![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/01\/Calvin17.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is an installment of a series of replies (see the\u00a0Introduction and Master List<\/a>) to much\u00a0<\/em>of Book IV (Of the Holy Catholic Church<\/em>) of\u00a0Institutes of the Christian Religion<\/a><\/em>, by early\u00a0Protestant leader\u00a0John Calvin<\/a>\u00a0(1509-1564). I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin;\u00a0available online<\/a>. Calvin\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n Related reading from yours truly:<\/p>\n Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2010 book: 388 pages)<\/p>\n A Biblical Critique of Calvinism<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2012 book: 178 pages)<\/p>\n Biblical Catholic Salvation: \u201cFaith Working Through Love\u201d<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2010 book: 187 pages; includes biblical critiques of all five points of \u201cTULIP\u201d)<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n IV, 17:12-15<\/strong><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n OF THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER, AND THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY IT.<\/span><\/p>\n I now come to the hyperbolical mixtures which superstition has introduced.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s quite comical for Calvin to rail against \u201csuperstition\u201d \u2014 given all the fictional and illogical, incoherent innovations he himself has introduced . . .<\/p>\n Here Satan has employed all his wiles, withdrawing the minds of men from heaven, and imbuing them with the perverse error that Christ is annexed to the element of bread.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That is, the biblical, apostolic, patristic, and historic Catholic \u201cerror\u201d . . . (we must place things in their proper perspective).<\/p>\n And, first, we are not to\u00a0<\/span>dream of such a presence of Christ in the sacrament as the artificers of the Romish court have imagined, as if the body of Christ, locally present, were to be taken into the hand, and chewed by the teeth, and swallowed by the throat.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As the fathers pretty much unanimously believed: so\u00a0even Protestant historians freely concede<\/a>. It has nothing particularly to do with \u201cRomish\u201d and everything to do with apostolic and patristic.<\/p>\n This was the form of Palinode, which Pope Nicholas dictated to Berengarius, in token of his repentance, a form expressed in terms so monstrous, that the author of the Gloss exclaims, that there is danger, if the reader is not particularly cautious, that he will be led by it into a worse heresy than was that of Berengarius (Distinct. 2 c. Ego Berengarius).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Berengarius was one of the few men of any note in the entire patristic and early medieval period who questioned the Real Presence and transubstantiation; hence we see Calvin immediately gravitating to him, even before he engages in his usual pretense that St. Augustine supposedly agrees with his novel position. In the\u00a0article on Berengarius<\/a>\u00a0in the Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>, we can see from whence Calvin got some of his heretical notions of the Eucharist:<\/p>\n In the\u00a0Eucharistic\u00a0controversy of the ninth century,\u00a0Radbert\u00a0Paschasius, afterwards abbot of\u00a0Corbie, in his\u00a0De Corpore et Sanguine Domini<\/em>\u00a0(831), had maintained the doctrine that in the Holy Eucharist the bread is\u00a0converted\u00a0into the real body of Christ, into the very body which was born of\u00a0Mary\u00a0and crucified.\u00a0Ratramnus, a monk of the same abbey, defended the opinion that in the Holy Eucharist there is no\u00a0conversion\u00a0of the bread; that the body of\u00a0Christ\u00a0is, nevertheless, present, but in a\u00a0spiritual\u00a0way; that it is not therefore the same as that born of\u00a0Mary\u00a0and crucified.\u00a0John\u00a0Scotus\u00a0Erigena\u00a0had supported the view that the sacraments of the\u00a0altar\u00a0are figures of the body of\u00a0Christ; that they are a memorial of the true body and blood of\u00a0Christ. (P. Batiffol,\u00a0Etudes d\u2019histoire et de th\u00e9ologie positive, 2d series, Paris, 1905.