THE LORD’S SUPPER AND ITS ADVANTAGES.
After God has once received us into his family, and not only so as to
admit us among his servants, but to number us with his children,—in
order to fulfil the part of a most excellent father, solicitous for his
offspring, he also undertakes to sustain and nourish us as long as we
live; and not content with this, he has been pleased to give us a
pledge, as a further assurance of this never-ceasing liberality. For
this purpose, therefore, by the hand of his only begotten Son, he has
favoured his Church with another sacrament, a spiritual banquet, in
which Christ testifies himself to be the bread of life, to feed our
souls for a true and blessed immortality. Now, as the knowledge of so
great a mystery is highly necessary, and on account of its importance,
requires an accurate explication; and, on the other hand, as Satan, in
order to deprive the Church of this inestimable treasure, long ago
endeavoured, first by mists, and afterwards by thicker shades, to
obscure its lustre, and then raised disputes and contentions to alienate
the minds of the simple from a relish for this sacred food, and in our
time also has attempted the same artifice; after having exhibited a
summary of what relates to the subject, adapted to the capacity of the
unlearned, I will disentangle it from those sophistries with which Satan
has been labouring to deceive the world. In the first place, the signs
are bread and wine, which represent to us the invisible nourishment
which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. For as in baptism
God regenerates us, incorporates us into the society of his Church, and
makes us his children by adoption, so we have said, that he acts towards
us the part of a provident father of a family, in constantly supplying
us with food, to sustain and preserve us in that life to which he has
begotten us by his word. Now, the only food of our souls is Christ; and
to him, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us, that being refreshed
by a participation of him, we may gain fresh vigour from day to day,
till we arrive at the heavenly immortality. And because this mystery of
the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature,
he exhibits a figure and image of it in visible signs, peculiarly
adapted to our feeble capacity; and, as it were, by giving tokens and
pledges, renders it equally as certain to us as if we beheld it with our
eyes; for the dullest minds understand this very familiar similitude,
that our souls are nourished by Christ, just as the life of the body is
supported by bread and wine. We see, then, for what end this mystical
benediction is designed; namely, to assure us that the body of the Lord
was once offered as a sacrifice for us, so that we may now feed upon it,
and, feeding on it, may experience within us the efficacy of that one
sacrifice; and that his blood was once shed for us, so that it is our
perpetual drink. And this is the import of the words of the promise
annexed to it: “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you.” The
body, therefore, which was once offered for our salvation, we are
commanded to take and eat; that seeing ourselves made partakers of it,
we may certainly conclude, that the virtue of that life-giving death
will be efficacious within us. Hence, also, he calls the cup “the new
testament,” or rather _covenant_, in his blood.[1238] For the covenant
which he once ratified with his blood, he in some measure renews, or
rather continues, as far as relates to the confirmation of our faith,
whenever he presents us that sacred blood to drink.
II. From this sacrament pious souls may derive the benefit of
considerable satisfaction and confidence; because it affords us a
testimony that we are incorporated into one body with Christ, so that
whatever is his, we are at liberty to call ours. The consequence of this
is, that we venture to assure ourselves of our interest in eternal life,
of which he is the heir, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he
has already entered, can no more be lost by us than by him; and, on the
other hand, that we cannot be condemned by our sins, from the guilt of
which he absolved us, when he wished them to be imputed to himself, as
if they were his own. This is the wonderful exchange which, in his
infinite goodness, he has made with us. Submitting to our poverty, he
has transferred to us his riches; assuming our weakness, he has
strengthened us by his power; accepting our mortality, he has conferred
on us his immortality; taking on himself the load of iniquity with which
we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness; descending
to the earth, he has prepared a way for our ascending to heaven;
becoming with us the Son of man, he has made us, with himself, the sons
of God.
III. Of all these things we have such a complete attestation in this
sacrament, that we may confidently consider them as truly exhibited to
us, as if Christ himself were presented to our eyes, and touched by our
hands. For there can be no falsehood or illusion in this word, “Take,
eat, drink; this is my body which is given for you; this is my blood
which is shed for the remission of sins.” By commanding us to take, he
signifies that he is ours; by commanding us to eat and drink, he
signifies that he is become one substance with us. In saying that his
body is given for us, and his blood shed for us, he shows that both are
not so much his as ours, because he assumed and laid down both, not for
his own advantage, but for our salvation. And it ought to be carefully
observed, that the principal and almost entire energy of the sacrament
lies in these words, “which is given for you;” “which is shed for you;”
for otherwise it would avail us but little, that the body and blood of
the Lord are distributed to us now, if they had not been once delivered
for our redemption and salvation. Therefore they are represented to us
by bread and wine, to teach us that they are not only ours, but are
destined for the support of our spiritual life. This is what we have
already suggested—that by the corporeal objects which are presented in
the sacrament, we are conducted, by a kind of analogy, to those which
are spiritual. So, when bread is given to us as a symbol of the body of
Christ, we ought immediately to conceive of this comparison, that, as
bread nourishes, sustains, and preserves the life of the body, so the
body of Christ is the only food to animate and support the life of the
soul. When we see wine presented as a symbol of his blood, we ought to
think of the uses of wine to the human body, that we may contemplate the
same advantages conferred upon us in a spiritual manner by the blood of
Christ; which are these—that it nourishes, refreshes, strengthens, and
exhilarates. For if we duly consider the benefits resulting to us from
the oblation of his sacred body, and the effusion of his blood, we shall
clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, according to
this analogy, are most justly attributed to those symbols, as
administered to us in the Lord’s supper.
IV. The principal object of the sacrament, therefore, is not to present
us the body of Christ, simply, and without any ulterior consideration,
but rather to seal and confirm that promise, where he declares that his
“flesh is meat indeed, and” his “blood drink indeed,” by which we are
nourished to eternal life; where he affirms that he is “the bread of
life,” and that “he that eateth of this bread shall live for
ever;”[1239] to seal and confirm that promise, I say; and, in order to
do this, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where the promise has been
fully verified, and entirely accomplished. For we never rightly and
advantageously feed on Christ, except as crucified, and when we have a
lively apprehension of the efficacy of his death. And, indeed, when
Christ called himself “the bread of life,” he did not use that
appellation on account of the sacrament, as some persons erroneously
imagine, but because he had been given to us as such by the Father, and
showed himself to be such, when, becoming a partaker of our human
mortality, he made us partakers of his Divine immortality; when,
offering himself a sacrifice, he sustained our curse, to fill us with
his blessing; when, by his death, he destroyed and swallowed up death;
when, in his resurrection, this corruptible flesh of ours, which he had
assumed, was raised up by him, in a state of incorruption and glory.
