(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 18)
Chapter 17. Of the Lord's Supper, and the benefits conferred by it.
This chapter is divided into two principal heads. - I. The
first part shows what it is that God exhibits in the Holy Supper,
sec. 1-4; and then in what way and how far it becomes ours, sec.
5-11. II. The second part is chiefly occupied with a refutation of
the errors which superstition has introduced in regard to the Lord's
Supper. And, first, Transubstantiation is refuted, sec. 12-15. Next,
Consubstantiation and Ubiquity, sec. 16-19. Thirdly, It is shown
that the institution itself is opposed to those hyperbolical
doctors, sec. 20-25. Fourth, The orthodox view is confirmed by other
arguments derived from Scripture, sec. 26, 27. Fifth, The authority
of the Fathers is shown to support the same view. Sixth, The
presence for which opponents contend is overthrown, and another
presence established, sec. 29-32. Seventh, What the nature of our
communion ought to be, sec. 33, 34. Eighth, The adoration introduced
by opponents refuted. For what end the Lord's Supper was instituted,
sec. 35-39. Lastly, The examination of communicants is considered,
sec. 40-42. Of the eternal rites to be observed. Of frequent
communion in both kinds. Objections refuted, sec. 43-50.
Sections.
1. Why the Holy Supper was instituted by Christ. The knowledge of
the sacrament, how necessary. The signs used. Why there are no
others appointed.
2. The manifold uses and advantages of this sacrament to the pious.
3. The Lords Supper exhibits the great blessings of redemption, and
even Christ himself. This even evident from the words of the
institution. The thing specially to be considered in them.
Congruity of the signs and the things signified.
4. The chief parts of this sacrament.
5. How Christ, the Bread of Life, is to be received by us. Two
faults to be avoided. The receiving of it must bear reference
both to faith and the effect of faith. What meant by eating
Christ. In what sense Christ the bread of life.
6. This mode of eating confirmed by the authority of Augustine and
Chrysostom.
7. It is not sufficient, while omitting all mention of flesh and
blood, to recognise this communion merely as spiritual. It is
impossible fully to comprehend it in the present life.
8. In explanation of it, it may be observed, I. There is no life at
all save in Christ. II. Christ has life in a twofold sense;
first, in himself; as he is God; and, secondly, by transfusing
it into the flesh which he assumed, that he might thereby
communicate life to us.
9. This confirmed from Cyril, and by a familiar example. How the
flesh of Christ gives life, and what the nature of our
communion with Christ.
10. No distance of place can impede it. In the Supper it is not
presented as an empty symbol, but, as the apostle testifies, we
receive the reality. Objection, that the expression is
figurative. Answer. A sure rule with regard to the sacraments.
11. Conclusion of the first part of the chapter. The sacrament of
the Supper consists of two parts, viz., corporeal signs, and
spiritual truth. These comprehend the meaning, matter, and
effect. Christ truly exhibited to us by symbols.
12. Second 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.
13. Transubstantiation as feigned by the Schoolmen. Refutation. The
many superstitions introduced by their error.
14. The fiction of transubstantiation why invented contrary to
Scripture, and the consent of antiquity. The term
transubstantiation never used in the early Church. Objection.
Answer.
15. The error of transubstantiation favoured by the consecration,
which was a kind of magical incantation. The bread is not a
sacrament to itself, but to those who receive it. The changing
of the rod of Moses into a serpent gives no countenance to
Popish transubstantiation. No resemblance between it and the
words of institution in the Supper. Objection. Answer.
16. Refutation of consubstantiation; whence the idea of ubiquity.
17. This ubiquity confounds the natures of Christ. Subtleties
answered.
18. Absurdities collected with consubstantiation. Candid exposition
of the orthodox view.
19. The nature of the true presence of Christ in the Supper. The
true and substantial communion of the body and blood of the
Lord. This orthodox view assailed by turbulent spirits.
20. This view vindicated from their calumnies. The words of the
institution explained in opposition to the glosses of
transubstantiators and consubstantiators. Their subterfuges and
absurd blasphemies.
21. Why the name of the thing signified is given to the sacramental
symbols. This illustrated by passages of Scripture; also by a
passage of Augustine.
22. Refutation of an objection founded on the words, "This is".
Objection answered.
23. Other objections answered.
24. Other objections answered. No question here as to the
omnipotence of God.
25. Other objections answered.
26. The orthodox view further confirmed. I. By a consideration of
the reality of Christ's body. II. From our Saviour's
declaration that he would always be in the world. This
confirmed by the exposition of Augustine.
27. Refutation of the sophisms of the Ubiquitists. The evasion of
visible and invisible presence refuted.
28. The authority of Fathers not in favour of these errors as to
Christ's presence. Augustine opposed to them.
29. Refutation of the invisible presence maintained by opponents.
Refutation from Tertullian, from a saying of Christ after his
resurrection, from the definition of a true body, and from
different passages of Scripture.
30. Ubiquity refuted by various arguments.
31. The imaginary presence of Transubstantiators, Consubstantiators,
and Ubiquitists, contrasted with the orthodox doctrine.
32. The nature of our Saviour's true presence explained. The mode of
it incomprehensible.
33. Our communion in the blood and flesh of Christ. Spiritual not
oral, and yet real. Erroneous view of the Schoolmen.
34. This view not favoured by Augustine. How the wicked eat the body
of Christ. Cyril's sentiments as to the eating of the body of
Christ.
35. Absurdity of the adoration of sacramental symbols.
36. This adoration condemned. I. By Christ himself. II. By the
Council of Nice. III. By ancient custom. IV. By Scripture. This
adoration is mere idolatry.
37. This adoration inconsistent with the nature and institution of
the sacrament. Ends for which the sacrament was instituted.
38. Ends for which the sacrament was instituted.
39. True nature of the sacrament contrasted with the Popish
observance of it.
40. Nature of an unworthy approach to the Lord's table. The great
danger of it. The proper remedy in serious self-examination.
41. The spurious examination introduced by the Papists. Refutation.
42. The nature of Christian examination.
43. External rites in the administration of the Supper. Many of them
indifferent.
44. Duty of frequent communion. This proved by the practice of the
Church in its purer state, and by the canons of the early
bishops.
45. Frequent communion in the time of Augustine. The neglect of it
censured by Chrysostom.
46. The Popish injunction to communicate once a year an execrable
invention.
