His felicity in adapting his style to that of the Holy Scriptures is both original and peculiar to himself, and is especially conspicuous in his commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul.'

§ 322. Calvin's System.

Mahler, Symbolism, 5th ed., p. 21; Engl. transl., New York, 1844, pp. 123, 159, 181, 207, 292, 323, 407; Hilgers, Theology of Symbolism; Staudenmaier, Philosophy of Christianity, Vol. I., pp. 698-709; Hepp, Dogmatics of the Evangelical Reformed Church, Elberfeld, 1861.

The system of Calvin, as has been intimated above, resembles in its general features the teachings of Luther and Zwingli, though, on the whole, it is far more gloomy and severe. He began to depart from Luther's teaching on the question of free-will. Luther denied outright the faculty of free-will in man; Calvin, on the contrary, maintained that man did enjoy a certain sort of free-will, but, at the same time, contended that it was subject to a divine predestination of a more formal and sterner character than that admitted by either Luther or Zwingli. The one dominating element and distinguishing characteristic of Calvinism is the doctrine of absolute predestination, logically and rigorously deduced from his conception of original sin. The decree of predestination, he maintained, is a consequence of Adam's fall, and is, therefore, eternal and immutable. Moreover, the faculties of man are so utterly and radically corrupted and depraved by original sin, that man has an overmastering tendency to do wrong, and cannot, of himself, though he put forth his best efforts in the attempt, perform a single good action. God, the primordial Author of good and evil, had from the beginning set apart a certain number of his creatures, whom He doomed to everlasting punishment, to the end that his justice might be made manifest in them. But that there might be a pretext for his wrath and a justification for the punishment, He caused the First Man to fall into sin, and visited upon all posterity the consequences of his revolt. Those foredoomed to eternal loss commit sins by a necessity of their being impelled to their commission by the irresistible influence of the divine will. Their intellect is so blinded by divine agency and their will so enfeebled, that the one is incapable of knowing and the other equally incapable of performing aught of good. Such expressions as the following are common in the writings of Calvin: Man, acting under a divine impulse, does what it is not lawful to do

1 Fajus, De vita et obitu Th. Beza, Gen., 1606; Schlosser, The Lives of Theodor Beza and of Feter Martyr, Heidelberg, 1809; Baum, Theodore Beza, according to authentic sources, Lps., 1843 sq., 2 vols.

Calvin professes to base his teaching on that of St. Augustine; but Petavius (Theologicor. Dogmatum, Tom. I., lib. X., c. 6-15) shows that there is a wide difference between the two. Hugo Grotius makes this very just observation on the character of Calvinism : "Nullum potuit in Christianismum induci dogma perniciosus quam hoc: hominem, qui credidit, aut qui regenitus est (nam hæc multis idem valent), posse prolabi in scelera et flagitia, sed accidere non posse, ut propterea divino favore excidat aut damnationem incurrat. Hæc nemo veterum docuit, nemo docentem tulisset, nec aliud evidentibus vidi argumentum detortæ ad privatos et malos sensus scripturæ, quam in hoc negotio.”

The heart of man, obeying a certain mysterious divine influence, turns from the good and pursues the evil-Man falls because an overmastering Providence ordains that he shall fall: He further held that the reprobate, even at the moment he receives the Sacraments, is as destitute of true faith as he is of sanctifying grace. The following is his definition of predestination: "By predestination," he says, "is understood an eternal decree by which God preordains what shall be the lot of each individual. For, inasmuch as all are not created for the same end, some will enjoy everlasting happiness, and others suffer never-ending misery. Hence, according as man is created for the enjoyment of the one or the sufferance of the other, he is said to be predestined either to life or to death." Concerning the doctrine of justification by imputation, Calvin went a step beyond Luther, declaring that he who believes is not only perfectly assured of his justification, but also of his eternal salvation. In regard to the Sacraments, he differed from Luther, affirming that sanctifying grace has no connection with the visible sign of the Sacrament, and is not invariably efficacious.

His language relative to the Lord's Supper and the Eucharistic Presence is insidiously equivocal and purposely obscure. Passages of it would lead one to believe that he is speaking of a true Presence, and a true eating of the Body and drinking of the Blood of Christ, and that he really intends to convey the meaning that the Body of Christ is wholly independent of the faith of the recipient, the unworthy receiving equally with the worthy. But, be this as it may, his teaching is certainly more reasonable and more consolatory than

1 Calvin, Institut., lib. IV., c 18, § 2: "Homo justo Dei impulsu agit quod sibi non licet." Lib. III., c. 23, § 8: "Cadit igitur homo, Dei providentia sic ordinante." Cf. Mahler, Symbolism, p. 128. (TR.) Calvin makes the following commentary on St. Paul's Ep. to the Romans, ix. 18: “Nam res externæ, quæ ad excæcationem reproborum faciunt, illius iræ (Dei) sunt instrumenta. Satan autem ipse, qui intus efficaciter agit, ita est ejus minister, ut nonnisi ejus imperio agat. Corruit ergo frivolum illud effugium, quod de præscientia Scholastici habent. Neque enim prævideri ruinam impiorum a Domino Paulus tradit, sed ejus consilio et voluntate ordinari." He is not even at a loss for an illustration in confirmation of his doctrine: Absalon incesto coitu patris torum polluens detestabile scelus perpetrat: Deus tamen hoc opus suum esse pronunciat," &c.