V. It remains for all this to be applied to us; which is done in the
first place by the gospel, but in a more illustrious manner by the
sacred supper, in which Christ offers himself to us with all his
benefits, and we receive him by faith. The sacrament, therefore, does
not first constitute Christ the bread of life; but, by recalling to our
remembrance that he has been made the bread of life, upon which we may
constantly feed, and by giving us a taste and relish for that bread, it
causes us to experience the support which it is adapted to afford. For
it assures us, in the first place, that whatever Christ has done or
suffered, was for the purpose of giving life to us; and, in the next
place, that this life will never end. For as Christ would never have
been the bread of life to us, if he had not been born, and died, and
risen again for us, so now he would by no means continue so, if the
efficacy and benefit of his nativity, death, and resurrection, were not
permanent and immortal. All this Christ has beautifully expressed in
these words: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world;”[1240] in which he clearly signifies, that
his body would be as bread to us, for the spiritual life of the soul,
because it was to be exposed to death for our salvation; and that it is
given to us to feed upon it, when he makes us partakers of it by faith.
He gave it once, therefore, to be made bread, when he surrendered it to
be crucified for the redemption of the world; he gives it daily, when,
by the word of the gospel, he presents it to us, that we may partake of
it as crucified; when he confirms that presentation by the sacred
mystery of the supper; when he accomplishes within that which he
signifies without. Here it behoves us to guard against two errors; that,
on the one hand, we may not, by undervaluing the signs, disjoin them
from the mysteries with which they are connected; nor, on the other
hand, by extolling them beyond measure, obscure the glory of the
mysteries themselves. That Christ is the bread of life, by which
believers are nourished to eternal salvation, there is no man, not
entirely destitute of religion, who hesitates to acknowledge; but all
are not equally agreed respecting the manner of partaking of him. For
there are some who define in a word, that to eat the flesh of Christ,
and to drink his blood, is no other than to believe in Christ himself.
But I conceive that, in that remarkable discourse, in which Christ
recommends us to feed upon his body, he intended to teach us something
more striking and sublime; namely, that we are quickened by a real
participation of him, which he designates by the terms of _eating_ and
_drinking_, that no person might suppose the life which we receive from
him to consist in simple knowledge. For as it is not _seeing_, but
_eating_ bread, that administers nourishment to the body, so it is
necessary for the soul to have a true and complete participation of
Christ, that by his power it may be quickened to spiritual life. At the
same time, we confess that there is no other eating than by faith, as it
is impossible to imagine any other; but the difference between me and
the persons whose sentiment I am opposing, is this; they consider eating
to be the very same as believing; I say, that in believing we eat the
flesh of Christ, because he is actually made ours by faith, and that
this eating is the fruit and effect of faith; or, to express it more
plainly, they consider the eating to be faith itself; but I apprehend it
to be rather a consequence of faith. The difference is small in words,
but in the thing itself it is considerable. For though the apostle
teaches that “Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith,”[1241] yet no one
will explain this inhabitation to be faith itself. Every one must
perceive that the apostle intended to express a peculiar advantage
arising from faith, of which the residence of Christ in the hearts of
believers is one of the effects. In the same manner, when the Lord
called himself “the bread of life,”[1242] he intended not only to teach
that salvation is laid up for us in the faith of his death and
resurrection, but also that, by our real participation of him, his life
is transferred to us, and becomes ours; just as bread, when it is taken
for food, communicates vigour to the body.
VI. When Augustine, whom they bring forward as their advocate, said that
we eat the body of Christ by believing in him, it was with no other
meaning than to show that this eating is not of a corporeal nature, but
solely by faith. This I admit; but at the same time I add, that we
embrace Christ by faith, not as appearing at a distance, but as uniting
himself with us, to become our head, and to make us his members. I do
not altogether disapprove, however, such a mode of expression, but if
they mean to define what it is to eat the flesh of Christ, I deny this
to be a complete explanation. Otherwise, I see that Augustine has
frequently used this phrase; as when he says, “Except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of man, ye have no life in you;[1243] this is a figure which
enjoins a participation of the sufferings of our Lord, and a sweet and
useful recollection in the memory, that his flesh was wounded and
crucified for us:” and again, when he says, “That the three thousand,
who were converted by the preaching of Peter,[1244] drank the blood of
Christ by believing in him, which they had shed in persecuting him.” But
in many other passages he highly celebrates that beneficial consequence
of faith, and states our souls to be as much refreshed by the communion
of the body of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread which we eat. And
the very same idea is conveyed by Chrysostom, when he says, “That Christ
makes us his body, not only by faith, but also in reality.” For he does
not mean that this benefit is obtained any otherwise than by faith; he
only intends to preclude a supposition from being entertained by any
one, that this faith is nothing more than a speculative apprehension. I
say nothing at present of those who maintain the Lord’s supper to be a
mere mark of external profession, because I think I have sufficiently
refuted their error, when treating of the sacraments in general. Only
let it be observed, that when Christ says, “This cup is the new
testament, or covenant, in my blood,”[1245] this is the expression of a
promise calculated for the confirmation of faith; whence it follows,
that unless we direct our views to God, and embrace what he offers us,
we never properly celebrate the sacred supper.