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Unlike Calvin, who was firm in his error, Berengarius waffled and vacillated, but like Calvin, he went his own way over against Rome:<\/p>\n At the\u00a0Council\u00a0of Tours (1055), presided over by the papal legate Hildebrand, Berengarius signed a profession of faith wherein he\u00a0confessed\u00a0that after consecration the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of\u00a0Christ. At another\u00a0council\u00a0held in Rome in 1059, Berengarius was present, retracted his opinions, and signed a formula of faith, drawn up by\u00a0Cardinal\u00a0Humbert, affirming the real and sensible presence of the true body of\u00a0Christ\u00a0in the Holy Eucharist. (Mansi, XIX, 900.) On his return, however, Berengarius attacked this formula. Eusebius Bruno\u00a0abandoned\u00a0him, and the Count of\u00a0Anjou,\u00a0Geoffrey\u00a0the\u00a0Bearded, vigorously opposed him. Berengarius\u00a0appealed\u00a0to Pope Alexander II, who, though he intervened in his behalf, asked him to renounce his erroneous opinions. This Berengarius contemptuously refused to do. . . . in 1078, by order of Pope Gregory VII, he came to Rome, and in a\u00a0council\u00a0held in\u00a0St. John\u00a0Lateran\u00a0signed a profession of faith affirming the\u00a0conversion\u00a0of the bread into the body of Christ, born of the\u00a0Virgin Mary. The following year, in a\u00a0council\u00a0held in the same place Berengarius signed a formula affirming the same doctrine in a more explicit way. Gregory VII then recommended him to the bishops of Tours and\u00a0Angers, forbidding that any\u00a0penalty\u00a0should be inflicted on him or that anyone should call him a heretic. Berengarius, on his return, again attacked the formula he had signed, but as a consequence of the\u00a0Council\u00a0of\u00a0Bordeaux\u00a0(1080) he made a final retraction. He then retired into solitude on the island of St. Cosme, where he died, in union with the Church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As the article proceeds in its analysis, we see again the similarities of the false premises of both Berengarius\u2019 and Calvin\u2019s heretical errors: particularly the notion of merely \u201cspiritual presence\u201d:<\/p>\n In order to understand his opinion, we must observe that, in philosophy, Berengarius had rationalistic tendencies and was a\u00a0nominalist. Even in the study of the question of faith, he held that\u00a0reason\u00a0is the best guide.\u00a0Reason, however, is dependent upon and is limited by sense-perception.\u00a0Authority, therefore, is not conclusive; we must\u00a0reason\u00a0according to the data of our senses. There is no doubt that Berengarius denied transubstantiation (we mean the\u00a0substantial\u00a0conversion expressed by the word; the word itself was used for the first time by Hildebert of Lavardin); it is not absolutely\u00a0certain\u00a0that he denied the Real Presence, though he\u00a0certainly\u00a0held false views regarding it. Is the body of\u00a0Christ\u00a0present in the\u00a0Eucharist, and in what manner? On this question the\u00a0authorities\u00a0appealed\u00a0to by Berengarius are, besides Scotus\u00a0Erigena, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. These fathers taught that the\u00a0Sacrament\u00a0of the\u00a0Altar\u00a0is the figure, the sign, the token of the body and blood of the\u00a0Lord. These terms, in their\u00a0mind, apply directly to what is external and sensible in the Holy Eucharist and do not, in any way, imply the negation of the real presence of the true body of\u00a0Christ. (St. Aug. Serm. 143, n.3; Gerbert,\u00a0Libellus\u00a0De Corp. et Sang. Domini. n. 4, P.L., CXXXIX, 177.) For Berengarius the body and blood of\u00a0Christ\u00a0are really present in the Holy Eucharist; but this presence is an intellectual or\u00a0spiritual\u00a0presence. The\u00a0substance\u00a0of the bread and the\u00a0substance\u00a0of the\u00a0wine\u00a0remain unchanged in their\u00a0nature, but by consecration they become\u00a0spiritually\u00a0the very body and blood of\u00a0Christ. This\u00a0spiritual\u00a0body and blood of\u00a0Christ\u00a0is the\u00a0res sacramenti<\/em>; the bread and the\u00a0wine\u00a0are the figure, the sign, the token,\u00a0sacramentum<\/em>. . . .<\/p>\n He maintained that the bread and wine, without any change in their\u00a0nature, become by consecration the\u00a0sacrament\u00a0of the body and blood of Christ, a memorial of the body crucified and of the blood shed on the\u00a0cross. It is not, however, the body of\u00a0Christ\u00a0as it is in heaven; for how could the body of\u00a0Christ which is now in heaven,\u00a0necessarily\u00a0limited by\u00a0space, be in another place, on several\u00a0altars, and in numerous\u00a0hosts? Yet the bread and the\u00a0wine\u00a0are the sign of the actual and real presence of the body and blood of\u00a0Christ.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Calvin, too, had pronounced\u00a0rationalistic<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0nominalistic<\/a>\u00a0tendencies. And so we see some of the intellectual background of his heresies in this regard.<\/p>\n Peter Lombard, though he labours much to excuse the absurdity, rather inclines to a different opinion. As we cannot at all doubt that it is bounded according to the invariable rule in the human body, and is contained in heaven, where it was once received, and will remain till it return to judgment, so we deem it altogether unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or to imagine it everywhere present.