§ 117. The Lord’s Supper. The Consensus of Zuerich.
§ 117. The Lord’s Supper. The Consensus of Zuerich.
I. Inst. IV. chs. XVII. and XVIII. Comp. the first ed., cap. IV., in Opera, I. 118 sqq.—Petit traicté de la sainte cène de nostre Seigneur Jesus-Christ. Auquel est demontré la vraye institution, profit et utilité d’icelle, Genève, 1541, 1542, 1549. Opera, V. 429–460. Latin version by Nicholas des Gallars: Libellus de Coena Domini, a Ioanne Calvino pridem Gallica lingua scriptus, nunc vero in Latinum sermonem conversus, Gen., 1545. Also translated into English. Remarkably moderate.—The two catechisms of Calvin. — Consensio mutua in re sacramentaria Tigurinae Ecclesiae et D. Calvini ministri Genevensis Ecclesiae jam nunc ab ipsis authoribus edita (usually called Consensus Tigurinus), simultaneously published at Geneva and Zuerich, 1551; French ed. L’accord passé, etc., Gen., 1551. In Opera, VII. 689–748. The Latin text also in Niemeyer’s Collectio Conf, pp. 191–217. A German translation (Die Zuericher Uebereinkunft) in Bickel’s Bekenntnissschriften der evang. reform. Kirche, pp. 173–181. Comp. the correspondence of Calvin with Bullinger, Farel, etc., concerning the Consensus.—Calvin’s polemical writings against Joachim Westphal, namely, Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de sacramentis, Geneva, 1554, Zuerich, 1555; Secunda Defensio ... contra Westphali calumnias, Gen., 1556; and Ultima Admonitio ad Westphalum, Gen., 1557. In Opera, IX. 1–120, 137–252. Lastly, his book against Tilemann Hesshus (Hesshusen), Dilucida Explicatio sanae doctrinae de vera participatione carnis et sanguinis Christi in sacra Coena, ad discutiendas Heshusii nebulas, Gen., 1561. In Opera, IX. 457–524. (In the Amsterdam ed., Tom. IX. 648–723.) Klebiz of Heidelberg, Beza, and Pierre Boquin also took part in the controversy with Hesshus.
II. For a comparative statement of the eucharistic views of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, see this History, vol. VI. 669–682; and Creeds of Christendom, I. 455 sqq.; 471 sqq. Calvin’s doctrine has been fully set forth by Ebrard in fils Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl, II. 402–525, and by Nevin in his Mystical Presence, Philad., 1846, pp. 54–67; and in the "Mercersburg Review" for September, 1850, pp. 421–548 (against Dr. Hodge in the "Princeton Review" for 1848). Comp. also §§ 132–134 below; Henry, P. I. ch. XIII.; and Staehelin, II. 189 sqq.
In the eucharistic controversy,
which raged with such fury in the age of the Reformation, and was the chief
cause of separation in its ranks, Calvin consistently occupied from the
beginning to the end the position of a mediator and peacemaker between the
Lutherans and Zwinglians, between Wittenberg and Zuerich.
The way for a middle theory was prepared by the Tetrapolitan or Swabian Confession, drawn up by Martin Bucer, a born compromiser, during the Diet of Augsburg, 1530,863 and by the Wittenberg Concordia, 1536, which for a while satisfied the Lutherans, but was justly rejected by the Swiss.
Calvin published his theory in its essential features in the first edition of the Institutes (1536), more fully in the second edition (1539), then in a special tract written at Strassburg. He defended it in various publications, and adhered to it with his usual firmness. It was accepted by the Reformed Churches, and never rejected by Luther; on the contrary, he is reported to have spoken highly of Calvin’s tract,—De Coena Domini, when he got hold of a Latin copy in 1545, a year before his death.864
Calvin approached the subject with a strong sense of the mystery of the vital union of Christ with the believer, which is celebrated in the eucharist. "I exhort my readers," he says, in the last edition of his Institutes, "to rise much higher than I am able to conduct them; for as to myself, whenever I handle this subject, after having endeavored to say everything, I am conscious of having said but very little in comparison with its excellence. And though the conceptions of the mind can far exceed the expressions of the tongue; yet, with the magnitude of the subject, the mind itself is oppressed and overwhelmed. Nothing remains for me, therefore, but to break forth in admiration of that mystery, which the mind is unable clearly to understand, or the tongue to express."865
He aimed to combine the spiritualism of Zwingli with the realism of Luther, and to avoid the errors of both. And he succeeded as well as the case will admit. He agreed with Zwingli in the figurative interpretation of the words of institution, which is now approved by the best Protestant exegetes, and rejected the idea of a corporal presence and oral participation in the way of transubstantiation or consubstantiation, which implies either a miracle or an omnipresence of the body of Christ. But he was not satisfied with a purely commemorative or symbolical theory, and laid the chief stress on the positive side of an actual communion with the ever-living Christ. He expressed in private letters the opinion that Zwingli had been so much absorbed with overturning the superstition of a carnal presence that he denied or obscured the true efficacy of the sacrament.866 He acknowledged the mystery of the real presence and real participation, but understood them spiritually and dynamically. He confined the participation of the body and blood of Christ to believers, since faith is the only means of communion with Christ; while Luther extended it to all communicants, only with opposite effects.