VII. Nor am I satisfied with those persons, who, after having
acknowledged that we have some communion with Christ, when they mean to
describe it, represent us merely as partakers of his Spirit, but make no
mention of his flesh and blood; as though there were no meaning in these
and other similar expressions: “That his flesh is meat indeed; that his
blood is drink indeed; that except we eat his flesh, and drink his
blood, we have no life in us.” Wherefore, if it be evident that the full
communion of Christ goes beyond their too confined description of it, I
will endeavour to state, in few words, how far it extends, before I
speak of the contrary error of carrying it to excess. For I shall have a
longer controversy with the hyperbolical doctors, who, while in their
folly they imagine an absurd and extravagant way of eating the flesh of
Christ, and drinking his blood, deprive him of his real body, and
metamorphose him into a mere phantom; if, however, it be possible, in
any words, to unfold so great a mystery, which I find myself incapable
of properly comprehending, even in my mind; and this I am ready to
acknowledge, that no person may measure the sublimity of the subject by
my inadequate representation of it. On the contrary, I exhort my readers
not to confine their thoughts within such narrow and insufficient
limits, but to endeavour to rise much higher than I am able to conduct
them; for as to myself, whenever I handle this subject, after having
endeavoured to say every thing, I am conscious of having said but very
little, in comparison of its excellence. And though the conceptions of
the mind can far exceed the expressions of the tongue, yet, with the
magnitude of the subject, the mind itself is oppressed and overwhelmed.
Nothing remains for me, therefore, but to break forth in admiration of
that mystery, which the mind is unable clearly to understand, or the
tongue to express. I will nevertheless state the substance of my
opinion, which, as I have no doubt of its truth, I trust will also be
received with approbation by godly minds.
VIII. In the first place, we learn from the Scriptures, that Christ was
from the beginning that life-giving Word of the Father, the fountain and
origin of life, from which all things have ever derived their existence.
Therefore John in one place calls him “The Word of life,” and in another
says, that “in him was life;”[1246] signifying, that even then he
diffused his energy over all the creatures, and endued them with life
and breath. Yet the same apostle immediately adds, that “the life was
manifested” then, and not before, when the Son of God, by assuming our
flesh, rendered himself visible to the eyes, and palpable to the hands
of men. For though he diffused his influence over all the creatures
before that period, yet, because man was alienated from God by sin, had
lost the participation of life, and saw nothing on every side but
impending death, it was necessary to his recovery of any hope of
immortality, that he should be received into the communion of that word.
For what slender hopes shall we form, if we hear that the Word of God
contains in himself all the plenitude of life, while we are at an
infinite distance from him, and, withersoever we turn our eyes, see
nothing but death presenting itself on every side? But since he who is
the fountain of life has taken up his residence in our flesh, he remains
no longer concealed at a distance from us, but openly exhibits himself
to our participation. He also makes the very flesh in which he resides
the means of giving life to us, that, by a participation of it, we may
be nourished to immortality. “I am the living bread,” says he, “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.”[1247] In these words, he shows,
not only that he is life, as he is the eternal Word who descended from
heaven to us, but that in descending he imparted that power to the flesh
which he assumed, in order that it might communicate life to us. Hence
follow these declarations: “That his flesh is meat indeed, and that his
blood is drink indeed;”[1248] meat and drink by which believers are
nourished to eternal life. Here, then, we enjoy peculiar consolation,
that we find life in our own flesh. For in this manner we not only have
an easy access to it, but it freely discovers and offers itself to our
acceptance; we have only to open our hearts to its reception, and we
shall obtain it.
IX. Now, though the power of giving life to us is not an essential
attribute of the body of Christ, which, in its original condition, was
subject to mortality, and now lives by an immortality not its own, yet
it is justly represented as the source of life, because it is endued
with a plenitude of life to communicate to us. In this I agree with
Cyril, in understanding that declaration of Christ, “As the Father hath
life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself.”[1249] For in this passage, he is not speaking of the
attributes which he possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of
the gifts with which he was adorned in the flesh in which he appeared;
therefore he showed that the fulness of life dwelt in his humanity, that
whoever partook of his flesh and blood might, at the same time, enjoy a
participation of life. For, as the water of a fountain is sometimes
drunk, sometimes drawn, and sometimes conveyed in furrows for the
irrigation of lands, yet the fountain does not derive such an abundance
for so many uses from itself, but from the spring which is perpetually
flowing to furnish it with fresh supplies, so the flesh of Christ is
like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which receives the life flowing
from the Divinity, and conveys it to us. Now, who does not see that a
participation of the body and blood of Christ is necessary to all who
aspire to heavenly life? This is implied in those passages of the
apostle, that the Church is the body of Christ, and his fulness;[1250]
that he is “the head, from whom the whole body, joined together and
compacted by that which every joint supplieth, maketh increase of the
body;”[1251] that our bodies are “the members of Christ;”[1252] things
which we know can no otherwise be effected than by his entire union both
of body and spirit with us. But that most intimate fellowship, by which
we are united with his flesh, the apostle has illustrated in a still
more striking representation, when he says, “We are members of his body,
of his flesh, and of his bones.”[1253] At length, to declare the subject
to be above all description, he concludes his discourse by exclaiming,
“This is a great mystery.”[1254] It would be extreme stupidity,
therefore, to acknowledge no communion of believers with the body and
blood of the Lord, which the apostle declares to be so great, that he
would rather admire than express it.
X. We conclude, that our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ,
just as our corporeal life is preserved and sustained by bread and wine.
For otherwise there would be no suitableness in the analogy of the sign,
if our souls did not find their food in Christ; which cannot be the case
unless Christ truly becomes one with us, and refreshes us by the eating
of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. Though it appears incredible
for the flesh of Christ, from such an immense local distance, to reach
us, so as to become our food, we should remember how much the secret
power of the Holy Spirit transcends all our senses, and what folly it is
to apply any measure of ours to his immensity. Let our faith receive,
therefore, what our understanding is not able to comprehend, that the
Spirit really unites things which are separated by local distance. Now,
that holy participation of his flesh and blood, by which Christ
communicates his life to us, just as if he actually penetrated every
part of our frame, in the sacred supper he also testifies and seals; and
that not by the exhibition of a vain or ineffectual sign, but by the
exertion of the energy of his Spirit, by which he accomplishes that
which he promises. And the thing signified he exhibits and offers to all
who come to that spiritual banquet; though it is advantageously enjoyed
by believers alone, who receive such great goodness with true faith and
gratitude of mind. For which 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?”[1255] Nor is there any cause to object, that it is a figurative
expression, by which the name of the thing signified is given to the
sign. I grant, indeed, that the breaking of the bread is symbolical, and
not the substance itself: yet, this being admitted, from the exhibition
of the symbol we may justly infer the exhibition of the substance; for,
unless any one would call God a deceiver, he can never presume to affirm
that he sets before us an empty sign. Therefore, if, by the breaking of
the bread, the Lord truly represents the participation of his body, it
ought not to be doubted that he truly presents and communicates it. And
it must always be a rule with believers, whenever they see the signs
instituted by the Lord, to assure and persuade themselves that they are
also accompanied with the truth of the thing signified. For to what end
would the Lord deliver into our hands the symbol of his body, except to
assure us of a real participation of it? If it be true that the visible
sign is given to us to seal the donation of the invisible substance, we
ought to entertain a confident assurance, that in receiving the symbol
of his body, we at the same time truly receive the body itself.
