He made a draught of a kind of Formulary, in which the Catholics and Protestants were to join:  it was this.  “We believe that in the use of the supper we truly, really, and substantially, that is to say, in its proper substance, receive the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ in a spiritual and ineffable manner.”  Grotius informs us that this formulary was approved of by the Roman Catholic Doctors and by Protestants:  which is not surprising of the Catholics, since the expressions he employs, when taken in their natural sense, comprehend the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church:  it is more surprising of the Protestants; but it must be observed that Calvin himself said[600], that under the Eucharistical signs we receive truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ; that Christ’s flesh is distributed in this sacrament; that it enters into us; that we are partakers not only of Christ’s spirit, but also of his flesh; that we have its proper substance, and are made partakers of it; that whole Christ is united to us, and therefore is united to us in body and spirit, that we must not question our receiving his proper body, and that if there is any man upon earth who sincerely acknowledges this truth, it is he.

These expressions of Calvin were certainly favourable to the opinion of the Roman Catholics:  he found himself obliged to make use of such terms, because they had been so long authorised, that he was afraid of appearing desirous to change the ancient doctrine; but the sense he gave them took away their force.  The Protestants whom Grotius consulted, agreeable to the opinion of their Master, thought the expression, substantial presence, might be reconciled with their confession of faith; which, denying the real presence, teaches that Christ is united to us only in a figure in the sacrament, and in spirit by faith.

Though Grotius believed that one receives substantially Jesus Christ in the use of the supper, there is no proof of his admitting the real presence in the sense of the Council of Trent:  for, besides that his Formulary scarce makes stronger mention of it than Calvin, he seems not to condemn those who admitted only the sign of Christ’s body:  an indulgence which will never be approved of by a Roman Catholic.

FOOTNOTES: 

[595] Ep. 181. p. 67.

[596] Via ad pacem art. x. p. 619. & 642.

[597] Votum pro pace, p. 687.

[598] Animad. in Animad. art. x. p. 642.

[599] Via, p. 619.

[600] Variations, l. 9. p. 37.

XXI.  He justifies the decision of the Council of Trent concerning the number of the sacraments in his works against Rivetus.  “The word sacrament, though sometimes taken in a more general signification, may nevertheless, says he[601], be understood in a more limited one of these seven external signs, which are designed for the good of our souls, and more distinctly mentioned in Scripture; Baptism in St. Matthew xxviii. 19.  Confirmation, Acts viii. 17.  Penance, Matthew xvi. 19. the Eucharist, Matthew xxvi. 26.  Ordination, 1 Tim. iv. 22.  Extreme Unction, Mark vi. 13.  James v. 14. and Marriage; Ephes. v. 32.”