menu_book Chapter 38

Section 38 of Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Brian Dole. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4 by John Calvin.

Translated by Henry Beveridge. Chapter 17, Part 6 41. In seeking to prepare for eating worthily, men have often dreadfully harassed and tortured miserable consciences, and yet have in no degree attained the end.

They have said that those eat worthily who are in a state of grace. Being in a state of grace, they have interpreted to be pure and free from all sin By this definition, all the men that have ever been and are upon the earth Were debarred from the use of this sacrament For if we are to seek our worthiness from ourselves, it is all over with us

Only despair and fatal ruin await us Though we struggle to the utmost, we will not only make no progress but then be most unworthy after we have labored most to make ourselves worthy. To cure this ulcer, they have devised a mode of procuring worthiness, namely, after having, as far as we can, made an examination,

and taken an account of all our actions, to expiate our unworthiness by contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Of the nature of this expiation, we have spoken at the proper place. Book 3, chapter 4, section 2, 1727. As far as regards our present object, I say that such things give poor and evanescent comfort to alarmed and downcast consciences struck with terror at their sins. For if the Lord by his prohibition admits none to partake of his supper but the righteous and innocent, every man would require to be cautious before feeling secure of that righteousness of his own which he is told that God requires.

but how are we to be assured that those who have done what in them lay have discharged their duty to god even were we assured of this who would venture to assure himself that he had done what in him lay thus there being no certain security for our worthiness access to the supper would always be excluded by the fearful interdict he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself forty two it is now easy to judge what is the nature and who is the author of that doctrine which prevails in the papacy and which by its inhuman austerity deprives and robs wretched sinners oppressed with sorrow and trembling of the consolation of this sacrament a sacrament in which all that is delightful in the gospel was set before them certainly the devil could have no shorter method of destroying men than by thus infatuating them and so excluding them from the taste and savour of this food with which their most merciful father in heaven had been pleased to feed them

therefore lest we should rush over such a precipice let us remember that this sacred feast is medicine to the sick comfort to the sinner and bounty to the poor while to the healthy the righteous and to the rich if any such could be found it would be of no value for while christ is therein given us for food we perceive that without him we fail pine and waste away just as hunger destroys the vigour of the body next as he is given for life we perceive that without him we are certainly dead wherefore the best and only worthiness which we can bring to god is to offer him our own vileness and if i may so speak unworthiness that his mercy may make us worthy to despond in ourselves that we may be consoled in him to humble ourselves that we may be elevated by him to accuse ourselves that we may be justified by him to aspire moreover to the unity which he recommends in the supper and as he makes us all one in himself

to desire to have all one soul one heart one tongue if we ponder and meditate on these things we may be shaken but will never be overwhelmed by such considerations as these how shall we who are devoid of all good polluted by the defilements of sin and half dead worthily eat the body of the lord we shall rather consider that we who are poor are coming to a benevolent giver sick to a physician sinful to the author of righteousness in fine dead to him who gives life that worthiness which is commanded by god consists especially in faith which places all things in christ nothing in ourselves and in charity charity which though imperfect it may be sufficient to offer to god that he may increase it since it cannot be fully rendered some in concurring with us in holding that worthiness consists in faith and charity

have widely erred in regard to the measure of worthiness demanding a perfection of faith to which nothing can be added and a charity equivalent to that which christ manifested toward us and in this way just as the other class they debar all men from access to this sacred feast for were their view well founded every one who receives must receive unworthily since all without exception are guilty and chargeable with imperfection and certainly it were too stupid not to say idiotical to require to the receiving of the sacrament a perfection which would render the sacrament vain and superfluous because it was not instituted for the perfect but for the infirm and weak to stir up excite stimulate exercise the feeling of faith and charity and at the same time correct the deficiency of both forty three in regard to the external form of the ordinance whether or not believers are to take into their hands and divide among themselves or each is to eat what is given to him whether they are to return the cup to the deacon or hand it to their neighbour whether the bread is to be leavened or unleavened