The following is a summary of Calvin's teaching on Predestination, as given by Blunt (Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, London, 1872, p. 102): "The teaching of Calvin on Predestination may be summed up in what are called the Five Points, a name given to the peculiarities of his system. These are: Election (and non-election or reprobation); redemption, the bondage of the will; grace; final perseverance. His teaching on these subjects will appear from a statement of his theory on Predestination. He maintained that God not only foresaw, but from all eternity decreed, the fall of Adam, and the total corruption of his posterity by sin; all from birth inherit his fallen nature, with its hereditary bond of sin and guilt, and are in a state of utter alienation from God; freewill Godward is totally lost; man in his natural state can do nothing but sin, and that continually. God is pleased for wise reasons, inscrutable to ourselves and independent of the foreseen merits of the objects of his mercy, to elect some from the fallen race to salvation. They are made willing by this grace, which is irresistible or necessarily effectual, to obey the Gospel call, are regenerated by his Spirit, and live in holiness and obedience to his will, and cannot finally fall from a state of grace. The rest of mankind God predestines to eternal destruction, not on account of foreseen sin, though it may aggravate their doom, but in fulfilment of his sovereign purpose or decree. He leaves them in their fallen state without effectual grace, deprived of which they must necessarily perish, as examples of his hatred against sin and for the manifestation of his glory." (TR.)

that of Zwingli, according to whom the only Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is that "which exists in the thoughts of a contemplative mind," and the only significance of the Sacrament itself, a remembrance of Christ, his sufferings, and his death.' Calvin, while dissatisfied with the cold and heartless theory of Zwingli, was equally at variance in his teaching with the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. He held that the bread and wine are not changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the words of consecration pronounced by the priest, but remain precisely what they were before the act; that the Body and Blood of Christ are in heaven, and there alone, but that at the moment of Communion a divine power, emanating from the Body of Christ in heaven, is communicated to the soul of the believer. Thus, according to his conception of the Eucharist, it contained two wholly distinct elements-the one material, which falls under the senses; the other spiritual, which constitutes the divine food of the soul, is communicated only to those predestined to eternal life, and is connected with the material element only in so far as the latter is an occasion for its conveyance. Calvin pretended to support this opinion by citations from Scripture, but relied mainly on the words of St. John: "It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing."

Finally, as regards the Church, Calvin was quite at one with Luther, both doing their best to misrepresent her history, and to picture her as an abyss of infamy, during the period between the first and the sixteenth centuries. But Calvin's views are widely divergent from those of the Wittenberg doctor concerning the necessity of a distinct body of ministers in the Church. The former is clear and definite on this point, maintaining that there shall be three grades in the ministry, viz., pastors, elders, and deacons; and that no one shall assume these offices, unless called of God, since no man, not having a vocation from God, signified to him through the voice of the people, should take upon him to preach his word and dispense his sacraments. Hence, in the system of Calvin, ordination has a significance and importance attached to it, of which it is nearly, if not quite, destitute in that of Luther; for while, in the former, it is, in a certain limited sense, called a sacrament, and should be conferred, not by the body of the people, but by the presbytery, in the latter it signifies no more than a licence to preach, granted

"Hoc est," said Zwingli (De Vera et Falsa Relig., II., p. 293), "id est, significat Corpus Meum. Quod perinde est, ac si quæ matrona conjugis sui annulum ab hoc ipsi relictum monstrans, En conjux hic est meus, dicat." (TR.)

2 VI. 64. "As regards Calvin's theory (of the Eucharist), though he sometimes useз Catholic phraseology and speaks of Christ being in the symbol' (in symbolo), and of our being partakers of his substance' (participes substantiæ ejus); yet it is certain that he wholly rejected the true doctrine of the Eucharist. Thus he asserts that our Lord's human nature can only be present at the right hand of God, and cannot, in any sense whatever, be present under Eucharistic signs. . . Calvin maintained that the Eucharist was especially designed to kindle the believer's faith, and to raise his heart to Christ sitting at the right hand of God. He thus illustrates his theory: That as the sun, though so distant, can infuse light and heat, so Christ, though at the right hand of God, shines into the hearts of the faithful receivers, and fills them with his grace and presence." Blunt, L. c., p. 623. (TR.)

VOL. III.