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus\u2019\u00a0body<\/em>\u00a0is not \u201ceverywhere present.\u201d It is sacramentally present in the consecrated bread and wine at Mass. In fact, the very notion of consecration proves that transubstantiation does not involve a \u201cbodily omnipresence\u201d since what was once bread and wine miraculously becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, if they were not that before consecration, then this proves that Jesus\u2019 body is not omnipresent itself, but\u00a0becomes<\/em>\u00a0present locally during Mass.<\/p>\n Absurdities abound here, but in Calvin\u2019s view, not the Catholic position. Jesus could walk through walls after His Resurrection (Jn 20:26), and even a mere man, Philip, could be \u201ccaught away\u201d and transported to another place by God (Acts 8:39-40). So some Protestants think that God \u201ccouldn\u2019t\u201d or \u201cwouldn\u2019t\u201d have performed the miracle of the Eucharist? One shouldn\u2019t attempt to \u201ctie\u201d God\u2019s hands by such arguments of alleged implausibility.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/p>\n And, indeed, there is no need of this, in order to our partaking of it, since the Lord by his Spirit bestows upon us the blessing of being one with him in soul, body, and spirit. The bond of that connection, therefore, is the Spirit of Christ, who unites us to him, and is a kind of channel by which everything that Christ has and is, is derived to us. For if we see that the sun, in sending forth its rays upon the earth, to generate, cherish, and invigorate its offspring, in a manner transfuses its substance into it, why should the radiance of the Spirit be less in conveying to us the communion of his flesh and blood?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Calvin\u2019s scenario is entirely\u00a0possible<\/em>, theoretically. The problem is that it denies the clear\u00a0biblical warrant\u00a0<\/em>for eucharistic realism.<\/p>\n Wherefore the Scripture, when it speaks of our participation with Christ, refers its whole efficacy to the Spirit. Instead of many, one passage will suffice. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 8:9-11), shows that the only way in which Christ dwells in us is by his Spirit. By this, however, he does not take away that communion of flesh and blood of which we now speak, but shows that it is owing to the Spirit alone that we possess Christ wholly, and have him abiding in us.<\/span><\/p>\n The indwelling itself is spiritual, and it is said that Jesus dwells inside of us, as well as the Holy Spirit, and indeed God the Father. But the same Scripture uses realistic language in describing the Body of Christ. Calvin himself alluded to this in passing not long before in his book. The clearest, most graphic example of that is in conjunction with St. Paul\u2019s conversion:<\/p>\n Acts 9:3-4\u00a0<\/strong>And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, \u201cSaul, Saul, why do you persecute me?\u201d [5] And he said, \u201cWho are you, Lord?\u201d And he said, \u201cI am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;<\/p>\n Acts 22:7-8<\/strong>\u00a0And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?\u2019 [8] And I answered, `Who are you, Lord?\u2019 And he said to me, `I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.\u2019<\/p>\n Acts 26:14-15\u00a0<\/strong>And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.\u2019\u00a0[15] And I said, `Who are you, Lord?\u2019 And the Lord said, `I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul wasn\u2019t literally persecuting Jesus in the flesh. He was warring against the Body of Christ. Jesus assumes here that the \u201cBody of Christ\u201d or the Church is literally identified with Him, in some very real sense. It\u2019s the typically pungent, literal, graphic language and categories of the Bible. Paul was persecuting the\u00a0Church<\/em>:<\/p>\n Acts 9:1-2\u00a0<\/strong>But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest [2] and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n Acts 22:4-5<\/strong>\u00a0I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, [5] as the high priest and the whole council of elders bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brethren, and I journeyed to Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.<\/p>\n Acts 26:10-11<\/strong>\u00a0I not only shut up many of the saints in prison, by authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. [11] And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme; and in raging fury against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:9<\/strong>\u00a0For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.<\/p>\n Galatians 1:23<\/strong>\u00a0For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; (cf. 1:23)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But Jesus told him that he was persecuting\u00a0Him<\/em>. This graphic one-to-one equation is seen elsewhere:<\/p>\n Ephesians 1:22-23\u00a0<\/strong>and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.