and the wine to be red or white is of no consequence these things are indifferent and left free to the church though it is certain that it was the custom of the ancient church for all to receive into their hand and christ said take this and divide it among yourselves luke twenty two seventeen history relates that leavened and ordinary bread was used before the time of alexander the bishop of rome who was the first that was delighted with unleavened bread for what reason i see not unless it was to draw the wandering eyes of the populace by the novelty of the spectacle more than to train them in sound religion i appeal to all who have the least zeal for piety whether they do not evidently perceive both how much more brightly the glory of god is displayed and how much more abundant spiritual consolation is felt by believers than in these rigid and histrionic follies which have no other use than to impose on the gazing populace they call it restraining the people by religion

when stupid and infatuated they have drawn hither and thither by superstition should any one choose to defend such inventions by antiquity i am not unaware how ancient is the use of chrism and exorcism in baptism and how not long after the age of the apostles the supper was tainted with adulteration such indeed is the forwardness of human confidence which cannot restrain itself but is always sporting and wantoning in the mysteries of god but let us remember that god sets so much value on obedience to his word that by it he would have us to judge his angels and the whole world all this mass of ceremonies being abandoned the sacrament might be celebrated in the most becoming manner if it were dispensed to the church very frequently at least once a week

the commencement should be with public prayer next a sermon should be delivered then the minister having placed bread and wine on the table should read the institution of the supper he should next explain the promises which are therein given and at the same time keep back from communion all those who are debarred by the prohibition of the lord he should afterwards pray that the lord with the kindness with which he has bestowed this sacred food upon us would also form and instruct us to receive it with faith and gratitude, and as we are of ourselves unworthy, would make us worthy of the feast by His mercy. Here, either a psalm should be sung, or something read, while the faithful, in order, communicate at the sacred feast, the minister breaking the bread and

giving it to the people. The supper being ended, an exhortation should be given to sincere of faith and confession of faith, to charity and lives becoming Christians. Lastly, thanks should be offered, and the praises of God should be sung. This being done, the church should be dismissed in peace. 44. What we have hitherto said of the sacrament abundantly shows that it was not instituted to be received once a year, and that perfunctorily, as is now common by the

custom, but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently called to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith, stirring themselves up to sing the praises of God and proclaim His goodness, cherishing and testifying towards each other that mutual charity, the bond of which they see in the unity of the body of Christ. As often as we communicate in the symbol of our Saviour's body,

as if a pledge were given and received, we mutually bind ourselves to all the offices of love, that none of us may do anything to offend his brother, or omit anything by which he can assist him when necessity demands and opportunity occurs.

That such was the practice of the apostolic church, we are informed by Luke in the Acts, when he says that, quote, they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, unquote, Acts 2.42. Thus we ought always to provide that no meeting of the church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the supper,

and alms. We may gather from Paul that this was the order observed by the Corinthians, and it is certain that this was the practice many ages after hence by the ancient canons which are attributed to Anacletus and Calixtus after the consecration was made

all were to communicate who did not wish to be without the pale of the church and in those ancient canons which bear the name of Apostolical it is said that those who continue not to the end

and partake not of the sacred communion are to be corrected as causing disquiet to the church. In the Council of Antioch it was decreed that those who enter the church and hear the Scriptures and abstain from communion

are to be removed from the church until they amend their fault. And although in the First Council of Toulouse this was mitigated, or at least stated in milder terms, yet there also it was decreed that those who after hearing the sermon never communicated

were to be admonished, and if they still abstained after admonition, were to be excluded. 45. By these enactments, holy men wished to retain and ensure the use of frequent communion as handed down by the apostles themselves, and which, while it was most salutary to believers, they saw gradually falling into desuetude by the negligence of the people. Of his own age, Augustine testifies, quote,

The sacrament of the unity of our Lord's body is, in some places, provided daily, and in others at certain intervals, at the Lord's table. And at that table some partake to life,

and others to destruction. Unquote. And in the first epistle to Januarius, he says, quote, Some communicate daily in the body and blood of the Lord,

others receive it on certain days, In some places, not a day intervenes on which it is not offered In others, it is offered only on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day In others, on the Lord's Day only But since, as we have said, the people were sometimes remiss

Holy men urged them with severe rebukes That they might not seem to connive at their sluggishness Of this we have an example in Chrysostom On the epistle to the Ephesians It was not said to him who dishonoured the feast,

Why have you not taken your seat? But how camest thou in? Matthew 22.12 Whosoever partakes not of the sacred rites is wicked and impudent in being present.