The following is a brief summary of his view from the last edition of the Institutes (1559): —
After receiving us into his family by baptism, God undertakes to sustain and to nourish us as long as we live, and gives us a pledge of his gracious intention in the sacrament of the holy communion. This is a spiritual banquet, in which Christ testifies himself to be the bread of life, to feed our souls for a true and blessed immortality. The signs of bread and wine represent to us the invisible nourishment which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. They are exhibited in a figure and image, adapted to our feeble capacity, and rendered certain by visible tokens and pledges, which the dullest minds can understand. This mystical benediction, then, is designed to assure us that the body of the Lord was once offered as a sacrifice for us upon which we may now feed, and that his blood was once shed for us and is our perpetual drink. "His flesh is true meat, and his blood is true drink" (John 6:55). "We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph. 5:30). "This is a great mystery" (5:32), which can be admired rather than expressed. Our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ, just as our corporal life is preserved and sustained by bread and wine. Otherwise there would be no propriety in the analogy of the sign. The breaking of the bread is indeed symbolical, yet significant; for God is not a deceiver who sets before us an empty sign. The symbol of the body assures us of the donation of the invisible substance, so that in receiving the sign we receive the thing itself. The thing signified is exhibited and offered to all who come to that spiritual banquet, but it is advantageously enjoyed only by those who receive it with true faith and gratitude.
Calvin lays great stress on the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit in the communion. This was ignored by Luther and Zwingli. The Spirit raises our hearts from earth to heaven, as he does in every act of devotion (sursum corda), and he brings down the life-giving power of the exalted Redeemer in heaven, and thus unites what is, according to our imperfect notions, separated by local distance.867 The medium of communication is faith. Calvin might have sustained his view by the old liturgies of the Oriental Church, which have a special prayer invoking the Holy Spirit at the consecration of the eucharistic elements.868
He quotes several passages from Augustin in favor of the spiritual real presence. Ratramnus in the ninth, and Berengar in the eleventh, century had likewise appealed to Augustin against the advocates of a carnal presence and participation.869
When Luther reopened the eucharistic controversy by a fierce attack upon the Zwinglians (1545), who defended their martyred Reformer in a sharp reply, Calvin was displeased with both parties, and labored to bring about a reconciliation.870 He corresponded with Bullinger (the Melanchthon of the Swiss Church), and, on his invitation, he went to Zuerich with Farel (May, 1549). The delicate negotiations were carried on by both parties with admirable frankness, moderation, wisdom, and patience. The result was the "Consensus Tigurinus," in which Calvin states his doctrine as nearly as possible in agreement with Zwingli. This document was published in 1551, and adopted by all the Reformed Cantons, except Bern, which cherished a strong dislike to Calvin’s rigorism. It was also favorably received in France, England, and in parts of Germany. Melanchthon declared to Lavater (Bullinger’s son-in-law) that he then for the first time understood the Swiss, and would never again oppose them; but he struck out the clause of the "Consensus" which confined the efficacy of the sacrament to the elect.
But while the "Consensus" brought peace to the Swiss Churches, and satisfied the Melanchthonians, it was assailed by Westphal and Hesshus, who out-luthered Luther in zeal and violence, and disturbed the last years of Melanchthon and Calvin. We shall discuss this controversy in the next chapter.
The Calvinistic theory of the Eucharist passed into all the Reformed Confessions, and is very strongly stated in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the chief symbol of the German and Dutch Reformed Churches.871 In practice, however, it has, among Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists, largely given way to the Zwinglian view, which is more plain and intelligible, but ignores the mystical element in the holy communion.
"Ohne alle Frage der groesste Exeget des (sechszehnten) Jahrhunderts." Geschichte der heil. Schriften des Neuen Test. p. 618 (6th ed. 1887).
"The greatest exegete and theologian of the Reformation was undoubtedly Calvin." History of Interpretation, London, 1886, p. 342. Farrar quotes from Keble a manuscript note of Hooker, who says that "the sense of Scripture which Calvin alloweth" was held (in the Anglican Church) to be of more force than if "ten thousand Augustins, Jeromes, Chrysostoms, Cyprians were brought forth."
"Der Schoepfer der aechten Exegese." Diestel adds: "Johannes Calvin ragt ebensowohl durch den Umfang seiner exegetischen Arbeiten wie durch eine seltene Genialitat in der Auslegung hervor; unuebertroffen in seinem Jahrhundert, bieten seine Exegesen fuer alle folgenden Zeiten noch bis heute einen reichen Stoff der Schriftkenntniss dar." Geschichte des Alten Testaments in der christl. Kirche, Jena, 1869, p. 267. Dr. A. Merx of Heidelberg, another master in biblical philology, fully agrees: "Calvin ist der groesste Exeget seiner Zeit ... der Schoepfer der aechten Exegese" (on Joel, p. 428), and he ascribes to him, besides the necessary learning, including Hebrew, the sagacity of understanding and explaining the whole from the parts, and the parts from the whole.
G. Wohlenberg, a Lutheran divine, begins a notice of the new edition of Calvin’s Commentaries on the New Test. (in Luthardt’s, Theol. Lit.-blatt," Oct. 9, 1891) with this remark: "Calvin’s Commentare zum N. T. gehoeren zu den nie veraltenden Werken. Und so gut wie Bengel’s ’Gnomon’ immer wieder gedruckt und gelesen werden wird, so lange es eine gesunde und fromme Schrifterklaerung giebt, so werden auch Calvin’s Commentare nie vergessen werden."
"Calvinus miram in pervidenda apostoli mente subtilitatem, in exponenda prespicuitatem probavit." In the third ed. of his Com. on the Ep. to the Galatians.
"Ignavus in grammatica est ignavus in theologia." Postill. IV. 428.