47. Communion in one kind proved to be an invention of Satan.
48. Subterfuges of the Papists refuted.
49. The practice of the early Church further considered.
50. Conclusion.
1. After God has once received us into his family, it is not
that he may regard us in the light of servants, but of sons,
performing the part of a kind and anxious parent, and providing for
our maintenance during the whole course of our lives. And, not
contented with this, he has been pleased by a pledge to assure us of
his continued liberality. To this end, he has given another
sacrament to his Church by the hand of his only begotten Son, viz.,
a spiritual feast, at which Christ testifies that he himself is
living bread, (John 6: 51,) on which our souls feed, for a true and
blessed immortality. Now, as the knowledge of this great mystery is
most necessary, and, in proportion to its importance, demands an
accurate exposition, and Satan, in order to deprive the Church of
this inestimable treasure, long ago introduced, first, mists, and
then darkness, to obscure its light, and stirred up strife and
contention to alienate the minds of the simple from a relish for
this sacred food, and in our age, also, has tried the same artifice,
I will proceed, after giving a simple summary adapted to the
capacity of the ignorant, to explain those difficulties by which
Satan has tried to ensnare the world. First, then, the signs are
bread and wine, which represent the invisible food which we receive
from the body and blood of Christ. For as God, regenerating us in
baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us
his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a
provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may
sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by
his word. Moreover, Christ is the only food of our soul, and,
therefore, our heavenly Father invites us to him, that, refreshed by
communion with him, we may ever and anon gather new vigour until we
reach the heavenly immortality. But as this mystery of the secret
union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, he
exhibits its figure and image in visible signs adapted to our
capacity, nay, by giving, as it were, earnests and badges, he makes
it as certain to us as if it were seen by the eye; the familiarity
of the similitude giving it access to minds however dull, and
showing that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is
sustained by bread and wine. We now therefore, understand the end
which this mystical benediction has in view, viz., to assure us that
the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us, so that we may now
eat it, and, eating, feel within ourselves the efficacy of that one
sacrifice, - that his blood was once shed for us so as to be our
perpetual drink. This is the force of the promise which is added,
"Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you," (Matth. 26:
26, &c.) The body which was once offered for our salvation we are
enjoined to take and eat, that, while we see ourselves made
partakers of it, we may safely conclude that the virtue of that
death will be efficacious in us. Hence he terms the cup the covenant
in his blood. For the covenant which he once sanctioned by his blood
he in a manner renews, or rather continues, in so far as regards the
confirmation of our faith, as often as he stretches forth his sacred
blood as drink to us.
2. Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from
this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with
Christ, so that every thing which is his they may call their own.
Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that
eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the
kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken
from us than from him; on the other hand, that we cannot be
condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us,
seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself
as if they were his own. This is the wondrous exchange made by his
boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has
made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he
has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he
has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness,
he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our
poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon
himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed,
he has clothed us with his righteousness.
3. To all these things we have a complete attestation in this
sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that they are as truly
exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before
our view, or handled by our hands. For these are words which can
never lie nor deceive - Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is
broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of
sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding
us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in
affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it
was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as
ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage,
but for our salvation. And we ought carefully to observe, that the
chief, and almost the whole energy at the sacrament consists in
these words, It is broken for you; it is shed for you. It would not
be of much importance to us that the body and blood of the Lord are
now distributed, had they not once been set forth for our redemption
and salvation. Wherefore they are represented under bread and wine,
that we may learn that they are not only ours but intended to
nourish our spiritual life; that is, as we formerly observed, by the
corporeal things which are produced in the sacrament, we are by a
kind of analogy conducted to spiritual things. Thus when bread is
given as a symbol of the body of Christ, we must immediately think
of this similitude. As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our
bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate
and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol
of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body,
the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use
is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. For if we duly
consider what profit we have gained by the breaking of his sacred
body and the shedding of his blood, we shall clearly perceive that
these properties of bread and wine, agreeably to this analogy, most
appropriately represent it when they are communicated to us.
4. Therefore, it is not the principal part of a sacrament
simply to hold forth the body of Christ to us without any higher
consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise by which
he testifies that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink
indeed, nourishing us unto life eternal, and by which he affirms
that he is the bread of life, of which, whosoever shall eat, shall
live for ever - I say, to seal and confirm that promise, and in
order to do so, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where that
promise was performed and fulfilled in all its parts. For we do not
eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively
apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death. When he called
himself the bread of life, he did not take that appellation from the
sacrament, as some perversely interpret; but such as he was given to
us by the Father, such he exhibited himself when becoming partaker
of our human mortality he made us partakers of his divine
immortality; when offering himself in sacrifice, he took our curse
upon himself, that he might cover us with his blessing, when by his
death he devoured and swallowed up death, when in his resurrection
he raised our corruptible flesh, which he had put on, to glory and
incorruption.
5. It only remains that the whole become ours by application.
This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred
Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings,
and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make
Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it
calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we
may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that
bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first,
that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and,
secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly
nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For as Christ could not
have been the bread of life to us if he had not been born, if he had
not died and risen again; so he could not now be the bread of life,
were not the efficacy and fruit of his nativity death, and
resurrection, eternal. All this Christ has elegantly expressed in
these words, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will
give for the life of the world," (John 6: 51;) doubtless intimating,
that his body will be as bread in regard to the spiritual life of
the soul, because it was to be delivered to death for our salvation,
and that he extends it to us for food when he makes us partakers of
it by faith. Wherefore he once gave himself that he might become
bread, when he gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of
the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the
gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was
crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the
Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally
designates. Moreover, two faults are here to be avoided. We must
neither, by setting too little value on the signs, dissever them
from their meanings to which they are in some degree annexed, nor by
immoderately extolling them, seem somewhat to obscure the mysteries
themselves. That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are
nourished unto eternal life, no man is so utterly devoid of religion
as not to acknowledge. But all are not agreed as to the mode of
partaking of him. For there are some who define the eating of the
flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word,
nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to
me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime
in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his
flesh, viz., that we are quickened by the true partaking of him,
which he designated by the terms eating and drinking, lest any one
should suppose that the life which we obtain from him is obtained by
simple knowledge. For as it is not the sight but the eating of bread
that gives nourishment to the body, so the soul must partake of
Christ truly and thoroughly, that by his energy it may grow up into
spiritual life. Meanwhile, we admit that this is nothing else than
the eating of faith, and that no other eating can be imagined. but
there is this difference between their mode of speaking and mine.
According to them, to eat is merely to believe; while I maintain
that the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing, because it is made
ours by faith, and that that eating is the effect and fruit of
faith; or, if you will have it more clearly, according to them,
eating is faith, whereas it rather seems to me to be a consequence
of faith. The difference is little in words, but not little in
reality. For, although the apostle teaches that Christ dwells in our
hearts by faith, (Eph. 3: 17,) no one will interpret that dwelling
to be faith. All see that it explains the admirable effect of faith,
because to it, it is owing that believers have Christ dwelling in
them. In this way, the Lord was pleased, by calling himself the
bread of life, not only to teach that our salvation is treasured up
in the faith of his death and resurrection, but also, by virtue of
true communication with him, his life passes into us and becomes
ours, just as bread when taken for food gives vigour to the body.