Should anyone who was invited to a feast come in, wash his hands, take his seat, and seem to prepare to eat, and thereafter taste nothing? would he not, I ask, insult both the feast and the entertainer? So you, standing among those who prepare themselves by prayer

to take the sacred food, profess to be one of the number by the mere fact of your not going away, and yet you do not partake. Would it not to have been better not to have made your appearance? I am unworthy, you say. Then neither were you worthy of the communion of prayer,

which is the preparation for taking the sacred mystery. 46. Most assuredly, the custom which prescribes communion once a year is an invention of the devil, by what instrumentality soever it may have been introduced. They say that Zephyrinus was the author of the decree, though it is not possible to believe that it was the same as we now have it.

it may be that as times then were he did not by his ordinance consult ill for the church for there cannot be a doubt that at that time the sacred supper was dispensed to the faithful at every meeting nor can it be doubted that a great part of them communicated but as it scarcely ever happened that all could communicate at the same time and it was necessary that those who were mingled with the profane and idolaters should testify their faith by some external symbol this holy man with a view to order and government had appointed that day that on it the whole of christendom might give a confession of their faith by partaking of the lord's supper the ordinance of zephyrinus which was otherwise good posterity perverted when they made a fixed law of one communion in the year the consequence is that almost all when they have once communicated as if they were discharged as to all the rest of the year sleep on secure it ought to have been far otherwise each week at least the table of the lord ought to have been spread for the company of christians and the promises declared on which we might then spiritually

no one indeed ought to be forced but all ought to be exhorted and stimulated the torpor of the sluggish also ought to be rebuked that all like persons famishing should come to the feast it was not without cause therefore i complained at the outset that this practice had been introduced by the wile of the devil a practice which in prescribing one day in the year makes the whole year one of sloth we see indeed that this perverse abuse had already crept in in the time of chrysostom but we also at the same time see how much it displeased him for he complains in bitter terms in the passage which i lately quoted that there is so great an inequality in this matter that they did not approach often as other times of the year even when prepared but only at easter though unprepared then he exclaims o custom o presumption in vain then is the daily oblation made in vain do we stand at the altar there is none who partakes along with us

so far is he from having approved the practice by interposing his authority to it forty seven from the same forge proceed other constitution which snatched or robbed a half of the supper from the greater part of the people of god namely the symbol of blood which interdicted to laics and profane such are the titles which they give to god's heritage became the peculiar possession of a few shaven and anointed individuals the edict of the eternal god is that all are to drink this an upstart dares to antiquate and abrogate by a new and contrary law proclaiming that all are not to drink and that such legislators may not seem to fight against their god without any ground they make a pretext of the dangers which might happen if the sacred cup were given indiscriminately to all as if these had not been observed and provided for by the eternal wisdom of god then they reason acutely forsooth that the one is sufficient for the two for if the body is as they say the whole christ who cannot be separated from his body

then the blood includes the body by concomitance here we see how far our sense accords with god when to any extent whatever it begins to rage and wanton with loosened reins the lord pointing to the bread says this is my body then pointing to the cup he calls it his blood the audacity of human reason objects and says the bread is the blood the wine is the body as if the lord had without reason distinguished his body from his blood both by words and signs and it had ever been heard that the body of christ or the blood is called god and man certainly if he had meant to designate himself wholly he might have said it is i according to the scriptural mode of expression and not this is my body this is my blood but wishing to succour the weakness of our faith he placed the cup apart from the bread to show that he suffices not less for drink than for food