<\/p>\n Ephesians 5:23<\/strong>\u00a0. . . Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.<\/p>\n Ephesians 5:28-32<\/strong>\u00a0Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, [30] because we are members of his body. [31] \u201cFor this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.\u201d [32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul also reiterates the equation of persecution of the Church being the same as persecuting Jesus Himself:<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 1:12-13<\/strong>\u00a0I thank him who has given me strength for this, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful by appointing me to his service, [13] though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Elsewhere we see in the Apostle Paul not only very strong eucharistic realism (1 Cor 10:16; 11:27-30) but also an identification with the very suffering of Christ, in a startlingly realistic manner:<\/p>\n Colossians 1:24<\/strong>\u00a0Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ\u2019s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, (cf. 2 Cor 4:10; Gal 6:17; Phil 3:10)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Calvin can\u2019t spiritualize away Paul\u2019s bodily sufferings, as if they weren\u2019t physical in nature. Likewise, he can\u2019t spiritualize away the Holy Eucharist. Scripture is consistently realistic in tone, tenor, and language with regard to\u00a0all\u00a0these matters.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The Schoolmen, horrified at this barbarous impiety,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n What<\/em>\u00a0impiety?<\/p>\n speak more modestly, though they do nothing more than amuse themselves with more subtle delusions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Quite an underhanded compliment . . .<\/p>\n They admit that Christ is not contained in the sacrament circumscriptively, or in a bodily manner, but they afterwards devise a method which they themselves do not understand, and cannot explain to others.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Sounds rather like Calvin\u2019s\u00a0own<\/em>\u00a0discombobulated eucharistic theology.<\/p>\n It, however, comes to this, that Christ may be sought in what they call the species of bread. What? When they say that the substance of bread is converted into Christ, do they not attach him to the white colour, which is all they leave of it? But they say, that though contained in the sacrament, he still remains in heaven, and has no other presence there than that of abode.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n On what grounds can Calvin or his followers argue that this is impossible<\/em>? I don\u2019t see at all that it is impossible for God or prohibited by the Bible. Colossians 3:11 states that \u201cChrist is all, and in all.\u201d The Bible refers to God being \u201cin\u201d physical things, such as fire and clouds (so why not also<\/em> under the appearances of bread and wine?). Exodus 33:9-10 even informs us that the ancient Israelites would worship God in the pillar of cloud and 2 Chronicles 7:3 states that they \u201cbowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped\u201d before God in both the fire and the cloud. Moses and Aaron \u201cfell on their faces\u201d before the Shekinah glory cloud (Num 20:6). All of this is exactly analogous to eucharistic adoration of the host:<\/p>\n Exodus 3:2-6\u00a0<\/strong>And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a\u00a0<\/b>bush; and he looked, and lo, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. [3] And Moses said, \u201cI will turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.\u201d [4] When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, \u201cMoses, Moses!\u201d And he said, \u201cHere am I.\u201d [5] Then he said, \u201cDo not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.\u201d [6] And he said, \u201cI am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.\u201d And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. (cf. Acts 7:30-33; Dt. 4:12, 15; 5:4-5; Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37)<\/p>\n Exodus 13:21<\/strong>\u00a0And the LORD went before them . . . by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night; (cf. 14:24)<\/p>\n Exodus 19:18\u00a0<\/strong>And Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and the smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain quaked greatly. (cf. 24:17)<\/p>\n Exodus 40:38\u00a0<\/strong>For throughout all their journeys the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel. (cf. Num 14:14; Dt 1:32-33; Neh 9:12, 19)<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 4:12<\/strong>\u00a0Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. (cf. 4:15)<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 5:22<\/strong>\u00a0These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, . . . (cf. 9:10; 10:4)<\/p>\n Exodus 13:21<\/strong>\u00a0And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, . . . (cf. 14:24; 16:10; Dt 1:33; 31:15)<\/p>\n Exodus 24:15-16<\/strong>\u00a0Then Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain. [16] The glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud.<\/p>\n Exodus 33:9-11<\/strong>\u00a0When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door. [11] Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tent. . . . [14] And he said, \u201cMy presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.\u201d (cf. Num 14:10, 14; 16:19, 42)<\/p>\n Exodus 34:5<\/strong>\u00a0And the LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.<\/p>\n Exodus 40:34-38<\/strong>\u00a0Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. [35] And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. [36] Throughout all their journeys, whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the people of Israel would go onward; [37] but if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not go onward till the day that it was taken up. [38] For throughout all their journeys the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, . . . (cf. Lev 9:4-6, 23)<\/p>\n Leviticus 16:2\u00a0<\/strong>and the LORD said to Moses, . . . \u201cI will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.\u201d [ark of the covenant]<\/p>\n Numbers 11:25<\/strong>\u00a0Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him . . .<\/p>\n Numbers 20:6-7\u00a0<\/strong>Then Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the tent of meeting, and fell on their faces. And the glory of the LORD appeared to them, [7] and the LORD said to Moses,<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 5:22<\/strong>\u00a0These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of . . . the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice . . .<\/p>\n 1 Kings 8:11<\/strong>\u00a0so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. (cf. 2 Chr 5:14)<\/p>\n 2 Chronicles 7:1-3<\/strong>\u00a0When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. [2] And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD\u2019s house. [3] When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, \u201cFor he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.\u201d<\/p>\n Psalm 99:7<\/strong>\u00a0He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud . . . (cf. Neh 9:12,19)<\/p>\n Ezekiel 10:4, 18\u00a0<\/strong>And the glory of the LORD went up from the cherubim to the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the glory of the LORD. . . . Then the glory of the LORD went forth from the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yet Calvin would have us believe that it is implausible or unbiblical or impossible that God (after the Incarnation) could choose to be physically present in the consecrated elements? He simply cannot do so. It is a mere false tradition of men that would dogmatically assert such a thing without biblical justification. As I\u2019ve just shown, the Bible has many indications of a local presence of God in physical things, even apart from the Incarnation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Eucharistic presence is scarcely any essentially different than all these manifestations of His special presence. God was so present in the ark of the covenant, that Uzzah was killed instantly simply because he innocently touched it, to keep it from falling over (2 Sam 6:3-7; 1 Chr 13:7-10). Seventy men of Bethshemesh were slain because they (also seemingly innocently) looked into it (1 Sam 6:19).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Joshua even bowed before the ark of the covenant on his face in a worshipful posture (Josh 7:6), and Levite priests thanked and praised God before it (1 Chr 16:4), just as Catholics genuflect and bow before the Holy Eucharist, and adore the Lord therein. King David \u201coffered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD\u201d next to the ark (2 Sam 6:17), which is a precursor of the Sacrifice of the Mass. King Solomon did the same (1 Kgs 3:15; 2 Chr 5:6), and so did the Levites (1 Chr 16:1). Catholic practices are essentially nothing that hadn\u2019t been done nearly 3000 years ago. They are made far more meaningful, however, after the incarnation and crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n But, whatever be the terms in which they attempt to make a gloss, the sum of all is, that that which was formerly bread, by consecration becomes Christ: so that Christ thereafter lies hid under the colour of bread.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s correct; as the fathers taught.<\/p>\n This they are not ashamed distinctly to express.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Why\u00a0should<\/em>\u00a0we be, since Jesus and Paul did?