6. When Augustine, whom they claim as their patron, wrote, that
we eat by believing, all he meant was to indicate that that eating
is of faith, and not of the mouth. This I deny not; but I at the
same time add, that by faith we embrace Christ, not as appearing at
a distance, but as uniting himself to us, he being our head, and we
his members. I do not absolutely disapprove of that mode of
speaking; I only deny that it is a full interpretation, if they mean
to define what it is to eat the flesh of Christ. I see that
Augustine repeatedly used this form of expression, as when he said,
(De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3,) "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man" is a figurative expression enjoining us to have communion with
our Lord's passion, and sweetly and usefully to treasure in our
memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us." Also when
he says, "These three thousand men who were converted at the
preaching of Peter, (Acts 2: 41,) by believing, drank the blood
which they had cruelly shed." But in very many other passages he
admirably commends faith for this, that by means of it our souls are
not less refreshed by the communion of the blood of Christ, than our
bodies with the bread which they eat. The very same thing is said by
Chrysostom, "Christ makes us his body, not by faith only, but in
reality." He does not mean that we obtain this blessing from any
other quarter than from faith: he only intends to prevent any one
from thinking of mere imagination when he hears the name of faith. I
say nothing of those who hold that the Supper is merely a mark of
external professions because I think I sufficiently refuted their
error when I treated of the sacraments in general, (Chap. 14. sec.
13.) Only let my readers observe, that when the cup is called the
covenant in blood, (Luke 22: 20,) the promise which tends to confirm
faith is expressed. Hence it follows, that unless we have respect to
God, and embrace what he offers, we do not make a right use of the
sacred Supper.
7. I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while
acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only
make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and
blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is
meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life
unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth.
Therefore, if it is evident that full communion with Christ goes
beyond their description, which is too confined, I will attempt
briefly to show how far it extends, before proceeding to speak of
the contrary vice of excess. For I shall have a longer discussion
with these hyperbolical doctors, who, according to their gross
ideas, fabricate an absurd mode of eating and drinking, and
transfigure Christ, after divesting him of his flesh, into a
phantom: if, indeed, it be lawful to put this great mystery into
words, a mystery which I feel, and therefore freely confess that I
am unable to comprehend with my mind, so far am I from wishing any
one to measure its sublimity by my feeble capacity. Nay, I rather
exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too
narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide
them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my
utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And
though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in
expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of
the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration
of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to
comprehends or the tongue to express. I will, however, give a
summary of my view as I best can, not doubting its truth, and
therefore trusting that it will not be disapproved by pious breasts.
8. First of all, we are taught by the Scriptures that Christ
was from the beginning the living Word of the Father, the fountain
and origin of life, from which all things should always receive
life. Hence John at one time calls him the Word of life, and at
another says, that in him was life; intimating, that he, even then
pervading all creatures, instilled into them the power of breathing
and living. He afterwards adds, that the life was at length
manifested, when the Son of God, assuming our nature, exhibited
himself in bodily form to be seen and handled. For although he
previously diffused his virtue into the creatures, yet as man,
because alienated from God by sin, had lost the communication of
life, and saw death on every side impending over him, he behaved, in
order to regain the hope of immortality, to be restored to the
communion of that Word. How little confidence can it give you, to
know that the Word of God, from which you are at the greatest
distance, contains within himself the fulness of life, whereas in
yourself, in whatever direction you turn, you see nothing but death?
But ever since that fountain of life began to dwell in our nature,
he no longer lies hid at a distance from us, but exhibits himself
openly for our participation. Nay, the very flesh in which he
resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may
feed for immortality. "I," says he, "am that bread of life;" "I am
the living bread which came down from heaven;" "And the bread that I
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,"
(John 6: 48, 51.) By these words he declares, not only that he is
life, inasmuch as he is the eternal Word of God who came down to us
from heaven, but, by coming down, gave vigour to the flesh which he
assumed, that a communication of life to us might thence emanate.
Hence, too, he adds, that his flesh is meat indeed, and that his
blood is drink indeed: by this food believers are reared to eternal
life. The pious, therefore, have admirable comfort in this, that
they now find life in their own flesh. For they not only reach it by
easy access, but have it spontaneously set forth before them. Let
them only throw open the door of their hearts that they may take it
into their embrace, and they will obtain it.
9. The flesh of Christ, however, has not such power in itself
as to make us live, seeing that by its own first condition it was
subject to mortality, and even now, when endued with immortality,
lives not by itself. Still it is properly said to be life-giving, as
it is pervaded with the fulness of life for the purpose of
transmitting it to us. In this sense I understand our Saviour's
words as Cyril interprets them, "As the Father has life in himself,
so has he given to the Son to have life in himself," (John 5: 26.)
For there properly he is speaking not of the properties which he
possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of those with
which he was invested in the flesh in which he appeared.
Accordingly, he shows that in his humanity also fulness of life
resides, so that every one who communicates in his flesh and blood,
at the same time enjoys the participation of life. The nature of
this may be explained by a familiar example. As water is at one time
drunk out of the fountain, at another drawn, at another led away by
conduits to irrigate the fields, and yet does not flow forth of
itself for all these uses, but is taken from its source, which, with
perennial flow, ever and anon sends forth a new and sufficient
supply; so the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible
fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the
Godhead into itself. Now, who sees not that the communion of the
flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the
heavenly life? Hence those passages of the apostle: The Church is
the "body" of Christ; his "fulness." He is "the head," "from whence
the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which
every joint supplieth," "maketh increase of the body," (Eph. 1: 23;
4: 15, 16.) Our bodies "are the members of Christ," (1 Cor. 6: 15.)
We perceive that all these things cannot possibly take place unless
he adheres to us wholly in body and spirit. But the very close
connection which unites us to his flesh, he illustrated with still
more splendid epithets, when he said that we "are members of his
body, of his flesh, and of his bones," (Eph. 5: 30.) At length, to
testify that the matter is too high for utterance, he concludes with
exclaiming, "This is a great mystery," (Eph. 5: 32.) It were,
therefore, extreme infatuation not to acknowledge the communion of
believers with the body and blood of the Lord, a communion which the
apostle declares to be so great, that he chooses rather to marvel at
it than to explain it.