Calvin himself fully acknowledged the exegetical merits of Melanchthon, Bullinger, and Bucer, in their commentaries on Romans, but modestly hints at their defects to justify his own commentary, which is far superior. See his interesting dedication to Grynaeus, written in 1539.
He wrote in 1523 that, ten years before (when priest at Glarus), "operam dedi Graecianis literis, ut ex fontibus doctrinam Christi haurire possem."
De Modo legendi et intelligendi Hebraeum, written at Tuebingen or Basel in 1501, first printed in the Margarita philosophica, at Strassburg in 1504 (one or two years before Reuchlin’s Rudimenta Linguae Hebr.), recently discovered and republished by Nestle, Tuebingen, 1877.
Commentaria Bibliorum, Zuerich, 1632-39, 7 vols. See Diestel, l.c., 272 sq., and Strack in Herzog2 XI. 432 sqq.
His knowledge of Hebrew was unjustly depreciated by the Roman Catholic Richard Simon. But Dr. Diestel, a most competent judge, ascribes to Calvin "a very solid knowledge of Hebrew." See above, p. 276, and p. 525. Tholuck, also, in his essay above quoted, asserts that "every glance at Calvin’s Commentary on the Old Testament assures us not only that he understood Hebrew, but that he had a very thorough knowledge of this language." He mentions, by way of illustration, a number of difficult Hebrew and Greek words which Calvin correctly explains. He denies that he was dependent on Pellican’s notes, as Semler had gratuitously suggested.
He expresses his estimate of the Fathers in the Preface to his Institutes as follows: "Another calumny is their charging us with opposition to the fathers; I mean the writers of the earlier and purer ages, as if those writers were abettors of their impiety; whereas if the contest were to be terminated by this authority, the victory in most parts of the controversy, to speak in the most modest terms, would be on our side. But though the writings of those fathers contain many wise and excellent things, yet, in some respects, they have suffered the common fate of mankind; these very dutiful children reverence only their errors and mistakes, but their excellences they either overlook, or conceal, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said to be their only study to collect dross from the midst of gold. Then they overwhelm us with senseless clamors, as despisers and enemies of the fathers. But we do not hold them in such contempt, but that if it were consistent with my present design, I could easily support by their suffrages most of the sentiments that we now maintain. Yet, while we make use of their writings, we always remember that ’All things are ours’ to serve us, not to have dominion over us, and that ’we are Christ’s’ alone, and owe him universal obedience. He who neglects this distinction will have nothing decided in religion, since those holy men were ignorant of many things, frequently at variance with each other and sometimes even inconsistent with themselves." In the preface to his commentary on the Romans he praises the Fathers for their pietas, eruditio, and sanctimonia, and adds that their antiquity lent them such authority, "ut nihil quod ab ipsis profectum sit, contemnere debeamus." Compare with this judgment Luther’s bolder and cruder opinions on the Fathers, quoted in vol. VI. 534 sqq.
In the dedicatory preface to his Com. on Romans he reminds his friend Grynaeus of a conversation they had three years previously, on the best method of interpretation, when they agreed that the chief virtue of an interpreter was "perspicua brevitas," and adds:, Et sane quum hoc sit prope unicum illius officium, mentem scriptores, quem explicandum sumpsit, patefacere: quantum ab ea lectores abducit, tantundem a scopo suo aberrat, vel certe a suis finibus quodammodo evagatur."
Harmon. II. 107.
See Reuss, Gesch. des N. T. § 474 (p. 639, 6th ed.). Reuss prepared from Calvin’s French Commentaries a French version for his ed. of the Opera.
Expressed in the memorial lines:—
Litera gesta docet; quid credas, Allegoria;
Moralis, quid agas; quo tendas, Anagogia."
Pref. ad Romanos: "Affinis sacrilegio audacia est Scripturas temere huc illuc versare et quasi in re lusoria lascivire: quod a multis jam olim factitatum est."
"Et certe Chrysostomus in vocabulo Allegoriae fatetur esse catechresin (katavcrhsi"): quod verissimum est."
Ad Gen. 1:1 (Opera, XXIII. 15): "Habetur apud Moses !yhla , nomen pluralis numeri. Unde colligere solent, hic in Deo notari tres personas; sed quia parum solida mihi videtur tantae rei probatio, ego in voce non insistam. Quin potius monendi sunt lectores ut sibi a violentis ejusmodi glossis caveant. Putant illi se testimonium habere adversus Arianos ad probandam Filii et Spiritus divinitatem, interea se involvunt in errorem Sabellii." But in the words, "Let us make man," Gen. 1:26, he admits, after rejecting the Rabbinical fancies, the intimation of a plurality in God: "Christiani apposite plures subesse in Deo personas ex hoc testimonio contendunt. Neminem extraneum advocat Deus: hinc colligimus, intus eum aliquid distinctum invenire ut certe aeterna eius sapientia et virtus in ipso resident." (Ib. 25.)
On this passage he remarks: "Veteres hoc testimonio usi sunt, quum vellent adversus Arianos tres personas in una Dei essentia probare. Quorum ego sententiam non improbo; sed si mihi res cum haereticis esset, mallem firmioribus testimoniis uti."
Older Lutheran divines (even Walch, Biblioth. Theol. IV. 413) charged him with Judaizing and Socinian misinterpretation of the O. T. proof texts for the Trinity and the divinity of the Messiah. Aegidius Hunnius, in his Calvinus Judaizans (Wittenberg, 1693), thought that Calvin ought to have been burnt for his abominable perversion of the Scriptures. D. Pareus of Heidelberg defended him against this charge in his Orthodoxus Calvinus. Modern Lutheran exegesis fully sustains him.