<\/p>\n For Lombard\u2019s words are, \u201cThe body of Christ, which is visible in itself, lurks and lies covered after the\u00a0<\/span>act of consecration under the species of bread\u201d (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 12). Thus the figure of the bread is nothing but a mask which conceals the view of the flesh from our eye. But there is no need of many conjectures to detect the snare which they intended to lay by these words, since the thing itself speaks clearly. It is easy to see how great is the superstition under which not only the vulgar but the leaders also, have laboured for many ages, and still labour, in Popish Churches.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If Calvin wishes to condemn the entirety of patristic eucharistic theology (and the explicit biblical rationale behind it), he is free to do so, but this also means that he can\u2019t pretend to be \u201creforming\u201d the Church back to her former state in this regard, since there never was a time when the Church believed as he does regarding the Eucharist. He can\u2019t have his cake and eat it too (no pun intended).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Little solicitous as to true faith (by which alone we attain to the fellowship of Christ, and become one with him), provided they have his carnal presence, which they have fabricated without authority from the word, they think he is sufficiently present. Hence we see, that all which they have gained by their ingenious subtlety is to make bread to be regarded as God.<\/span><\/p>\n Calvin does the latter, as I alluded to above, since he makes the bread remain bread, yet wants to talk as if God is specially, mystically, spiritually present in it. So if anyone is confusing bread and God, it is Calvin. He is mixing the two in an odd, illogical manner. Lutherans, on the other hand, make it clear that both bread and God are present, and distinguish the two, while Catholics explicitly hold to a change in substance from bread to God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Luke 22:19-20<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0(RCV) And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, \u201cThis is represents my body which is given for you, as a sign and seal. Do this in remembrance of me.\u201d [20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, \u201cThis cup which is poured out for you represents the new covenant in my blood, as a sign and seal.\u201d<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 10:16<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0(RCV) The cup of blessing which we bless, does it not represent and signify in a spiritual manner the blood of Christ, that we mystically participate in? The bread which we break, does it not represent and signify in a spiritual manner the body of Christ, that we mystically participate in?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1 Corinthians 11:27-29<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0(RCV) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning what represents and signifies as a spiritual sign the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning what represents and signifies as a spiritual sign the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Well, no; transubstantiation means literally, \u201cchange of substance,\u201d so the view is that the substance changes from bread to the Body and Blood of Christ, not that it changes to \u201cnothing.\u201d This makes perfect sense, since Jesus said \u201cthis is My body\u201d and referred to eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6. Calvin simply lacks faith that God can do this miracles. He wants to limit God and place His actions in arbitrary categories of his own making: certainly not from scriptural indications.<\/p>\n It is strange that they have fallen into such a degree of ignorance, nay, of stupor, as to produce this monstrous fiction not only against Scripture, but also against the consent of the ancient Church. I admit, indeed, that some of the ancients occasionally used the term\u00a0conversion<\/i>, not that they meant to do away with the substance in the external signs, but to teach that the bread devoted to the sacrament was widely different from ordinary bread, and was now something else.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n What else does \u201cconversion\u201d or \u201ctransformation\u201d or \u201cchange\u201d mean? This is just more word games from Calvin. He thinks that if he wishes long enough, that the fathers will magically agree with him, when in fact they do not at all. Calvin would have it that the consent of the ancient Church is on his side, with regard to this question. Nothing could be further from the truth. It\u2019s wearisome to have to repeatedly point out historical facts over against Calvin. But I\u2019m happy to set the record straight and reveal once again the surprisingly great weakness of Calvin\u2019s historical arguments (as well as biblical ones).