10. The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our
souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal
life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls
find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ
truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh,
and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible
thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in
respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the
secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and
how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble
capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith
conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by
space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ
transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and
marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by
presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy
of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the
thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at
that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by
believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and
heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, "The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10: 16.) There is no ground to object that
the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the
thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a
symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from
the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For
unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say
that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking
of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there
ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs
it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever
they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel
surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also
present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your
hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this
is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given
us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to
us.
11. I hold then, (as has always been received in the Church,
and is still taught by those who feel aright,) that the sacred
mystery of the Supper consists of two things - the corporeal signs,
which, presented to the eye, represent invisible things in a manner
adapted to our weak capacity, and the spiritual truth, which is at
once figured and exhibited by the signs. When attempting familiarly
to explain its nature, I am accustomed to set down three things -
the thing meant, the matter which depends on it, and the virtue or
efficacy consequent upon both. The thing meant consists in the
promises which are in a manner included in the sign. By the matter,
or substance, I mean Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the
effect, I understand redemption, justification, sanctification,
eternal life, and all the other benefits which Christ bestows upon
us. Moreover, though all these things have respect to faith, I leave
no room for the cavil, that when I say Christ is conceived by faith,
I mean that he is only conceived by the intellect and imagination.
He is offered by the promises not that we may stop short at the
sight, or mere knowledge of him, but that we may enjoy true
communion with him. And, indeed, I see not how any one can expect to
have redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life
in his death, without trusting first of all to true communion with
Christ himself. Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ
previously make himself ours. I say then, that in the mystery of the
Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his
blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all
obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us, first, that we
might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made
partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in
the participation of all his blessings.
12. I now come to the hyperbolical mixtures which superstition
has introduced. 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. And, first, we
are not to dream of such a presence of Christ in the sacrament as
the artifices 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. 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.) 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 judgement, so we deem it
altogether unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible
elements, or to imagine it everywhere present. 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? 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: 9-1l,) 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.
13. The Schoolmen, horrified at this barbarous impiety, speak
more modestly, though they do nothing more than amuse themselves
with more subtle delusions. 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. 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. 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. This they are not ashamed distinctly to
express. For Lombard's words are, "The body of Christ, which is
visible in itself, lurks and lies covered after the act of
consecration under the species of bread," (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. 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.
14. Hence 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.
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 conversion, 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. 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. For when
they say that a secret conversion takes place at consecration, so
that it is now something else than bread and wine, their meaning, as
I already observed is not that these are annihilated but that they
are to be considered in a different light from common food, which is
only intended to feed the body whereas in the former the spiritual
food and drink of the mind are exhibited. This we deny not. But, say
our opponents, if there is conversion, one thing must become
another. If they mean that something becomes different from what it
was before, I assent. If they will wrest it in support of their
fiction, let them tell me of what kind of change they are sensible
in baptism. For here also, the Fathers make out a wonderful
conversion, when they say that out of the corruptible element is
made the spiritual laver of the soul, and yet no one denies that it
still remains water. But say they, there is no such expression in
Baptism as that in the Supper, This is my body; as if we were
treating of these words, which have a meaning sufficiently clear,
and not rather of that term "conversion", which ought not to mean
more in the Supper than in Baptism. Have done, then, with those
quibbles upon words, which betray nothing but their silliness. The
meaning would have no congruity, unless the truth which is there
figured had a living image in the external sign. Christ wished to
testify by an external symbol that his flesh was food. If he
exhibited merely an empty show of bread, and not true bread, where
is the analogy or similitude to conduct us from the visible thing to
the invisible? For, in order to make all things consistent, the
meaning cannot extend to more than this, that we are fed by the
species of Christ's flesh; just as, in the case of baptism, if the
figure of water deceived the eye, it would not be to us a sure
pledge of our ablution; nay, the fallacious spectacle would rather
throw us into doubt. The nature of the sacrament is therefore
overthrown if in the mode of signifying the earthly sign corresponds
not to the heavenly reality; And, accordingly, the truth of the
mystery is lost if true bread does not represent the true body of
Christ. I again repeat, since the Supper is nothing but a
conspicuous attestation to the promise which is contained in the
sixth chapter of John, viz., that Christ is the bread of life, who
came down from heaven, that visible bread must intervene, in order
that that spiritual bread may be figured, unless we would destroy
all the benefits with which God here favours us for the purpose of
sustaining our infirmity. Then on what ground could Paul infer that
we are all one bread, and one body in partaking together of that one
bread, if only the semblance of bread, and not the natural reality,
remained?
15. They could not have been so shamefully deluded by the
impostures of Satan had they not been fascinated by the erroneous
idea, that the body of Christ included under the bread is
transmitted by the bodily mouth into the belly. The cause of this
brutish imagination was, that consecration had the same effect with
them as magical incantation. They overlooked the principle, that
bread is a sacrament to none but those to whom the word is addressed
just as the water of baptism is not changed in itself, but begins to
be to us what it formerly was not, as soon as the promise is
annexed. This will better appear from the example of a similar
sacrament. The water gushing from the rock in the desert was to the
Israelites a badge and sign of the same thing that is figured to us
in the Supper by wine. For Paul declares that they drank the same
spiritual drink, (1 Cor. 10: 4.) But the water was common to the
herds and flocks of the people. Hence it is easy to infer, that in
the earthly elements, when employed for a spiritual use, no other
conversion takes place than in respect of men, inasmuch as they are
to them seals of promises. Moreover, since it is the purpose of God,
as I have repeatedly inculcated, to raise us up to himself by fit
vehicles, those who indeed call us to Christ, but to Christ lurking
invisibly under bread, impiously, by their perverseness, defeat this
object. For it is impossible for the mind of man to disentangle
itself from the immensity of space, and ascend to Christ even above
the heavens. What nature denied them, they attempted to gain by a
noxious remedy. Remaining on the earth, they felt no need of a
celestial proximity to Christ. Such was the necessity which impelled
them to transfigure the body of Christ. In the age of Bernard,
though a harsher mode of speech had prevailed, transubstantiation
was not yet recognised. And in all previous ages, the similitude in
the mouths of all was, that a spiritual reality was conjoined with
bread and wine in this sacrament. As to the terms, they think they
answer acutely, though they adduce nothing relevant to the case in
hand. The rod of Moses, (they say,) when turned into a serpent,
though it acquires the name of a serpent, still retains its former
name, and is called a rod; and thus, according to them, it is
equally probable that though the bread passes into a new substance,
it is still called by catachresis, and not inaptly, what it still
appears to the eye to be. But what resemblance, real or apparent, do
they find between an illustrious miracle and their fictitious
illusion, of which no eye on the earth is witness? The magi by their
impostures had persuaded the Egyptians, that they had a divine power
above the ordinary course of nature to change created beings. Moses
comes forth, and after exposing their fallacies, shows that the
invincible power of God is on his side, since his rod swallows up
all the other rods. But as that conversion was visible to the eye,
we have already observed, that it has no reference to the case in
hand. Shortly after the rod visibly resumed its form. It may be
added, that we know not whether this was an extemporary conversion
of substance. For we must attend to the allusion to the rods of the
magicians, which the prophet did not choose to term serpents, lest
he might seem to insinuate a conversion which had no existence,
because those impostors had done nothing more than blind the eyes of
the spectators. But what resemblance is there between that
expression and the following? "The bread which we break;" - "As
often as ye eat this bread;" - "They communicated in the breaking of
bread;" and so forth. It is certain that the eye only was deceived
by the incantation of the magicians. The matter is more doubtful
with regard to Moses, by whose hand it was not more difficult for
God to make a serpent out of a rod, and again to make a rod out of a
serpent, than to clothe angels with corporeal bodies, and a little
after unclothe them. If the case of the sacrament were at all akin
to this, there might be some colour for their explanation. Let it,
therefore, remain fixed that there is no true and fit promise in the
Supper, that the flesh of Christ is truly meat, unless there is a
correspondence in the true substance of the external symbol. But as
one error gives rise to another, a passage in Jeremiah has been so
absurdly wrested, to prove transubstantiation, that it is painful to
refer to it. The prophet complains that wood was placed in his
bread, intimating that by the cruelty of his enemies his bread was
infected with bitterness, as David by a similar figure complains,
"They gave me also gall for my meat: and in my thirst they gave me
vinegar to drink," (Psalm 69: 21.) These men would allegorise the
expressions to mean, that the body of Christ was nailed to the wood
of the cross. But some of the Fathers thought so! As if we ought not
rather to pardon their ignorance and bury the disgrace, than to add
impudence, and bring them into hostile conflict with the genuine
meaning of the prophet.