Ad Gen. 3:15 (Opera, XXIII. 71): "Generaliter semen interpreter de posteris. Sed quum experientia doceat, multum abesse quin supra diabolum victores emergant omnes filii Adae, ad caput unum venire necesse est, ut reperiamus ad quem pertineat victoria. Sic Paulus a semine Abrahae ad Christum nos deducit …. Quare sensus est (meo judicio), humanum genus, quod opprimere conatus erat Satan, fore tandem superius."
Harm. I. 80. Tholuck’s ed. On Matt. 2:23 in the same chapter, Calvin says (p. 83): "Non deducit Matthaeus Nazaraeum a Nazareth: quasi sit haec propria et certa etymologia, sed tantum est allusio," etc.
Comp. his notes on Gen. 3:15; Isa. 4:2; 6:3; Ps. 33:6; Matt. 2:15; 8:17; 11:11; John 1:51:2:17; 5:31 sq.; 2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Pet, 3:19; Heb. 2:6-8; 4:3; 11:21.
See Luther’s judgments in vol. VI. 35 sq.
Harm. II. 349 (Tholuck’s ed.): "Quomodo Jeremiae nomen obrepserit, me nescire fateor, nec anxie laboro: certe Jeremiae nomen errore positum esse pro Zacharia 13:7, res ipsa ostendit: quia nihil tale apud Jeremiam legitur, vel etiam quod accedat."
Ad Acta 7:16 (Acts 7:16):, "In nomine Abrahae erratum esse palam est … Quare hic locus corrigendus est." According to Gen. 50:13, Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, and Jacob was buried there, and not at Shechem.
See his admirable comments on 1 Cor. 1:17 sqq., and 2 Cor. 11:6, where he mentions the majestas, altitudo, pondus, and vis of Paul’s words, and says: "Fulmina sunt, non verba. An non dilucidius Spiritus Sancti efficacia apparet in nuda verborum rusticitate (ut ita loquar) quam in elegantiae et nitoris larva?"
Fr. Turretin, a strict scholastic Calvinist, and one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus Formula, opposed the allegorical method and defended the sound, one-sense principle (in his Inst. Theol. Elencticae, quaest. XIX., vol. I. 135): "Nos ita sentimus, Scripturae S. unicum tantum competere verum et genuinum sensum, sed sensum illum duplicem posse esse, vel Simplicem, vel Compositum. Simplex et historicus est, qui unius rei declarationem continet, absque ullius alterius significatione, qui vel praecepta, vel dogmata, vel historias spectat. Et hic rursus duplex, vel Proprius et Grammaticalis, vel Figuratus et Tropicus. Proprius qui ex verbis propriis oritur; Tropicus qui ex verbis figuratis. Sensus Compositus seu mixtus est in oraculis typi rationem habentibus, cujus pars est in typo, pars in antitypo; quae non constituunt duos sensus, sed duos partes unius ejusdemque sensus intenti a Spiritu Sancto, qui cum litera mysterium respexit, ut in isto Oraculo, ’Os non confringetis ei,’ Exo. 12:46, plenus non potest haberi sensus, nisi cum veritate typi, seu Agni Paschalis, conjungatur veritas Antitypi seu Christi ex Jo. 19:36."
Bk. I. ch. VII. and VIII.
Luther said substantially the same thing in his controversy with Eck: "The Church cannot give any more authority or power to the Scripture than it has of itself. A Council cannot make that to be Scripture which is not Scripture by its own nature."
Selected from Inst. I. VII. §§ 1, 4, 5, and VIII. § 1.
Comp. vol. VI. 36 sqq.
According to the Index of the List of Authors quoted in Calvin’s Institutes, which is appended to Beveridge’s translation, Edinburgh, 1856, vol. III. 626-663, the number of his quotations from the principal fathers is as follows: 228 from Augustin; 39 from Pope Gregory I.; 27 from Chrysostom; 23 from Bernard; 18 from Ambrose; 14 from Cyprian; 12 from Jerome; 11 from Hilary; 7 from Tertullian. Of classical authors there are, in the Institutes, 7 quotations from Plato; 5 from Aristotle; 9 from Cicero; 3 from Seneca; 2 from Plutarch, etc. The Index theologicus in Opera, XXII. 136-143, gives 7 columns of quotations from Augustin. This does not include the commentaries.
Contra Ep. Manichaei quam vocant Fundamenti, c. 5: "Ego evangelio non crederem nisi me moveret ecclesiae auctoritas." This famous anti-Manichaean passage is often quoted by Roman Catholics against Protestants. Calvin discusses it at length in his Inst. (Bk. I. ch. VII. § 3), and tries to deprive it of its anti-Protestant force, but he admits it in the sense that "the authority of the Church is an introduction to prepare us for the faith of the gospel."
De Servo Arbitrio, against Erasmus (1526). He never retracted this book, but declared it many years afterwards to be one of his best. He was followed by Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, and Brenz. See Church History, vol. VI. 430 sqq.; Koestlin, Luther’s Theologie, I. 773 sqq.; Luthardt, Dogmatik, p. 120 (6th ed.), and his Lehre vom freien Willen; Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, III. 714 sq.; and Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, 2d ed. Halle, 1890, pp. 322-324, and 317-350.
See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 313 sqq.; and the works on the Formula Concordiae.