now if one part be taken away we can only find the half of the elements in what remains therefore though it were true as they pretend that the blood is the bread and on the other hand the body in the cup by concomitance yet they deprive the pious of that confirmation of faith which christ delivered as necessary bidding adieu therefore to their subtleties let us retain the advantage which by the ordinance of christ is obtained by a double pledge forty eight i am aware indeed how the ministers of satan whose usual practice is to hold the scriptures in derision hear first they allege that from a simple fact we are not to draw a rule which is to be perpetually obligatory on the church but they state an untruth when they call it a simple fact for christ not only gave the cup but appointed that the apostle should do so in the future for his words contain the command drink ye all of it and paul relates that it was so done and recommends it as a fixed institution

another subterfuge is that the apostles alone were admitted by christ to partake of this sacred supper because he had already selected and chosen them to the priesthood i wish they would answer the five following questions which they cannot evade and which easily refute them and their lies first by what oracle was this solution so much at variance with the word of god revealed to them scripture mentions twelve who sat down with jesus but it does not so derogate from the dignity of christ as to call them priests of this appellation we shall afterwards speak in its own place although he then gave to the twelve he commanded them to do this in other words to distribute thus among themselves secondly why during that purer age from the days of the apostles downward for a thousand years did all without exception partake of both symbols did the primitive church not know who the guests were whom christ would have admitted to his supper

it were the most shameless impudence to carp and quibble here we have extant ecclesiastical histories we have the writings of the fathers which furnish clear proofs of this fact quote the flesh unquote says tertullian quote feeds on the body and blood of christ that the soul may be satiated by god unquote quote how unquote says ambrose to theodosius quote will you receive the sacred body of the lord with such hands how will you have the boldness to put the cup of precious blood to your lips unquote jerome speaks of the priests who perform the eucharist and distribute the lord's blood to the people chrysostom says not as under the ancient law the priests ate a part and the people a part but one body and one cup is set before all all the things which belong to the eucharist are common to the priest and the people the same thing is attested by augustine in numerous passages

forty nine but why dispute about a fact which is perfectly notorious look at all greek and latin writers passages of the same kind everywhere occur nor did this practice fall into desuetude so long as there was one particle of integrity in the church gregory whom you may with justice call the last bishop of rome says that it was observed in his age what the blood of the lamb is you have learned not by hearing but by drinking it his blood is poured into the mouths of the faithful nay four hundred years after his death when all things had degenerated the practice still remained nor was it regarded as the custom merely but as an inviolable law reverence for the divine institution was then maintained and they had no doubt of it being sacrilege to separate what the lord had joined for galatius thus speaks

we find that some taking only the portion of the sacred body abstain from the cup undoubtedly let those persons as they seem entangled by some strange superstition either receive the whole sacrament or be debarred from the whole for the division of this mystery is not made without great sacrilege reasons were given by cyprian which surely ought to weigh with christian minds how says he do we teach or incite them to shed their blood in confessing christ if we deny his blood to those who are to serve or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom if we do not previously admit them by right of communion in the church to drink the cup of the lord the attempt of the canonists to restrict the decree of galatius to priests is a cavil too puerile to deserve refutation fifty thirdly why did our saviour say of the bread simply take eat and of the cup drink ye all of it as if he had purposely intended to provide against the wile of satan

fourthly if as they will have it the lord honoured priests only with his supper what man would ever have dared to call strangers whom the lord had excluded to partake of it and to partake of a gift which he had not in his power without any command from him who alone could give it nay what presumption do they show in the present day in distributing the symbol of christ's body to the common people if they have no command or example from the lord fifthly did paul lie when he said to the corinthians i have received of the lord that which also i delivered unto you one corinthians eleven twenty three the thing delivered he afterwards declares to be that all should communicate promiscuously in both symbols but if paul received of the lord that all were to be admitted without distinction let those who drive away almost the whole people of god see from whom they have received since they cannot now pretend to have their authority from god with whom there is not yea and nay

two corinthians one nineteen twenty and yet these abominations they dare to cloak with the name of the church and to defend under this pretence as if those antichrists were the church who so licentiously trample under foot waste and abrogate the doctrine and institutions of christ or as if the apostolic church in which religion flourished in full vigour were not the church end of section thirty eight