16. Some, who see that the analogy between the sign and the
thing signified cannot be destroyed without destroying the truth of
the sacrament, admit that the bread of the Supper is truly the
substance of an earthly and corruptible element, and cannot suffer
any change in itself, but must have the body of Christ included
under it. If they would explain this to mean, that when the bread is
held forth in the sacrament, an exhibition of the body is annexed,
because the truth is inseparable from its sign, I would not greatly
object. But because fixing the body itself in the bread, they attach
to it an ubiquity contrary to its nature, and by adding, "under" the
bread, will have it that it lies hid under it, I must employ a short
time in exposing their craft, and dragging them forth from their
concealments. Here, however, it is not my intention professedly to
discuss the whole case; I mean only to lay the foundations of a
discussion which will afterwards follow in its own place. They
insist, then, that the body of Christ is invisible and immense, so
that it may be hid under bread, because they think that there is no
other way by which they can communicate with him than by his
descending into the bread, though they do not comprehend the mode of
descent by which he raises us up to himself. They employ all the
colours they possibly can, but after they have said all, it is
sufficiently apparent that they insist on the local presence of
Christ. How so? Because they cannot conceive any other participation
of flesh and blood than that which consists either in local
conjunction and contact, or in some gross method of enclosing.
17. Some, in order obstinately to maintain the error which they
have once rashly adopted, hesitate not to assert that the dimensions
of Christ's flesh are not more circumscribed than those of heaven
and earth. His birth as an infant, his growth, his extension on the
cross, his confinement in the sepulchre, were effected, they say, by
a kind of dispensation, that he might perform the offices of being
born, of dying, and of other human acts: his being seen with his
wonted bodily appearance after the resurrection, his ascension into
heaven, his appearance, after his ascension, to Stephen and Paul,
were the effect of the same dispensation, that it might be made
apparent to the eye of man that he was constituted King in heaven.
What is this but to call forth Marcion from his grave? For there
cannot be a doubt that the body of Christ, if so constituted, was a
phantasm, or was phantastical. Some employ a rather more subtle
evasion, That the body which is given in the sacrament is glorious
and immortal, and that, therefore, there is no absurdity in its
being contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no
place, and in no form. But, I ask, what did Christ give to his
disciples the day before he suffered? Do not the words say that he
gave the mortal body, which was to be delivered shortly after? But,
say they, he had previously manifested his glory to the three
disciples on the mount, (Matth. 17: 2.) This is true; but his
purpose was to give them for the time a taste of immortality. Still
they cannot find there a twofold body, but only the one which he had
assumed, arrayed in new glory. When he distributed his body in the
first Supper, the hour was at hand in which he was "stricken,
smitten of God, and afflicted," (Isa. 53: 4.) So far was he from
intending at that time to exhibit the glory of his resurrection. And
here what a door is opened to Marcion, if the body of Christ was
seen humble and mortal in one place, glorious and immortal in
another! And yet, if their opinion is well founded, the same thing
happens every day, because they are forced to admit that the body of
Christ, which is in itself visible, lurks invisibly under the symbol
of bread. And yet those who send forth such monstrous dogmas, so far
from being ashamed at the disgrace, assail us with virulent
invectives for not subscribing to them.
18. But assuming that the body and blood of Christ are attached
to the bread and wine, then the one must necessarily be dissevered
from the other. For as the bread is given separately from the cup,
so the body, united to the bread, must be separate from the blood,
included in the cup. For since they affirm that the body is in the
bread, and the blood is in the cup, while the bread and wine are, in
regard to space, at some distance from each other, they cannot, by
any quibble, evade the conclusion that the body must be separated
from the blood. Their usual pretence, viz., that the blood is in the
body, and the body again in the blood, by what they call
concomitance, is more than frivolous, since the symbols in which
they are included are thus distinguished. But if we are carried to
heaven with our eyes and minds, that we may there behold Christ in
the glory of his kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him in his
integrity, so, under the symbol of bread, we must feed on his body,
and, under the symbol of wine, drink separately of his blood, and
thereby have the full enjoyment of him. For though he withdrew his
flesh from us, and with his body ascended to heaven, he, however,
sits at the right hand of the Father; that is, he reigns in power
and majesty, and the glory of the Father. This kingdom is not
limited by any intervals of space, nor circumscribed by any
dimensions. Christ can exert his energy wherever he pleases, in
earth and heaven, can manifest his presence by the exercise of his
power, can always be present with his people, breathing into them
his own life, can live in them, sustain, confirm, and invigorate
them, and preserve them safe, just as if he were with them in the
body; in fine, can feed them with his own body, communion with which
he transfuses into them. After this manner, the body and blood of
Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.
19. The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be
such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses
him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way, (this would
obviously detract from his celestial glory;) and it must, moreover,
be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers
him by differences of place, nor assigns to him a body of boundless
dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth. All these things are
clearly repugnant to his true human nature. Let us never allow
ourselves to lose sight of the two restrictions. First, Let there be
nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens
when ever he is brought under the corruptible elements of this
world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures. Secondly, Let no
property be assigned to his body inconsistent with his human nature.