Calvin was well aware of Augustin’s change on this point. "Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome," he says, "believed that God dispenses his grace among men, according to his foreknowledge of the good use which every individual will make of it. Augustin also was once of the same sentiment, but when he had made a greater proficiency in scriptural knowledge, he not only retracted, but powerfully confuted it." Then he quotes in proof a number of passages. Inst. III. ch. XXII. § 8.
Augustin based his view of a quasi pre-existence of all men in the loins of Adam on a false exegesis of Rom. 5:12, ejn w||, by following the Vulgate rendering in quo (in whom), and referring it back to Adam; while it has the meaning because (ejpi; touvtw/ o{ti = diovti), or on condition that (ejpi; touvtw/ w{ste, ea ratione ut, inasmuch as). It is neuter, not masculine. On the exegesis of that famous passage, and the doctrinal discussions on it, see my extensive notes in Lange’s Comm. on Romans, pp. 172 sqq.
The essential agreement of the Reformers on the doctrine of free-will and predestination has been proven by scholars of different schools, as Jul. Mueller (Lutheri doctrina de praedestinatione et libero arbitrio, and in his Dogmatische Abhandlungen, pp. 169-179), Hundeshagen (Conflicte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums, und Calvinismus in der Bernischen Landeskirche von 1532-1558), Baur (Der Gegensatz des Katholicismus und Protestantismus, and in hisDogmengeschichte), Schweizer (Centraldogmen), Gieseler, Hagenbach, Dorner, Luthardt, Loofs, and others.
Calvin expressed to Bullinger, in a confidential letter, January, 1552, his dissatisfaction with the paradoxical expressions of Zwingli’s tract De Providentia. "Zwinglii libellus," he writes, "ut familiariter inter nos loquamur, tam duris paradoxis refertus est, ut longissime ab ea quam adhibui moderatione distet." Bullinger, however, never contradicted the liberal sentiments of his teacher and friend, and believed in extraordinary modes of salvation, "sine externo ministerio, quo et quando velit (Deus)., et quod ejus potentiae est." Second Helv. Conf. I. 7.
For a fuller exposition of Melanchthon’s Synergism see Herrlinger’s monograph; Frank, Theologie der Concordienformel; Dorner, Geschichte der Protest. Theologie, pp. 361-374, and his System der christl. Glaubenslehre, II. 706 sq. and 716 sq.; Schweizer, Centraldogmen, I. 380 sqq.; Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 262 sq.; Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 403 sq. (2d ed.).
De Dono Persev., ch. XXXIII.
"Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque, prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus." Inst. III. ch. XXI. § 5 (Opera, vol. II. pp. 682, 683).
Ibid. III. ch. XXI. § 7.
"Summa justitiae regula est Dei voluntas."
Inst. III. ch. XXII. § 1.
Ibid. III. ch. XXII. II. Calvin’s definition of divine justice is contrary to the general conception of human justice, which must be a reflection of divine justice.
Ibid. III. ch. XXIII. § 1. The scholastic Calvinists distinguished in reprobation a negative element, namely, praeteritio or indebitae gratiae negatio, and a positive element of predamnation, praedamnatio or debitae poenae destinatio. See the definitions of Wolleb, Keckermann, Heidegger, etc., in Heppe’s Dogmatik der evang. reform. Kirche (1861), p. 132. The Westminster Confession (ch. III. 7) uses the term "passing by," which is equivalent to preterition or omission; the Gallican Conf. (ch. XII.) and the Belgic Conf. (ch. XVI.) use the milder term laisser, relinquere, to leave, namely, in the natural state of condemnation and ruin. Shedd (Syst. Theol. I. 433) says: "Reprobation comprises preterition and condemnation or damnation," and he makes these distinctions: 1) Preterition is a sovereign act; condemnation is a judicial act. 2) The reason of preterition is unknown; the reason of damnation is sin. 3) In preterition God’s action is permissive (inaction rather than action); in condemnation, God’s action is efficient and positive. His proof text is Luke 17:34: "The one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."
This is the order given in the Formula Consensus Helvetica, canon IV. (in Niemeyer, p. 731): "Ita Deus gloriam suam illustrare constituit, ut decreverit, primo quidem hominem integrum creare, tum ejusdem lapsum permittere, ac demum ex lapsis quorundam misereri, adeoque eosdem eligere, alios vero in corrupta massa relinquere, aeternoque tandem exitio devovere." This does not go beyond the limits of Augustinianism. Van Oosterzee errs when he says (Christian Dogmatics, vol. I. p. 452) that the Form. Cons. Helv. asserts the supralapsarian view.
On the distinction, see Beza, Summa totius Christianismi (Opera, I. 170); Limborch, Theol. Christ. IV. 2; Heppe, Dogmatik der evang. reform. Kirche, pp. 108 sqq., and the curious order of Beza there printed, as if the order of the divine counsels were a mathematical problem. The infralapsarian view is milder and passed into most of the Calvinistic Confessions. The Westminster Confession is a compromise between the two schools, and puts the fall of Adam under a permissive decree (ch. V. 4), and yet not under a bare permission, but including it in the purpose of God, who ordered it for his own glory (VI. 1).