XI. In harmony, therefore, with the doctrine which has always been
received in the Church, and which is maintained in the present day by
all who hold right sentiments, I say, that the sacred mystery of the
supper consists of two parts: the corporeal signs, which, being placed
before our eyes, represent to us invisible things in a manner adapted to
the weakness of our capacities; and the spiritual truth, which is at the
same time typified and exhibited by those symbols. When I intend to give
a familiar view of this truth, I am accustomed to state three
particulars which it includes: the signification; the matter, or
substance, which depends on the signification; and the virtue, or
effect, which follows from both. The signification consists in the
promises which are interwoven with the sign. What I call the matter or
substance, is Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I
mean redemption, righteousness, sanctification, eternal life, and all
the other benefits which Christ confers upon us. Now, though all these
things are connected with faith, yet I leave no room for this cavil; as
though, when I say that Christ is received by faith, I intended that he
is received merely in the understanding and imagination; for the
promises present him to us, not that we may rest in mere contemplation
and simple knowledge, but that we may enjoy a real participation of him.
And, in fact, I see not how any man can attain a solid confidence that
he has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in
his death, unless he first has a real communion with Christ himself; for
those blessings would never be imparted to us, if Christ did not first
make himself ours. I say, therefore, that in the mystery of the supper,
under the symbols of bread and wine, Christ is truly exhibited to us,
even his body and blood, in which he has fulfilled all obedience to
procure our justification. And the design of this exhibition is, first,
that we may be united into one body with him, and, secondly, that being
made partakers of his substance, we may experience his power in the
communication of all blessings.
XII. I now proceed to the hyperbolical additions which superstition has
made to this sacrament. For here Satan has exerted amazing subtlety to
withdraw the minds of men from heaven, and involve them in a
preposterous error, by persuading them that Christ is attached to the
element of bread. In the first place, we must be careful not to dream of
such a presence of Christ in the sacrament as the ingenuity of the
Romanists has invented; as if the body of Christ were exhibited, by a
local presence, to be felt by the hand, bruised by the teeth, and
swallowed by the throat. For this was the form of recantation which Pope
Nicolas directed to Berengarius as a declaration of his repentance; the
language of which is so monstrous, that the scholiast exclaims, that
there is danger, unless the readers be very prudent and cautious, of
their imbibing from it a worse heresy than that of Berengarius; and
Peter Lombard, though he takes great pains to defend it from the charge
of absurdity, yet rather inclines to a different opinion. For, as we
have not the least doubt that Christ’s body is finite, according to the
invariable condition of a human body, and is contained in heaven, where
it was once received, till it shall return to judgment, so we esteem it
utterly unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or
to imagine it to be present every where. Nor is there any need of this,
in order to our enjoying the participation of it; since the Lord by his
Spirit gives us the privilege of being united with himself in body,
soul, and spirit. The bond of this union, therefore, is the Spirit of
Christ, by whom we are conjoined, and who is, as it were, the channel by
which all that Christ himself is and has is conveyed to us. For, if we
behold the sun darting his rays and transmitting his substance, as it
were, in them, to generate, nourish, and mature the roots of the earth,
why should the irradiation of the Spirit of Christ be less effectual to
convey to us the communication of his body and blood? Wherefore, the
Scripture, when it speaks of our participation of Christ, attributes all
the power of it to the Spirit. One passage shall suffice instead of
many. In the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul
represents Christ as dwelling in us no otherwise than by his
Spirit.[1256] By this representation, the apostle does not destroy that
communion of the body and blood of Christ of which we are now treating,
but teaches that it is solely owing to the agency of the Spirit that we
possess Christ with all his benefits, and have him dwelling within us.
XIII. Deterred by a horror of such barbarous impiety, the schoolmen have
expressed themselves in more modest language, yet they only trifle with
equal fallacy and greater subtlety. They admit that Christ is not
contained in the bread and wine in a local or corporeal manner; but they
afterwards invent a manner which they neither understand themselves nor
can explain to others; which, however, amounts to this, that Christ is
to be sought, as they express it, in the form of bread. When they say
that the substance of bread is transmuted into Christ, do they not
attach his substance to the whiteness, which they pretend is all that
remains of the bread? But, they say, he is so contained in the
sacrament, that he remains in heaven, and we maintain no other presence
than that of _habitude_. But whatever words they employ to gloss over
their notions, they all terminate in this, that, by the consecration,
that which was before bread becomes Christ, so that the substance of
Christ is concealed under the colour of bread. This they are not ashamed
to express in plain terms; for Lombard says, “That the body of Christ,
which is visible in itself, is hidden and concealed, after the
consecration, under the form of bread.” Thus the figure of the bread is
nothing but a veil, which prevents the flesh from being seen. Nor is
there any need of many conjectures, to discover what snares they
intended to lay in these words, which the thing itself plainly evinces.
For it is evident in what profound superstition not only the people in
general, but even the principal men, have now for several ages been
involved, and are involved, at the present day, in the Papal churches.
True faith, which is the sole medium of our union and communion with
Christ, being an object of little solicitude to them, provided they have
that carnal presence which they have fabricated without any authority
from the Divine word, they consider him as sufficiently present with
them. The consequence of this ingenious subtlety, therefore, we find to
be this, that bread has been taken for God.
XIV. Hence proceeded that pretended transubstantiation, for which they
now contend with more earnestness than for all the other articles of
their faith. For the first inventors of the local presence were unable
to explain how the body of Christ could be mixed with the substance of
the bread, without being immediately embarrassed by many absurdities.