This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to
occupy a variety of places at the same time. But when these
absurdities are discarded, I willingly admit any thing which helps
to express the true and substantial communication of the body and
blood of the Lord, as exhibited to believers under the sacred
symbols of the Supper, understanding that they are received not by
the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as
the food of eternal life. For the odium with which this view is
regarded by the world, and the unjust prejudice incurred by its
defence, there is no cause, unless it be in the fearful fascinations
of Satan. What we teach on the subject is in perfect accordance with
Scripture, contains nothing absurd, obscure, or ambiguous, is not
unfavourable to true piety and solid edification; in short, has
nothing in it to offend, save that, for some ages, while the
ignorance and barbarism of sophists reigned in the Church, the clear
light and open truth were unbecomingly suppressed. And yet as Satan,
by means of turbulent spirits, is still, in the present day,
exerting himself to the utmost to bring dishonour on this doctrine
by all kinds of calumny and reproach, it is right to assert and
defend it with the greatest care.
20. Before we proceed farther, we must consider the ordinance
itself, as instituted by Christ, because the most plausible
objection of our opponents is, that we abandon his words. To free
ourselves from the obloquy with which they thus load us, the fittest
course will be to begin with an interpretation of the words. Three
Evangelists and Paul relate that our Saviour took bread, and after
giving thanks, brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take,
eat: this is my body which is given or broken for you. Of the cup,
Matthew and Mark say, "This is my blood of the new testament, which
is shed for many for the remission of sins," (Matth 26: 26; Mark 14:
22.) Luke and Paul say, "This cup is the new testament in my blood,"
(Luke 22: 20, 1 Cor. 11: 25.) The advocates of transubstantiation
insist, that by the pronoun, "this", is denoted the appearance of
bread, because the whole complexion of our Saviour's address is an
act of consecration, and there is no substance which can be
demonstrated. But if they adhere so religiously to the words,
inasmuch as that which our Saviour gave to his disciples he declared
to be his body, there is nothing more alien from the strict meaning
of the words than the fiction, that what was bread is now body. What
Christ takes into his hands, and gives to the apostles, he declares
to be his body; but he had taken bread, and, therefore, who sees not
that what is given is still bread? Hence, nothing can be more absurd
than to transfer what is affirmed of bread to the species of bread.
Others, in interpreting the particle "is", as equivalent to being
transubstantiated, have recourse to a gloss which is forced and
violently wrested. They have no ground, therefore, for pretending
that they are moved by a reverence for the words. The use of the
term is, for being inverted into something else, is unknown to every
tongue and nation. With regard to those who leave the bread in the
Supper, and affirm that it is the body of Christ, there is great
diversity among them. Those who speak more modestly, though they
insist upon the letter, "This is my body", afterwards abandon this
strictness, and observe that it is equivalent to saying that the
body of Christ is with the bread, in the bread, and under the bread.
To the reality which they affirm, we have already adverted, and will
by and by, at greater length. I am now only considering the words by
which they say they are prevented from admitting that the bread is
called body, because it is a sign of the body. But if they shun
every thing like metaphor, why do they leap from the simple
demonstration of Christ to modes of expression which are widely
different? For there is a great difference between saying that the
bread is the body, and that the body is with the bread. But seeing
it impossible to maintain the simple proposition that the bread is
the body, they endeavoured to evade the difficulty by concealing
themselves under those forms of expression. Others, who are bolder,
hesitate not to assert that, strictly speaking, the bread is body,
and in this way prove that they are truly of the letter. If it is
objected that the bread, therefore, is Christ, and, being Christ, is
God, - they will deny it, because the words of Christ do not
expressly say so. But they gain nothing by their denial, since all
agree that the whole Christ is offered to us in the Supper. It is
intolerable blasphemy to affirm, without figure, of a fading and
corruptible element, that it is Christ. I now ask them, if they hold
the two propositions to be identical, Christ is the Son of God, and
Bread is the body of Christ? If they concede that they are
different, (and this, whether they will or not, they will be forced
to do,) let them tell wherein is the difference. All which they can
adduce is, I presume, that the bread is called body in a sacramental
manner. Hence it follows, that the words of Christ are not subject
to the common rule, and ought not to be tested grammatically. I ask
all these rigid and obstinate exactors of the letter, whether, when
Luke and Paul call the cup "the testament in blood", they do not
express the same thing as in the previous clause, when they call
bread the body? There certainly was the same solemnity in the one
part of the mystery as in the other, and, as brevity is obscure, the
longer sentence better elucidates the meaning. As often, therefore,
as they contend, from the one expression, that the bread is body, I
will adduce an apt interpretation from the longer expression, That
it is a testament in the body. What? Can we seek for surer or more
faithful expounders than Luke and Paul? I have no intention,
however, to detract, in any respect, from the communication of the
body of Christ, which I have acknowledged. I only meant to expose
the foolish perverseness with which they carry on a war of words.
The bread I understand, on the authority of Luke and Paul, to be the
body of Christ, because it is a covenant in the body. If they impugn
this, their quarrel is not with me, but with the Spirit of God.
However often they may repeat, that reverence for the words of
Christ will not allow them to give a figurative interpretation to
what is spoken plainly, the pretext cannot justify them in thus
rejecting all the contrary arguments which we adduce. Meanwhile, as
I have already observed, it is proper to attend to the force of what
is meant by a testament in the body and blood of Christ. The
covenant, ratified by the sacrifice of death, would not avail us
without the addition of that secret communication, by which we are
made one with Christ.