Inst. III. XXIII. 7 and 8. The passage quoted from Augustin is De Gen. ad lit., l. VI. c. 15. In Inst. III. ch. XXIV. 12, Calvin uses strong supralapsarian language: "Those whom God has created to a life of shame and death (quos in vitae contumeliam et mortis exitium creavit), that they might be instruments of his wrath, and examples of his severity, he causes to reach their appointed end; sometimes depriving them of the opportunity of hearing the Word, sometimes by the preaching of it increasing their blindness and stupidity." Then he illustrates this by examples, especially that of Pharaoh, and the aim of the parables of Christ (Matt. 13:11; John 12:39, 40). In the Consensus Genevensis (Niemeyer, p. 251), he says that the fall was ordained by the admirable counsel of God (admirabili Dei consilio fuisse ordinatum). Beza understood Calvin correctly.
He gives his view of the primitive state in Inst. I. ch. XV. § 8: "God has furnished the soul of man with a mind capable of discerning good from evil, and just from unjust; and of discovering, by the light of reason, what ought to be pursued or avoided: whence the philosophers called this directing faculty to; hJgemonikovn, the principal or governing part. To this he hath annexed the will, on which depends the choice. The primitive condition of man was ennobled with those eminent faculties; he possessed reason, understanding, prudence, and judgment, not only for the government of his life on earth, but to enable him to ascend even to God and eternal felicity. To these were added choice, to direct the appetites, and regulate all the organic motions, so that the will was entirely conformed to the government of reason. In this integrity man was endued with free will, by which, if he had chosen, he might have obtained eternal life. For here it would be unreasonable to introduce the question respecting the secret predestination of God, because we are not discussing what might possibly have happened or not, but what was the real nature of man. Adam, therefore, could have stood if he would, since he fell merely by his own will; but because his will was flexible to either side, and he was not endued with constancy to persevere, therefore he so easily fell. Yet his choice of good and evil was free; and not only so, but his mind and will were possessed of consummate rectitude, and all his organic parts were rightly disposed to obedience, till destroying himself he corrupted all his excellencies."
"Lapsus est enim primus homo, quia Dominus ita expedire censuerat; cur censuerit, nos latet. Certum tamen est non aliter censuisse, nisi quia videbat, nominis sui gloriam inde merito illustrari. Unde mentionem gloriae Dei audis, illic justitiam cogita. Justum enim esse oportet quod laudem meretur. Cadit igitur homo, Dei providentia sic ordinante, sed suo vitio cadit …. Propria ergo malitia, quam acceperat a Domino puam naturam corrupit; sua ruina totam posteritatem in exitium secum attraxit." Inst. III. ch. XXIII. § 8 (vol. II. p. 705). In his reply to Castellio Opera, IX. 294) he says: Praevidit Deus lapsum Adae: penes ipsum facultas erat prohibendi: noluit. Cur noluerit, alia non potest afferri ratio nisi quia alio tendebat ejus voluntas."
Comp. here the powerful sections against the abuse of the doctrine of election, in III. ch. XXIII. 12 sqq.
See the passages in vol. III. 835 sq. Augustin was called durus infantum pater. But his view was only the logical inference from the doctrine of the necessity of baptism for salvation, which was taught long before him on the ground of John 3:8 and Mark 16:16. Even Pelagius excluded unbaptized infants from the kingdom of heaven, though not from eternal life. He assigned them to a middle state of half-blessedness.
Inferno, IV. 28, duol senza martiri, i.e. mental, not physical pain.
"Aqua nihil aliud est quam interior Spiritus Sancti purgatio et vegetatio." Com. in loco. He takes kai; epexegetically and lays the stress on pneu'ma, which alone is mentioned in the following verses, 6 and 8. Similarly Grotius: "Spiritus aquaeus, i.e. aquae instar emundans." But the natural reference is to baptismal water, as the symbol of purification and remission of sins. Comp. John 1:33; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5:26. The different interpretations are discussed at length in Schaff’s ed. of Lange’s Comm. on John pp. 126 ff.
Inst. Bk. IV. ch. XVI. 17: "Infantes, qui servandi sint—ut certe ex ea aetate omnino aliqui servantur—antea a Domino regenerari minime obscurum est." This was the doctrine of the Westminster divines, and is expressed in the Westminster Confession, ch. X. 3: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." Although this passage admits of a liberal construction, yet the natural sense, as interpreted by the private opinions of the framers of the Confession, makes it almost certain that the existence and damnation of non-elect infants is implied. The Presbyterian Revisionists, therefore, wishing to avoid this logical implication, propose to strike out elect, or to substitute all for it (as the Cumberland Presbyterians have done in their Confession). The change will be acted upon by the General Assembly in May, 1892.
"De piorum liberis loquor, ad quos promissio gratiae dirigitur; nam alii a communi sorte nequaquam eximuntur."
"Tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus." Inst. III. ch. XXIII. § 7. To this should be added the challenge to Castellio: "Put forth now thy virulence against God, who hurls innocent babes even from their mothers’ breast into eternal death." Calvin here argues e concessis. The passage has been often distorted. We give it in Latin with the connection (Opera, IX. 289): "Negas Deo licere nisi propter facinus damnare quenquam mortalium. Tolluntur e vita innumeri adhuc infantes. Exsere nunc tuam virulentiam contra Deum, qui innoxios foetus a matrum uberibus avulsos in aeternam mortem praecipitat. Hanc blasphemiam, ubi palam detecta est, quisquis non detestabitur, mihi pro sua libidine maledicat." In the same way he challenges Castellio (fol. 289), to explain the admitted fact, that God allows innocent infants to be devoured by tigers or lions or bears or wolves ("qui fit ut Deus parvulos infantes a tigribus vel ursis vel leonibus vel lupis laniari vorarique sineat"). The attempt of Dr. Shields of Princeton to prove that Calvin believed in the salvation of all infants, is an entire failure ("The Presbyt. and Ref. Review " for October, 1890).