20

by the civil power. Calvin further aimed at making the Church more independent of the civil power than did either Luther or Zwingli, his principle being "Ecclesia est sui juris "—a principle, however, which he advocated only for a time. In fine, Calvinistic communities were designed to be wholly independent the one of the other, each constituting a sort of little republic in itself; while, in the Catholic system, individual churches are only parts of a grand organism, extending over the whole world, and depending on a central government and a universally-acknowledged Head-the representative of Christ on earth. But in order to unite the individual churches by some sort of bond, Calvin established Synods, which played a much more important part in his than in the Lutheran system. The rigorous exclusiveness of Calvin's opinions, and the inflexible sternness of his character, did not prevent him from stretching a point when he conceived it to be his interest to do so. Thus, for example, he formed a union with the Swiss, when such union seemed necessary for the advancement of his cause; and, in his conference with Dean Bullinger (Consensus Tigurinus, 1549), he, like Zwingli, employed language equally hostile to Catholics and Lutherans, saying that it was quite as senseless to affirm either "that the Body of Christ was under the forms of bread, or that It was united with the bread, as to affirm that transubstantiation took place, and that the bread was changed into the Body of Christ." To conclude, Calvin, like Zwingli, was the consistent and inveterate foe of all forms, was ardently bent upon abolishing every sort of outward ceremonial, and manifested the most determined opposition to whatever embellishes divine worship, elevates the soul, or warms the heart.

CHAPTER II.

PROPAGATION OF PROTESTANTISM IN EUROPE.

Döllinger treats this subject very fully in the continuation of Hortig's Church Hist., pp.

481-691.

§ 323. Protestantism in Prussia.

CHIEF SOURCES. Chronicles of Simon Grunau (a Dominican of Danzig), who was an eye-witness to what he relates. Cf. Freiburg Eccl. Encyclopæd., Vol. VIII., p. 679 sq. French Trans., Vol. 19, p. 266. THE Margrave, Albert of Brandenburg, who had been chosen Grand Master of the Teutonic Order in 1511, when he was scarcely twentyone years of age, early joined the Protestant League. Western Prussia

'Non minus absurdum judicamus, Christum sub pane locare vel cum pane copulare, quam panem transsubstantiare in corpus ejus.

had belonged to Poland since 1466, and the remainder of the country was held in fief of the Polish King, Sigismund, to whom Albert, receiving encouragement from many quarters, refused to render feudal allegiance. Sigismund, in consequence, had recourse to arms to maintain his rights (1519); and Albert, failing to receive the aid that had been promised him, was forced to submit; but, through the friendly offices of the emperor, a four years' truce was agreed to by both parties, at Thorn, April 5, 1521. The Pope also interposed, and made an effort to effect a reconciliation between Albert and Sigismund ; but the former had his mind fully made up to prosecute his plans for independence, and would listen to no overture that in any way interfered with his purpose.

In the year 1522, he travelled into Germany, accompanied by James of Dobeneck, Bishop of Pomesania, and John of Polenz, Bishop of Samland, both of whom were strongly suspected of being favourably disposed towards the new religious teachings. He applied for succour to the Diet of Nürnberg, then in session, but was refused (1522), and, having some idle time on his hands, became one of the audience that flocked to hear Osiander expounding the new doctrines. From a curious he became an interested and fascinated listener, and, while in this frame of mind, sought counsel of Luther and Melanchthon as to the best way out of his difficulties, and received the advice to return and abolish the absurd and foolish, as they termed it, Rule of his Order; to take a wife, and make Prussia a secular dukedom. The advice was accepted, and promptly acted upon.

Albert at once began to cast about for Protestant preachers, and in that very year two Lutherans, John Brismann and Peter Amandus, were formally installed at Königsberg. Monks were driven from their monasteries, and nuns from their convents; the suspected bishops of Samland and Pomesania publicly declared in favour of Lutheranism (1524); and Frederic von Heideck, counsellor to Albert, displayed a singular activity in furthering its interests.

At the expiration of the four years' truce (1525), Albert concluded a treaty of peace at Cracow, with Sigismund, King of Poland, in virtue of which the external portion of eastern Prussia was secured to Albert and his heirs, and the suzerainty of Sigismund over the same territory acknowledged.

When this treaty became known to the provincial estates of the Duchy, the inhabitants, wearied of the protracted and seemingly inveterate feuds with Poland, received the news with transports of joy; while Weiss, who had lately succeeded to the bishopric of Samland, as a proof that his sympathies were with the people, surrendered the temporal administration of his diocese to the reigning prince, assigning as a reason for his action that bishops were called to preach, and not to govern.

Freiburg, Eccl. Cyclop., Vol. VIII., p. 681. Fr. Trans., Vol. 19, p. 268. Chambers Cyclop., Art. Albert, Duke of Prussia. (TR.)

Petri Bembi, Epistolæ Leonis X. nomine scriptæ, lib. I., ep. 22; lib. II., ep. 21.