21. It remains, therefore, to hold, that on account of the
affinity which the things signified have with their signs, the name
of the thing itself is given to the sign figuratively, indeed, but
very appropriately. I say nothing of allegories and parables, lest
it should be alleged that I am seeking subterfuges, and slipping out
of the present question. I say that the expression which is
uniformly used in Scripture, when the sacred mysteries are treated
of, is metonymical. For you cannot otherwise understand the
expressions, that circumcision is a "covenant" - that the lamb is
the Lord's "passover" - that the sacrifices of the law are
expiations - that the rock from which the water flowed in the desert
was Christ, - unless you interpret them metonymically. Nor is the
name merely transferred from the superior to the inferior, but, on
the contrary, the name of the visible sign is given to the thing
signified, as when God is said to have appeared to Moses in the
bush; the ark of the covenant is called God, and the face of God,
and the dove is called the Holy Spirit. For although the sign
differs essentially from the thing signified, the latter being
spiritual and heavenly, the former corporeal and visible, - yet, as
it not only figures the thing which it is employed to represent as a
naked and empty badge, but also truly exhibits it, why should not
its name be justly applied to the thing? But if symbols humanly
devised, which are rather the images of absent than the marks of
present things, and of which they are very often most fallacious
types, are sometimes honoured with their names, - with much greater
reason do the institutions of God borrow the names of things, of
which they always bear a sure, and by no means fallacious
signification, and have the reality annexed to them. So great, then,
is the similarity, and so close the connection between the two, that
it is easy to pass from the one to the other. Let our opponents,
therefore, cease to indulge their mirth in calling us Tropists, when
we explain the sacramental mode of expression according to the
common use of Scripture. For, while the sacraments agree in many
things, there is also, in this metonymy, a certain community in all
respects between them. As, therefore, the apostle says that the rock
from which spiritual water lowed forth to the Israelites was Christ,
(1 Cor. 10: 4,) and was thus a visible symbol under which that
spiritual drink was truly perceived, though not by the eye, so the
body of Christ is now called bread, inasmuch as it is a symbol under
which our Lord offers us the true eating of his body. Lest any one
should despise this as a novel invention, the view which Augustine
took and expressed was the same: "Had not the sacraments a certain
resemblance to the things of which they are sacraments, they would
not be sacraments at all. And from this resemblance, they generally
have the names of the things themselves. This, as the sacrament of
the body of Christ, is, after a certain manner, the body of Christ,
and the sacrament of Christ is the blood of Christ; so the sacrament
of faith is faith," (August. Ep. 23, ad Bonifac.) He has many
similar passages, which it would be superfluous to collect, as that
one may suffice. I need only remind my readers, that the same
doctrine is taught by that holy man in his Epistle to Evodius. Where
Augustine teaches that nothing is more common than metonymy in
mysteries, it is a frivolous quibble to object that there is no
mention of the Supper. Were this objection sustained, it would
follow, that we are not entitled to argue from the genus to the
species; e. g., Every animal is endued with motion; and, therefore,
the horse and the ox are endued with motion. Indeed, longer
discussion is rendered unnecessary by the words of the Saint
himself, where he says, that when Christ gave the symbol of his
body, he did not hesitate to call it his body, (August. Cont.
Adimantum, cap. 12.) He elsewhere says "Wonderful was the patience
of Christ in admitting Judas to the feast, in which he committed and
delivered to the disciples the symbol of his body and blood,"
(August. in Ps. 3.)
22. Should any morose person, shutting his eyes to every thing
else, insist upon the expression, "This is", as distinguishing this
mystery from all others, the answer is easy. They say that the
substantive verb is so emphatic, as to leave no room for
interpretation. Though I should admit this, I answer, that the
substantive verb occurs in the words of Paul, (1 Cor. 10: 16,) where
he calls the bread the communion of the body of Christ. But
communion is something different from the body itself. Nay, when the
sacraments are treated of, the same word occurs: "My covenant shall
be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant," (Gen. 17: 13.) "This
is the ordinance of the passover," (Exod. 12: 43.) To say no more,
when Paul declares that the rock was Christ, (1 Cor. 10: 4,) why
should the substantive verb, in that passage, be deemed less
emphatic than in the discourse of Christ? When John says, "The Holy
Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,"
(John 7: 39,) I should like to know what is the force of the
substantive verb? If the rule of our opponents is rigidly observed,
the eternal essence of the Spirit will be destroyed, as if he had
only begun to be after the ascension of Christ. Let them tell me, in
fine, what is meant by the declaration of Paul, that baptism is "the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Tit. 3:
5;) though it is certain that to many it was of no use. But they
cannot be more effectually refuted than by the expression of Paul,
that the Church is Christ. For, after introducing the similitude of
the human body, he adds, "So also is Christ," (1 Cor. 12: 12,) when
he means not the only begotten Son of God in himself, but in his
members. I think I have now gained this much, that all men of sense
and integrity will be disgusted with the calumnies of our enemies,
when they give out that we discredit the words of Christ; though we
embrace them not less obediently than they do, and ponder them with
greater reverence. Nay, their supine security proves that they do
not greatly care what Christ meant, provided it furnishes them with
a shield to defend their obstinacy, while our careful investigation
should be an evidence of the authority which we yield to Christ.
They invidiously pretend that human reason will not allow us to
believe what Christ uttered with his sacred mouth; but how naughtily
they endeavour to fix this odium upon us, I have already in a great
measure, shown, and will still show more clearly. Nothing,
therefore, prevents us from believing Christ speaking, and from
acquiescing in everything to which he intimates his assent. The only
question here is, whether it be unlawful to inquire into the genuine
meaning?
23. Those worthy masters, to show that they are of the letter,
forbid us to deviate, in the least, from the letter. On the
contrary, when Scripture calls God a man of war, as I see that the
expression would be too harsh if not interpreted, I have no doubt
that the similitude is taken from man. And, indeed, the only pretext
which enabled the Anthropomorphites to annoy the orthodox Fathers
was by fastening on the expressions, "The eyes of God see;" "It
ascended to his ears;" "His hand is stretched out;" "The earth is
his footstool;" - and exclaimed, that God was deprived of the body
which Scripture assigns to him. Were this rule admitted, complete
barbarism would bury the whole light of faith. What monstrous
absurdities shall fanatical men not be able to extract, if they are
allowed to urge every knotty point in support of their dogmas? Their
objection, that it is not probable that when Christ was providing
special comfort for the apostles in adversity, he spoke
enigmatically or obscurely, - supports our view. For, had it not
occurred to the apostles that the bread was called the body
figuratively, as being a symbol of the body, the extraordinary
nature of the thing would doubtless have filled them with
perplexity. For, at this very period, John relates, that the
slightest difficulties perplexed them, (John 14: 5, 8; 16: 17.) They
debate, among themselves, how Christ is to go to the Father, and not
understanding that the things which were said referred to the
heavenly Father, raise a question as to how he is to go out of the
world until they shall see him? How, then could they have been so
ready to believe what is repugnant to all reason, viz., that Christ
was seated at table under their eye, and yet was contained invisible
under the bread? As they attest their consent by eating this bread
without hesitation, it is plain that they understood the words of
Christ in the same sense as we do, considering, what ought not to
seem unusual when mysteries are spoken of, that the name of the
thing signified was transferred to the sign. There was therefore to
the disciples, as there is to us, clear and sure consolation, not
involved in any enigma; and the only reason why certain persons
reject our interpretation is, because they are blinded by a delusion
of the devil to introduce the darkness of enigma, instead of the
obvious interpretation of an appropriate figure. Besides, if we
insist strictly on the words, our Saviour will be made to affirm
erroneously something of the bread different from the cup. He calls
the bread body, and the wine blood. There must either be a confusion
in terms, or there must be a division separating the body from the
blood. Nay, " This is my body," may be as truly affirmed of the cup
as of the bread; and it may in turn be affirmed that the bread is
the blood. If they answer, that we must look to the end or use for
which symbols were instituted, I admit it; but still they will not
disencumber themselves of the absurdity which their error drags
along with it, viz., that the bread is blood, and the wine is body.