"Decretum quidem horribile fateor." This famous expression is often ignorantly applied to the whole doctrine of predestination, while Calvin only uses it of the decree of reprobation. The decree of election is glorious and most comforting. There is no need, therefore, of moderating the term horribile, which means horrible, terrible., dreadful. In French he calls it "ce décret qui nous doit espouvanter," a decree which should terrify us. Hase (Kirchengeschichte, III. I. 196) says: "Calvin ist ein dogmatischer Dante: dieselbe grauenvolle Lust, die Majestaet Gottes auch in der Hoelle anzuerkennen und zu preisen, diese grauenvolle Macht, welche fuehlende Wesen geschaffen hat zu ewiger Qual."
"They condemn the Anabaptists, who disapprove the baptism of children, and affirm that children are saved without baptism." The edition of 1540 adds after "baptism" "et extra ecclesiam Christi," which must refer to heathen infants. The German text omits the clause and condemns the Anabaptists simply for rejecting infant baptism. This shows that Melanchthon was in doubt on the subject of infant damnation.
"Abhorremus et detestamur ... crudele judicium contra infantes sine baptismo morientes."
Among English Calvinists, who teach universal infant salvation, are Doddridge, Thomas Scott, John Newton, Toplady, Robert S. Candlish; among American Calvinists, Drs. Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield, of Princeton, and Drs. H. B. Smith, G. L. Prentiss, and Shedd, of Union Seminary, New York. Comp. on this subject Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 378, 381, 794, 898; Dr. Prentiss, who brings out the theological bearings, in the "Presbyterian Review" for 1883; Benjamin B. Warfield, The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation, New York (Christ. Lit. Co.), 1891, pp. 61; also Chas. P. Krauth (Lutheran), Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation, Philadelphia (Lutheran Book Store), 1874, pp. 83.
See above, pp. 95 sqq.
The Consensus Genevensis was occasioned by the controversy with Pighius and Bolsec, but received no authority outside of Geneva. The attempt to enlist Zuerich, Bern, and Basel in favor of this dogma created disturbance and opposition. See Schaff, Creeds, etc., I. 474 sqq.
The Second Helvetic Confession (chs. VIII. and IX.) uses the term reprobate (ajdovkimo", reprobus), but says nothing of a decree of reprobation. Reprobate is descriptive of moral character, and means not approved, unfit, Rom. 1:28; 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5-7; 2 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:16. The plural reprobates is an inaccurate rendering of the A. V. in 2 Cor. 13:6, 7, and 2 Tim. 3:8, and suggests the idea of a class of persons. The R. V. correctly has reprobate, since the Greek word is an adjective, not a noun.
This is a specimen:—
"O Horrible Decree,
Worthy of whence it came!
Forgive the ir hellish blasphemy,
Who charge it on the Lamb!"
Paradiso, XX. 130-138:—
"O predestinazion, quanto rimota
Èla radice tua da quegli aspetti
Che la prima cagion non veggion tota !
"E voi, mortali, tenetevi stretti
A giudicar; chènoi, che Dio vedemo,
Non conosciamo ancor tutti gli eletti :
"Ed ènne dolce cosìfatto scemo,
Perchèit ben nostro in questo ben s’affina,
Che quel che vuole Dio, e noi volemo."
Com. on Rom. 9:14: "Est praedestinatio Dei vere labyrinthus, unde hominis ingenium nullo modo se explicare queat."
The last passage is often quoted for a decree of reprobation; but the verb progegrammevnoi is wrongly translated "ordained" in the E. V. Progravfw means to write before, and refers to previous writings, namely, the Scriptures of the O. T. Calvin correctly translates "praescripti in hoc judicium," but refers it, metaphorically, to the book of the divine counsel: "aeternum Dei consilium liber vocatur."
This is implied in the passage, Heb. 12:17, whether we refer metavnoia to Esau’s late repentance (Calvin, Bleek), or to a change of mind in Isaac (Beza, Weiss).
Inst. III. ch. XXII. 1. In his Com. on Rom. 9:22, 23, he ignores this distinction and explains kathrtismevna, "given up and appointed to destruction, made and formed for this end" (devota et destinata exitio: sunt enim vasa irae, id est in hoc facta et formata, ut documenta sint vindictae et furoris Dei). This is the extreme supralapsarian exposition. But other Reformed exegetes fully acknowledge the difference of phraseology. It was pressed by those members of the Westminster Assembly who sympathized with the hypothetical universalism of the Saumur school of Cameron and Amyrauld. "The non-elect," said Dr. Arrowsmith, "are said to be fitted to that destruction which their sins bring upon them, but not by God." See Mitchell, Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, pp. 152 sqq.; Schaff, Creeds, I. 770 sq.
"Das ganze Summarium und der herrliche Schlussstein des ganzen bisherigen Brieftheils." Weiss in the 6th ed. of Meyer on Romans (p. 555). Godet: C’est ici comme le point final apposéàtout ce qui précede; ce dernier mot rend compte de tout le plan de Dieu, dont les phases principales viennent d’être esquissées." The i{na touv" pavnta" (Jews and Gentiles) teaches not, indeed, the forced acceptance of mercy by all, but, at all events, the universality of the divine purpose and intention. Meyer sees in this passage a conclusive exegetical argument against a decretum reprobationis.
Unfortunately the A. V. obliterates the force of the parallel in the fifth chapter of Romans by neglecting the definite article before polloiv. "The many" of the original is opposed to "the one," and is equivalent to "all;" while "many" would be opposed to "few." The Revised Version of 1881 corrects these mistakes.