<\/p>\n All clearly and uniformly teach that the sacred Supper consists of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. The earthly they without dispute interpret to be bread and wine. Certainly, whatever they may pretend, it is plain that antiquity, which they often dare to oppose to the clear word of God, gives no countenance to that dogma. It is not so long since it was devised; indeed, it was unknown not only to the better ages, in which a purer doctrine still flourished, but after that purity was considerably impaired. There is no early Christian writer who does not admit in distinct terms that the sacred symbols of the Supper are bread and wine, although, as has been said, they sometimes distinguish them by various epithets, in order to recommend the dignity of the mystery.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is sheer nonsense, and one can prove it by citing prominent Protestant historians of Christian doctrine. For example:<\/p>\n In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim\u2026\u2026\u00a0(Philip Schaff,\u00a0History of the Christian Church<\/i>, vol. 3, A. D. 311-600, revised 5th edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, reprinted 1974, originally 1910, p. 500)<\/p>\n Theodore [c.350-428] set forth the doctrine of the real presence, and even a theory of sacramental transformation of the elements, in highly explicit language . . . \u2018At first it is laid upon the altar as a mere bread and wine mixed with water, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into body and blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.\u2019 [Hom. catech. 16,36] these and similar passages in Theodore are an indication that the twin ideas of the transformation of the eucharistic elements and the transformation of the communicant were so widely held and so firmly established in the thought and language of the church that everyone had to acknowledge them.\u00a0(Jaroslav Pelikan,\u00a0The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)<\/i>, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 236-237)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Since Calvin insists that the fathers agree with him, I will now document that they do not<\/em>; that transubstantiation in kernel form (not yet fully developed, as in the case of all complex doctrines, such as the Holy Trinity and Christology, that develop over many centuries) was indeed taught by many fathers, just as historian Philip Schaff (no fan of the doctrine at all) verified:<\/p>\n St. Irenaeus<\/strong><\/p>\n When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?\u2014even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that \u201cwe are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.\u201d He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,\u2014that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.\u00a0(Against Heresies<\/em>, V, 2, 3; ANF, Vol. I)<\/p>\n Origen<\/strong><\/p>\n You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise care lest a particle fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. . . . But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?\u00a0(Homilies on Exodus, 13, 3)<\/p>\n St. Cyprian<\/strong><\/p>\n And therefore we ask that our bread\u2014that is, Christ\u2014may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not depart from His sanctification and body.\u00a0(On the Lord\u2019s Prayer<\/em>\u00a0\/ Treatise IV, 18; ANF, Vol. V)<\/p>\n St. Athanasius<\/strong><\/p>\n You will see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wondrous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.\u00a0(Sermon to the Newly-Baptized)<\/p>\n St. Cyril of Jerusalem<\/strong><\/p>\n For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ . . .\u00a0(Catechetical Lecture<\/em>\u00a0XIX, 7; NPNF 2, Vol. VII)<\/p>\n Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, ye are become of\u00a0the same body\u00a0and blood with Christ . . . Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread,\u00a0This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said,\u00a0This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?\u00a0(Catechetical Lecture<\/em>\u00a0XXII, 1; NPNF 2, Vol. VII)<\/p>\n Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter,\u00a0we become partakers of the divine nature.\u00a0(Catechetical Lecture<\/em>\u00a0XXII, 3; NPNF 2, Vol. VII)<\/p>\n Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord\u2019s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to thee, yet let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to thee.\u00a0(Catechetical Lecture<\/em>\u00a0XXII, 6; NPNF 2, Vol. VII)<\/p>\n Having learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ . . .\u00a0(Catechetical Lecture<\/em>\u00a0XXII, 9; NPNF 2, Vol. VII)<\/p>\n Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.<\/p>\n Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray and offer this sacrifice.