Therefore they found it necessary to have recourse to this fiction, that
the bread is transmuted into the body of Christ; not that his body is
properly made of the bread, but that Christ annihilates the substance of
the bread, and conceals himself under its form. It is astonishing that
they could fall into such ignorance, and even stupidity, as to
promulgate such a monstrous notion, in direct opposition to the
Scripture and to the doctrine of the primitive Church. I confess,
indeed, that some of the ancient writers sometimes used the word
_conversion_, not with a view to destroy the substance of the external
signs, but to signify that the bread dedicated to that sacrament is
unlike common bread, and different from what it was before. But they all
constantly and expressly declare, that the sacred supper consists of two
parts, earthly and heavenly; and the earthly part they explain, without
the least hesitation, to be bread and wine. Whatever the Romanists may
pretend, it is very clear that the authority of the ancients, which they
frequently presume to oppose to the plain word of God, affords them no
assistance in the support of this dogma; and, indeed, it is
comparatively but of recent invention, for it was not only unknown to
those better times, when the doctrine of religion still flourished in
its purity, but even when that purity had already been much corrupted.
There is not one of the ancient writers who does not acknowledge in
express terms that the consecrated symbols of the supper are bread and
wine; though, as we have observed, they sometimes distinguish them with
various titles, to celebrate the dignity of the mystery. For when they
say, that a secret _conversion_ takes place in the consecration, so that
they are something different from bread and wine, I have already stated
their meaning to be, not that the bread and wine are annihilated, but
that they are to be considered in a different light from common
aliments, which are merely designed for the nourishment of the body;
because, in those elements, we are presented with the spiritual meat and
drink of the soul. In this we also coincide. But, say our opponents, if
there be a conversion, one thing must be changed into another. If they
mean that something is made what it was not before, I agree with them.
If they wish to apply this to their absurd notion, let them tell me what
change they think takes place in baptism. For in that also the fathers
state a wonderful conversion, when they say, that from the corruptible
element proceeds a spiritual ablution of the soul, yet not one of them
denies that it retains the substance of water. But there is no such
declaration, they say, respecting baptism as there is respecting the
supper: “This is my body.” As though the question related to those
words, which have a meaning obvious enough, and not rather to the
conversion or change spoken of, which ought to signify no more in the
supper than in baptism. Let them cease their verbal subtleties,
therefore, which only betray their own absurdity. Indeed, there would be
no consistency in the signification, if the external sign were not a
living image of the truth which is represented in it. By the external
sign, Christ intended to declare that his flesh is meat. If he were to
set before us a mere spectre of bread, and not real bread, where would
be the analogy or similitude, which ought to lead us from the visible
emblem to the invisible substance? For, to preserve the correspondence
complete, the signification would extend no further than that we should
be fed with an appearance of the flesh of Christ. As in baptism, if
there were nothing but an appearance of water to deceive our eyes, we
should have no certain pledge of our ablution; and such an illusive
representation we should find a source of painful uncertainty. The
nature of the sacrament, therefore, is subverted, unless the earthly
sign correspond in its signification to the heavenly substance; and,
consequently, we lose the truth of this mystery, unless the true body of
Christ be represented by real bread. I repeat it again; since the sacred
supper is nothing but a visible attestation of the promise, that Christ
is “the bread of life which cometh down from heaven,”[1257] it requires
the use of visible and material bread to represent that which is
spiritual; unless we are determined that the means which God kindly
affords to support our weakness shall be altogether unavailing to us.
With what reason could Paul conclude that “we, being many, are one
bread, for we are all partakers of that one bread,”[1258] if there were
nothing but a mere phantom of bread, and not the true and real substance
of it?
XV. They would never have been so shamefully deluded by the fallacies of
Satan, if they had not been previously fascinated with this error—that
the body of Christ contained in the bread was received in a corporeal
manner into the mouth, and actually swallowed. The cause of such a
stupid notion was, that they considered the consecration as a kind of
magical incantation. But they were unacquainted with this principle,
that the bread is a sacrament only to those to whom the word is
addressed; as the water of baptism is not changed in itself, but on the
annexation of the promise, begins to be to us that which it was not
before. This will be further elucidated by the example of a similar
sacrament. The water which flowed from the rock in the wilderness, was
to the fathers a token and sign of the same thing which is represented
to us by the wine in the sacred supper; for Paul says, “They did drink
the same spiritual drink.”[1259] But the same water served also for
their flocks and herds. Hence it is easily inferred, that when earthly
elements are applied to a spiritual use, no other change takes place in
them than with regard to _men_, to whom they become seals of the
promises. Besides, since the design of God is, as I have often repeated,
by suitable vehicles to elevate us to himself, this object is impiously
frustrated by the obstinacy of those who invite us to Christ indeed, but
invisibly concealed under the form of bread. It is not possible for the
human mind to overcome the immensity of local distance, and to penetrate
to Christ in the highest heavens. What nature denied them, they
attempted to correct by a remedy yet more pernicious, that while
remaining on the earth, they might attain a proximity to Christ without
any need of ascending to heaven. This is all the necessity which
constrained them to metamorphose the body of Christ. In the time of
Bernard, though a harsh mode of expression had been adopted, still
transubstantiation was yet unknown; and in all preceding ages it was a
common similitude, in the mouths of all, that in this sacrament the body
and blood of Christ were spiritually united with the bread and wine.
They argue respecting the terms, in their own apprehension, with great
acuteness, but without adducing any thing applicable to the present
subject. The rod of Moses, they say, though it took the form of a
serpent, still retained its original name, and was called a rod.[1260]
So they think it equally probable, that though the bread be changed into
another substance, yet it may by a catachresis, without any violation of
propriety, be denominated according to its visible appearance. But what
similitude or connection can they discover between that illustrious
miracle and their fictitious illusion, which no eye on earth witnesses?