Calvin explains "all men" to mean men of all classes and conditions ("de hominum generibus, non singulis personis"). See his Comm. on 1 Tim. 2:4, and his sermon on the passage. But the Apostle emphasizes "all men" with reference to prayer "for all men," which he commands in 2:1, and which cannot be limited.
Calvin arbitrarily explains this passage of the "voluntas Dei quae nobis in evangelio patefit," but not "de arcano Dei consilio quo destinati sunt reprobi in suum exitium."
Calvin understands "totus mundus" in this passage to mean "tota ecclesia!" This is as impossible as the confinement of "the world," John 3:16, to "the elect." He mentions, however, also a better explanation, that Christ died "sufficienter pro toto mundo, sed pro electis tantum efficaciter."
Various terms for the distinction: voluntas revelata and voluntas arcana; voluntas signi and voluntas beneplaciti (eujdokiva"); voluntas universalis and voluntas specialis: verbum externum et verbum internum. The oft-quoted proof text, Deut. 29:29, teaches a distinction, but not a contradiction, between the secret things and the revealed things of God.
Calvin confines himself (IV. ch. XIV. § 22) to the genuine words of the three witnesses in this passage, and justly ignores the interpolation of the textus receptus, which is omitted in the Revised Version.
These passages (IV. ch. XV. §§ 16 and 17) furnish arguments against the decision of the Old-School-Presbyterian General Assembly held at Cincinnati, 1845, which, with an overwhelming majority, declared Roman Catholic baptism to be invalid, and thus virtually unchurched and unbaptized the greater part of Christendom, including the founders of the Protestant churches, who were baptized in the Roman communion, as the apostles were circumcised in the synagogue. But Drs. Charles Hodge of Princeton and Henry B. Smith of New York—the two leading Presbyterian divines of that day—vigorously protested against that anomalous decision; and when, in the United Assembly, held likewise at Cincinnati, in the year 1885, an attempt was made to re-enact that decision, it failed by a very large majority. Calvin did not unchurch the Church of Rome. "While we refuse," he says (Inst. IV. ch. II. § 12), "to allow to the papists the [exclusive] title of the Church, without any qualification or restriction, we do not deny that there are churches among them … . I affirm that there are churches, in as much as God has wonderfully preserved among them a remnant of his people, and as there still remain some marks of the Church, especially those, the efficacy of which neither the craft of the devil, nor the malice of men can ever destroy."
IV. ch. XV. 19: "Caeterum mergaturne totus qui tingitur, idque ter an semel, an infusa tantum aqua aspergatur, minimum refert: sed id pro regionum diversitate ecclesiis liberum esse debet. Quanquam et ipsum baptizandiverbum mergeresignificat, et mergendi ritum veteri ecclesiae observatum fuisse constat." See above, p. 373, note. Luther held substantially the same view, with a stronger leaning to immersion or dipping, which he prescribes in his Taufbuechlein, 1523. See vol. VI. 218 and 607 sq.
Ch. XVI. 1-32.
863 Ch. XVIII. See vol. VI. 720.
864 See vol. VI. 660. But Luther never gave up his dislike of Zwingli; and in one of his last letters, in which he describes himself as "infelicissimus omnium hominum," he wrote: "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the Sacramentarians, nor standeth in the way of the Zwinglians, nor sitteth in the seat of the Zuerichers." De Wette, V. 778.
865 Inst. IV. ch. XVII. 7.
866 He wrote from Strassburg, May 19, 1539, to André Zébédée, a minister at Orbe: "Nihil fuisse asperitatis in Zwinglii doctrina, tibi minime concedo. Siquidem videre promptum est, ut nimium occupatus in evertenda carnalis praesentiae superstitione, veram communicationis vim ut simul disjecerit, aut certe obscurarit." Herminjard, V. 318. In the same letter he characterizes Zwingli’s view as falsa et perniciosa. In a letter to Farel, Feb. 27, 1540, he disapproves Zébédée’s extravagant eulogy of Zwingli, and expresses his preference for Luther: "Nam si inter se comparantur, scis ipse, quanto intervallo Lutherus excellat." But he disowns any intention to dishonor his memory. Herminjard, V. 191. In a letter to Richard du Bois, from Strassburg, 1540 (ibid. VI. 425), he says, with evident allusion to Zwingli and Oecolampadius, that be never liked the view of those who in "evertenda localis praesentiae superstitione nimis occupati, verae praesentiae virtutem vel elevabant extenuando, vel subticendo ex hominum memoria quodammodo delebant. Sed est aliquid medium," etc. In a letter to Viret (Sept. 3, 1542, in Opera, XI. 438) he remarks that he never read all of Zwingli’s works, and hoped that towards the end of his life he retracted and corrected what first had escaped him carelessly, but "I remember, in his earlier writings how profane his doctrine of the sacraments is (quam profana sit ejus de sacramentis doctrina)."
867 See the passages quoted in vol. VI. 679, note 1.
868 The ejpivklhsi" pneuvmato" aJgivou. The Latin liturgies ascribe the power of consecration to Christ’s words of institution. See vol. III. 513.
869 See vol. IV. 549) sqq. and 564 sqq. Calvin refers to the Berengar controversy.
870 See his letter to Bullinger, quoted in vol. VI. 661.
871 Questions 76, 78, 79. Comp. Westminster Confession, ch. XXIX. 7, and Westminster Larger Catechism, qu. 170.