before this Ordinance, as they account it, was instituted. The Patriarchs and Prophets, without this Ceremony’s Use, were true Partakers of Christ’s Flesh and Blood.Neither was there any Thing under the Law that had any direct or necessary Relation hereunto; though to partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in all Ages was indispensably necessary to Salvation. The Paschal Lamb its End.For as for the Paschal Lamb, the whole End of it is signified particularly, Exod. xiii. 8, 9. to wit, That the Jews might thereby be kept in Remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt.
Secondly, It hath not Relation by divine Precept; for if it had, it would be mentioned in that which our Adversaries account the Institution of it, or else in the Practice of it by the Saints recorded in Scripture; but so it is not. For as to the Institution, or rather Narration, of Christ’s Practice in this Matter, we have it recorded by the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke.[130] In the first two there is only an Account of the Matter of Fact, to wit, That Christ brake Bread, and gave it to his Disciples to eat, saying, This is my Body; and blessing the Cup, he gave it them to drink, saying, This is my Blood; but nothing of any Desire to them to do it. In the last, after the Bread (but before the Blessing, or giving them the Wine) he bids them do it in Remembrance of him. The Institution of the Supper, or Narration of Christ’s Practice therein.What we are to think of this Practice of Christ shall be spoken of hereafter. But what necessary Relation hath all this to the Believers partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ? The End of this for which they were to do it, if at all, is to remember Christ; which the Apostle yet more particularly expresses, 1 Cor. xi. 26. to shew forth the Lord’s Death; but to remember the Lord, or declare his Death, which are the special and particular Ends annexed to the Use of this Ceremony, is not at all to partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ; neither have they any more necessary Relation to it than any other two different spiritual Duties. For though they that partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ cannot but remember him, yet the Lord and his Death may be remembered, as none can deny, where his Flesh and Blood is not truly partaken of. So that since the very particular and express End of this Ceremony may be witnessed, to wit, the Remembrance of the Lord’s Death, and yet the Flesh and Blood of Christ not partaken of, it cannot have had any necessary Relation to it, else the Partaking thereof would have been the End of it, and could not have been attained without this Participation. But on the contrary, we may well infer hence, that since the positive End of this Ceremony is not the Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, and that whoever partakes of the Flesh and Blood of Christ cannot but remember him, that therefore such need not this Ceremony to put them in Remembrance of him.