The magicians had practised their sorceries, so that the Egyptians
believed them to possess a Divine power to effect changes in the
creatures above the order of nature. Moses confronted them, and
defeating all their enchantments, showed the invincible power of God to
be on his side; because his one rod swallowed up all the rest. But that
being a transmutation visible to the eye, makes nothing to the present
argument, as we have already observed; and the rod soon after visibly
returned to its original form. Moreover, it is not known whether that
was in reality a temporary transmutation of substance or not. The
allusion to the rods of the magicians deserves also to be observed; for
Moses says, that “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their _rods_:” he would not
call them serpents, lest he might appear to imply a transmutation which
did not exist; for those impostors had done nothing but dazzle the eyes
of the spectators. What resemblance has this to the following and other
similar expressions: “The bread which we break;”[1261] “As often as ye
eat this bread;”[1262] “They continued in breaking of bread?”[1263] It
is certain that their eyes were only deceived by the incantations of the
magicians. There is greater uncertainty with respect to Moses, by whose
hand it was no more difficult for God to make a rod into a serpent, and
afterwards to make the serpent into a rod again, than to invest angels
with material bodies, and soon after to disembody them again. If the
nature of this sacrament were the same, or bore any affinity to the case
we have mentioned, our opponents would have some colour for their
solution. We must, therefore, consider it as a fixed principle, that the
flesh of Christ is not truly promised to us for food in the sacred
supper, unless the true substance of the external symbol corresponds to
it. And as one error gives birth to another, a passage of Jeremiah is so
stupidly perverted, in order to prove transubstantiation, that I am
ashamed to recite it. The prophet complains that wood was put into his
bread;[1264] signifying that his enemies by their cruelty had taken away
all the relish of his food; as David in a similar figure utters the
following complaint: “They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my
thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”[1265] These disputants explain it
as an allegory, that the body of Christ was affixed to the wood of the
cross; and this, they say, was the opinion of some of the fathers. I
reply, we ought rather to pardon their ignorance, and bury their
disgrace in oblivion, than to add the effrontery of constraining them
continually to combat the genuine meaning of the prophet.
XVI. Others, who perceive it to be impossible to destroy the analogy of
the sign and the thing signified, without subverting the truth of the
mystery, acknowledge that the bread in the sacred supper is the true
substance of that earthly and corruptible element, and undergoes no
change in itself; but they maintain that it has the body of Christ
included under it. If they explained their meaning to be, that when the
bread is presented in the sacrament, it is attended with an exhibition
of the body of Christ, because the truth represented is inseparable from
its sign, I should make little objection; but as, by placing the body
itself in the bread, they attribute ubiquity to it, which is
incompatible with its nature, and by stating it to be _under the bread_,
represent it as lying concealed in it; it is necessary to unmask such
subtleties: not that it is my intention to enter on a professed
examination of the whole of this subject at present; I shall only lay
the foundations of the discussion, which will follow in its proper
place. They maintain the body of Christ, therefore, to be invisible and
infinite, that it may be concealed under the bread; because they suppose
it to be impossible for them to partake of him, any otherwise than by
his descending into the bread; but they know nothing of that descent of
which we have spoken, by which he elevates us to himself. They bring
forward every plausible pretext that they can; but when they have said
all, it is evident that they are contending for a local presence of
Christ. And what is the reason of it? It is because they cannot conceive
of any other participation of his flesh and blood, except what would
consist in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross enclosure.
XVII. And to defend with obstinacy the error which they have once
embraced, some of them hesitate not to affirm that the body of Christ
never had any other dimensions than the whole extent of heaven and
earth. His birth as an infant, his growth to maturity, his extension on
the cross, his incarceration in the sepulchre,—all this, they say, took
place in consequence of a kind of dispensation, that he might as a man
accomplish every thing necessary to our salvation. His appearance in the
same corporeal form after his resurrection, his ascension to heaven, his
subsequent appearances to Stephen and to Paul,—all this also resulted
from a similar dispensation, that he might manifest himself to the view
of man as appointed King in heaven. Now, what is this but to raise
Marcion from the dead? For if such were the condition of Christ’s body,
every one must perceive it to have been a mere phantom or visionary
form, without any real substance. Some plead, with a little more
subtlety, that the body of Christ, which is given in the sacrament, is
glorious and immortal, and that therefore it involves no absurdity, if
it be contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no place,
or without any form. But I ask what kind of body did Jesus Christ give
to his disciples, the night before he suffered? Do not the words imply,
that he gave them the same mortal body which was just about to be
betrayed? They reply, that he had already manifested his glory in the
eyes of three of his disciples, on the mount. That is true; but his
design was, in that splendour, to give them a transient glimpse of his
immortality. They will not find there a twofold body, but the very same
which Christ was accustomed to carry about with him, adorned with
unusual glory, from which it speedily returned to its natural condition.
When he distributed his body at the institution of the sacred supper,
the hour was approaching, in which, “stricken and smitten of God,” he
was to lie down like a leper “without form or comeliness:”[1266] he was
then far from intending to display the glory of his resurrection. What a
door does this open to the error of Marcion, if the body of Christ
appeared in one place mortal and mean, and in another was received as
immortal and glorious? On their principle, however, this happens every
day; for they are constrained to confess that the body of Christ is
visible in itself, while at the same time they say that it is invisibly
concealed under the symbol of bread. And yet the promulgators of such
monstrous absurdities are so far from being ashamed of their disgrace,
that they stigmatize us with unprovoked and enormous calumnies, because
we refuse to subscribe to them.
XVIII. If they are determined to fasten the body and blood of the Lord
to the bread and wine, one must of necessity be severed from the other.
For as the bread is presented separately from the cup, the body, being
united to the bread, must consequently be divided from the blood
contained in the cup. For when they affirm that the body is in the
bread, and the blood in the cup, while the bread and the wine are at
some distance from each other, no sophistry will enable them to evade
this conclusion—that the body is separated from the blood. Their usual
pretence, that the blood is in the body, and the body in the blood, by
what they call _concomitance_, is perfectly frivolous, while the symbols
in which they are contained are so divided. But if we elevate our views
and thoughts towards heaven, to seek Christ there in the glory of his
kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him entire, under the symbol of
bread we shall eat his body, under the symbol of wine we shall
distinctly drink his blood, so that we shall thus enjoy him entire. For
though he has removed his flesh from us, and in his body is ascended to
heaven, yet he sits at the Father’s right hand, that is, he reigns in
the power, and majesty, and glory of the Father. This kingdom is neither
limited to any local space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions; Christ
exerts his power wherever he pleases in heaven and earth, exhibits
himself present in his energetic influence, is constantly with his
people, inspiring his life into them, lives in them, sustains them,
strengthens and invigorates them, just as if he were corporeally
present; in short, he feeds them with his own body, of which he gives
them a participation by the influence of his Spirit. This is the way in
which the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.