Then I know not what they mean when they concede that bread and body
are different things, and yet maintain that the one is predicated of
the other, properly and without figure, as if one were to say that a
garment is different from a man, and yet is properly called a man.
Still, as if the victory depended on obstinacy and invective, they
say that Christ is charged with falsehood when it is attempted to
interpret his words. It will now be easy for the reader to
understand the injustice which is done to us by those carpers at
syllables, when they possess the simple with the idea that we bring
discredit on the words of Christ; words which, as we have shown, are
madly perverted and confounded by them, but are faithfully and
accurately expounded by us.
24. This infamous falsehood cannot be completely wiped away
without disposing of another charge. They give out that we are so
wedded to human reason, that we attribute nothing more to the power
of God than the order of nature admits, and common sense dictates.
From these wicked calumnies, I appeal to the doctrine which I have
delivered, - a doctrine which makes it sufficiently clear that I by
no means measure this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or
subject it to the laws of nature. I ask whether it is from physics
we have learned that Christ feeds our souls from heaven with his
flesh, just as our bodies are nourished by bread and wine? How has
flesh this virtue of giving life to our souls? All will say, that it
is not done naturally. Not more agreeable is it to human reason to
hold that the flesh of Christ penetrates to us, so as to be our
food. In short, every one who may have tasted our doctrine, will be
carried away with admiration of the secret power of God. But these
worthy zealots fabricate for themselves a miracle, and think that
without it God himself and his power vanish away. I would again
admonish the reader carefully to consider the nature of our
doctrine, whether it depends on common apprehension, or whether,
after having surmounted the world on the wings of faith, it rises to
heaven. We say that Christ descends to us, as well by the external
symbol as by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the
substance of his flesh and blood. He who feels not that in these few
words are many miracles is more than stupid, since nothing is more
contrary to nature than to derive the spiritual and heavenly life of
the soul from flesh, which received its origin from the earth, and
was subjected to death, nothing more incredible than that things
separated by the whole space between heaven and earth should,
notwithstanding of the long distance, not only be collected, but
united, so that souls receive ailment from the flesh of Christ. Let
preposterous men, then, cease to assail us with the vile calumny,
that we malignantly restrict the boundless power of God. They either
foolishly err, or wickedly lie. The question here is not, What could
God do? But, What has he been pleased to do? We affirm that he has
done what pleased him, and it pleased him that Christ should be in
all respects like his brethren, "yet without sin," (Heb. 4: 15.)
What is our flesh? Is it not that which consists of certain
dimensions? is confined within a certain place? is touched and seen?
And why, say they, may not God make the same flesh occupy several
different places so as not to be confined to any particular place,
and so as to have neither measure nor species? Fool! why do you
require the power of God to make a thing to be at the same time
flesh and not flesh? It is just as if you were to insist on his
making light to be at the same time light and darkness. He wills
light to be light, darkness to be darkness, and flesh to be flesh.
True, when he so chooses, he will convert darkness into light, and
light into darkness: but when you insist that there shall be no
difference between light and darkness, what do you but pervert the
order of the divine wisdom? Flesh must therefore be flesh, and
spirit spirit; each under the law and condition on which God has
created them. How the condition of flesh is, that it should have one
certain place, its own dimension, its own form. On that condition,
Christ assumed the flesh, to which, as Augustine declares, (Ep. ad
Dardan.,) he gave incorruption and glory, but without destroying its
nature and reality.
25. They object that they have the word by which the will of
God has been openly manifested; that is, if we permit them to banish
from the Church the gift of interpretation, which should throw light
upon the word. I admit that they have the word, but just as the
Anthropomorphites of old had it, when they made God corporeal; just
as Marcion and the Manichees had it when they made the body of
Christ celestial or phantastical. They quoted the passages, "The
first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from
heaven," (1 Cor. 15: 47:) Christ "made himself of no reputation, and
took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of
men," (Phil. 2: 7.) But these vain boasters think that there is no
power of God unless they fabricate a monster in their own brains, by
which the whole order of nature is subverted. This rather is to
circumscribe the power of God, to attempt to try, by our fictions,
what he can do. From this word, they have assumed that the body of
Christ is visible in heaven, and yet lurks invisible on the earth
under innumerable bits of bread. They will say that this is rendered
necessary, in order that the body of Christ may be given in the
Supper. In other words, because they have been pleased to extract a
carnal eating from the words of Christ, carried away by their own
prejudice, they have found it necessary to coin this subtlety, which
is wholly repugnant to Scripture. That we detract, in any respect,
from the power of God, is so far from being true, that our doctrine
is the loudest in extolling it. But as they continue to charge us
with robbing God of his honour, in rejecting what, according to
common apprehension, it is difficult to believe, though it had been
promised by the mouth of Christ; I answer, as I lately did, that in
the mysteries of faith we do not consult common apprehension, but,
with the placid docility and spirit of meekness which James
recommends, (James 1: 21,) receive the doctrine which has come from
heaven. Wherein they perniciously err, I am confident that we follow
a proper moderation. On hearing the words of Christ, This is my
body, they imagine a miracle most remote from his intention; and
when, from this fiction, the grossest absurdities arise, having
already, by their precipitate haste, entangled themselves with
snares, they plunge themselves into the abyss of the divine
omnipotence, that, in this way, they may extinguish the light of
truth. Hence the supercilious moroseness. We have no wish to know
how Christ is hid under the bread: we are satisfied with his own
words, "This is my body." We again study, with no less obedience
than care, to obtain a sound understanding of this passages as of
the whole of Scripture. We do not, with preposterous fervour,
rashly, and without choice, lay hold on whatever first presents
itself to our minds; but, after careful meditation, embrace the
meaning which the Spirit of God suggests. Trusting to him, we look
down, as from a height, on whatever opposition may be offered by
earthly wisdom. Nay, we hold our minds captive, not allowing one
word of murmur, and humble them, that they may not presume to
gainsay. In this way, we have arrived at that exposition of the
words of Christ, which all who are moderately verdant in Scripture
know to be perpetually used with regard to the sacraments. Still, in
a matter of difficulty, we deem it not unlawful to inquire, after
the example of the blessed virgin, "How shall this be?" (Luke 1:
34.)
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 19...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-18.txt
.