\u00a0(Catechetical Lecture<\/em>\u00a0XXIII, 7-8; NPNF 2, Vol. VII)<\/p>\n St. Gregory of Nyssa<\/strong><\/p>\n Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word.\u00a0(The Great Catechism<\/em>, chapter XXXVII; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)<\/p>\n The footnote in NPNF 2 for this passage states:<\/p>\n by the process of eating . . . If Krabinger\u2019s text is here correct, Gregory distinctly teaches a transmutation of the elements very like the later transubstantiation: he also distinctly teaches that the words of consecration effect the change. There seems no reason to doubt that the text is correct.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Ambrose<\/strong><\/p>\n . . . We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet\u2019s blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: \u201cHe spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created.\u201d Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.<\/p>\n But why make use of arguments? Let us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.<\/p>\n The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: \u201cThis is My Body.\u201d Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood.\u00a0(Book IV<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n\nCHAPTER 17<\/span><\/h3>\n
12.\u00a0Second part of the chapter, reduced to nine heads. The transubstantiation of the Papists considered and refuted. Its origin and absurdity. Why it should be exploded.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nThe fact remains that God clearly can perform any miracle He so chooses, and this particular one entails no suspension of the principles of the Incarnation, once the doctrine of Two Natures is correctly understood. Jesus can be both incarnate and present in many places in the Eucharist, just as He can be incarnate and be present spiritually everywhere (something which all Protestants believe). Neither scenario is contradictory or impossible for God. They are both miraculous and supernatural.<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n13.\u00a0Transubstantiation as feigned by the Schoolmen. Refutation. The many superstitions introduced by their error.<\/em><\/span>
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n
GOD IN FIRE<\/strong><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nGOD IN THE\u00a0SHEKINAH<\/em>\u00a0CLOUD \/ \u201cGLORY OF THE LORD\u201d<\/strong><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNow that God has taken on human flesh, it is not implausible that He can also choose to be present under the appearances of bread and wine, just as He did in pillars of cloud and fire and burning bushes. Why should one thing be actual and the other allegedly not even plausible or possible? Jesus told us \u201cthis is My body.\u201d He emphasizes this in very strong terms in the discourse of John 6. St. Paul reiterates it. Why does Calvin, then, doubt it?<\/div>\n\nGod was so present in the Holy of Holies (Ex 26:33; 1 Kgs 6:19), that contained the ark of the covenant (Ex 26:34; 40:21; 1 Kgs 8:6; 2 Chr 5:7), that the priests only went in there once a year, on the Day of Atonement, and anyone who did on any other day, or not according to the proper ceremony, might be killed (Lev 16:2, 13). The River Jordan stopped flowing when the ark was carried through it (Josh 3:8-17; 4:1-18).
\n*<\/div>\n\nIf he wants to oppose the massive, unarguable historical evidence of early Church beliefs on the Eucharist, then he can\u2019t at the same time maintain a pretense of supposedly going back to it and getting rid of \u201cPopish\u201d<\/span> accretions and corruptions and inventions. He should honestly admit that his is no reform at all, but a novel revolution of thought.
\n*<\/div>\n\nTherefore, neither Lutherans nor Catholics \u201cmake bread to be regarded as God.\u201d Calvin is doing that. We have plenty of biblical warrant. Calvin, however, has to change Scripture in order to believe as he does. Scripture isn\u2019t clear enough as it is. So it needs to be changed. Here, then, is the Revised Calvin Version (RCV) of the classic eucharistic texts:<\/div>\n\n\n14.\u00a0The fiction of transubstantiation why invented contrary to Scripture, and the consent of antiquity. The term of transubstantiation never used in the early Church. Objection. Answer.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/span><\/div>\nHence proceeded that fictitious transubstantiation for which they fight more fiercely in the present day than for all the other articles of their faith. For the first architects of local presence could not explain, how the body of Christ could be mixed with the substance of bread, without forthwith meeting with many absurdities. Hence it was necessary to have recourse to the fiction, that there is a conversion of the bread into body, not that properly instead of bread it becomes body, but that Christ, in order to conceal himself under the figure, reduces the substance to nothing.\u00a0<\/span>\n