XIX. It is necessary for us to establish such a presence of Christ in
the sacred supper, as neither, on the one hand, to fasten him to the
element of bread, or to enclose him in it, or in any way to circumscribe
him, which would derogate from his celestial glory; nor, on the other
hand, to deprive him of his corporeal dimensions, or to represent his
body as in different places at once, or to assign it an immensity
diffused through heaven and earth, which would be clearly inconsistent
with the reality of his human nature. Let us never suffer ourselves to
be driven from these two exceptions; that nothing be maintained
derogatory to Christ’s celestial glory; which is the case when he is
represented as brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or
fastened to any earthly objects; and that nothing be attributed to his
body incompatible with the human nature; which is the case when it is
represented as infinite, or is said to be in more places than one at the
same time. These absurdities being disclaimed, I readily admit whatever
may serve to express the true and substantial communication of the body
and blood of the Lord, which is given to believers under the sacred
symbols of the supper; and to express it in a manner implying not a mere
reception of it in the imagination or apprehension of their mind, but a
real enjoyment of it as the food of eternal life. Nor can any cause be
assigned, why this opinion is so odious to the world, and the minds of
multitudes are so unjustly prejudiced against any defence of it, but
that they have been awfully infatuated with the delusions of Satan. It
is certain that the doctrine we advance is in all respects in perfect
harmony with the Scriptures; it contains nothing absurd, ambiguous, or
obscure; it is not at all inimical to true piety, or solid edification;
in short, it includes nothing that can offend, except that for several
ages, while the ignorance and barbarism of the sophists prevailed over
the Church, this very clear light and obvious truth was shamefully
suppressed. Yet, as, in the present age also, Satan is making the most
powerful exertions to oppose it, and is employing turbulent spirits to
endeavour to blacken it by every possible calumny and reproach, it is
necessary to be the more diligent in asserting and defending it.
XX. Now, before we proceed any further, it is requisite to discuss the
institution itself; because the most plausible objection of our
adversaries is, that we depart from the words of Christ. To exonerate
ourselves from the false charge which they bring against us, it is
highly proper, therefore, to begin with an exposition of the words. The
account given by three of the evangelists, and by Paul, informs us, that
“Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and blessed it, and brake it, and
gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is
given or broken for you. And he took the cup, and said, This cup is my
blood of the new testament, or the new testament in my blood, which is
shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.”[1267] The
advocates of transubstantiation contend that the pronoun _this_ denotes
the appearance of the bread, because the consecration is made by the
whole of the sentence, and there is no visible substance, according to
them, which can be indicated by it. But if they are guided by a
scrupulous attention to the words, because Christ declared that which he
gave into the hands of his disciples to be his body, nothing can be more
at variance with a just interpretation of them, than the notion that
what before was bread had now become the body of Christ. For it was that
which Christ took into his hands to deliver to his disciples, that he
asserts to be his body; but he took “_bread_.” Who does not perceive,
then, that that to which this pronoun referred was bread still? and
therefore nothing would be more absurd than to transfer to a mere
appearance or visionary form that which was spoken of real bread.
Others, when they explain the word _is_ to denote transubstantiation,
have recourse to an interpretation still more violently perverted and
unnatural. They have not the least colour, therefore, for a pretence
that they are influenced by a scrupulous reverence for the words of
Christ. For to use the word _is_ to signify a transmutation into another
substance, is a thing never heard of, in any country or in any language.
Those who acknowledge the continuance of bread in the supper, and affirm
that it is accompanied with the real body of Christ, differ considerably
among themselves. Those of them who express themselves more modestly,
though they strenuously insist on the literal meaning of these words,
“_This is my body_,” yet afterwards depart from their literal precision,
and explain them to import that the body of Christ is with the bread, in
the bread, and under the bread. Of the opinion maintained by them, we
have already spoken, and shall soon have occasion to take further
notice; at present I am only arguing respecting the words, by which they
consider themselves bound, so that they cannot admit the bread to be
called _his body_, because it is a sign of it. But if they object to
every trope, and insist on taking the words in a sense strictly literal,
why do they forsake the language of Christ, and adopt a phraseology of
their own so very dissimilar? For there is a wide difference between
these two assertions, that “the bread is the body,” and that “the body
is with the bread.” But because they perceived the impossibility of
supporting this simple proposition, “that the bread is the body,” they
have endeavoured to escape from their embarrassment by those evasions.
Others, more daring, hesitate not to assert, that, in strict propriety
of speech, the bread _is_ the body; and thereby prove themselves to be
advocates for a truly literal interpretation. If it be objected, that
then the bread is Christ, and Christ is God, they will deny this,
because it is not expressed in the words of Christ. But they will gain
nothing by their denial of it, for it is universally admitted that the
whole person of Christ is offered to us in the sacrament. Now, it would
be intolerable blasphemy to affirm of a frail and corruptible element,
without any figure, that it is Christ. I ask them whether these two
propositions are equivalent to each other—_Christ is the Son of God_,
and _Bread is the body of Christ_. If they confess them to be
different,—a confession which, if they hesitated, it would be easy to
extort from them,—let them say wherein the difference consists. I
suppose they will adduce no other point of difference, than that the
bread is called _the body_ in a sacramental sense. Whence it follows,
that the words of Christ are not subject to any common rule, and ought
not to be examined on the principles of grammar. I would likewise
inquire of the inflexible champions of a literal interpretation, whether
the words attributed to Christ, by Luke and Paul, “This cup _is_ the new
testament in my blood,” do not express the same idea as the former
clause, in which the bread is called his body. Surely the same reverence
ought to be shown to one part of the sacrament as to the other; and
because brevity is obscure, the sense is elucidated by a fuller
statement. Whenever, therefore, they shall argue, from that one word,
that the bread is the body of Christ, I shall adduce the interpretation
furnished by the fuller account, that it is the _testament_ in his body.
For shall we seek for an expositor of greater fidelity or accuracy than
Paul and Luke? Nor is it my design to diminish in the smallest degree
that participation of the body of Christ, which I have acknowledged is
enjoyed; my only object is, to silence that foolish obstinacy which
displays itself in violent contentions about words. From the authority
of Paul and Luke, I understand the bread to be the body of Christ,
because it is the covenant in his body. If they resist this, their
contention is not with me, but with the Spirit of God. Notwithstanding
they profess to be influenced by such reverence for the words of Christ,
that they dare not understand an explicit declaration of his in a
figurative sense, yet this pretext is not sufficient to justify their
pertinacious rejection of all the reasons which we allege to the
contrary. At the same time, as I have already suggested, it is necessary
to understand what is meant by “the testament in the body and blood of
Christ;” because we should derive no benefit from the covenant ratified
by the sacrifice of his death, if it were not followed by that secret
communication by which we become one with him.
XXI. It remains for us, therefore, to acknowledge that, on account of
the affinity which the things signified have with their symbols, the
name of the substance has been given to the sign, in a figurative sense
indeed, but by a most apt analogy. I forbear to introduce any thing of
allegories and parables, lest any one should accuse me of having
recourse to subterfuges, and travelling out of the present subject. I
observe that this is a metonymical form of expression, which is commonly
used in the Scripture in reference to sacraments. For in no other sense
is it possible to understand such passages as these; when of
circumcision it is said, “This is my covenant;”[1268] of the paschal
lamb, “It is the Lord’s passover;”[1269] of the legal sacrifices, that
they were expiations, or atonements;[1270] of the rock, from which the
water issued in the desert, “That Rock was Christ.”[1271] And not only
is the name of something superior transferred to that which is inferior,
but, on the contrary, the name of the visible sign is likewise given to
the thing signified; as when God is said to have appeared to Moses in
the bush,[1272] when the ark of the covenant is called God,[1273] and
the Holy Spirit, a dove.[1274] For, though there is an essential
difference between the symbol and the thing signified, the former being
corporeal, terrestrial, and visible, and the latter spiritual,
celestial, and invisible, yet, as the symbol is not a vain and useless
memorial, a mere adumbration of the thing which it has been consecrated
to represent, but also a true and real exhibition of it, why may not the
name of that which it signifies be justly applied to it? If symbols
invented by man, which are rather emblems of things absent, than tokens
of things present, of which also they very frequently give a delusive
representation, are, nevertheless, sometimes distinguished by the names
of the things which they signify, there is far greater reason why the
symbols instituted by God should borrow the names of those things of
which they always exhibit a correct and faithful representation, and by
the truth of which they are always accompanied. So great, therefore, is
the similitude and affinity of the one to the other, that there is
nothing at all unnatural in such a mutual interchange of appellations.
Let our adversaries cease, then, to assail us with their ridiculous wit,
by calling us Tropologists, because we explain the sacramental
phraseology according to the common usage of the Scripture. For as there
is a great similarity in many respects between the various sacraments,
so this metonymical transfer of names is common to them all. As the
apostle, therefore, states, that “the Rock” from which flowed “spiritual
drink” for the Israelites, “was Christ,”[1275] because it was a visible
symbol, under which “that spiritual drink” was received, though not in a
manner discernible by the corporeal eye, so bread is now called the body
of Christ, because it is the symbol under which the Lord truly offers us
his body to eat. And that no one may despise this as a novel sentiment,
we shall show that the same was entertained by Augustine. He says, “If
the sacraments had not some similitude to those things of which they are
sacraments, they would be no sacraments at all. On account of this
similitude, they frequently take the names even of the things which they
represent. Therefore, as the sacrament of the body of Christ is in some
sense that body itself, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is
that blood itself, so the sacrament of faith is called faith.” His works
contain many similar passages, which it would be useless to collect, as
this one is sufficient; only the reader ought to be apprized that this
holy father repeats and confirms the same observation in an epistle to
Euodius. It is a frivolous subterfuge to plead, that when Augustine
speaks of metonymical expressions, as frequently and commonly used
respecting the sacraments, he makes no mention of the Lord’s supper;
for, if this were admitted, we could no longer reason from the genus to
the species, or from the whole to a part; it would not be a good
argument to say, that every animal is endued with the power of motion,
therefore oxen and horses are endued with the power of motion. All
further dispute on this point, however, is precluded by the language of
the same writer on another occasion—“that Christ did not hesitate to
call it his body, when he gave it as the sign of his body.” Again: “It
was wonderful patience in Christ, to admit Judas to the feast, in which
he instituted and gave to his disciples the emblem of his body and of
his blood.”
XXII. But if some obstinate man, shutting his eyes against every other
consideration, should insist on this single expression, “_This is_ my
body,” as though it made a distinction between the supper and all other
sacraments, the answer is easy. They allege that the verb substantive is
too emphatical to admit of any figure. If we grant this, the verb
substantive is also used by Paul, where he says, “The bread which we
break, _is_ it not the _communion_ of the body of Christ?”[1276] But the
communion of the body is something different from the body itself. In
almost all cases of sacraments, we find the same word used—“This _is_ my
covenant.” “It _is_ the Lord’s passover.”[1277] And to mention no more,
when Paul says, “That Rock _was_ Christ,”[1278] why do they consider the
verb substantive less emphatical in that passage than in the speech of
Christ? Let them also explain the force of the verb substantive in that
place where John says, “The Holy Ghost _was_ not yet, because that Jesus
was not yet glorified.”[1279] For if they obstinately adhere to their
rule, they will destroy the eternal existence of the Spirit, as if it
commenced at the ascension of Christ. Let them answer, in the last
place, what is the meaning of Paul, when he calls baptism “the washing
of regeneration, and renewing,”[1280] though it is evidently useless to
many. But nothing is more conclusive against them than that passage
where Paul says, that the Church is Christ. For having drawn a
similitude from the human body, he adds, “So also is Christ;”[1281] by
which he means not the only begotten Son of God, in himself, but in his
members. I think I have so far succeeded, that all men of sense and
integrity must be disgusted with the foul calumnies of our adversaries,
when they charge us with giving no credit to the words of Christ, which
we receive with as much submission as themselves, and consider with
greater reverence. Indeed, their supine negligence is a proof that it is
a subject of little concern to them, what was the will or meaning of
Christ, provided they can use him as a shield to defend their obstinacy;
as our diligence in inquiring into Christ’s true meaning is a sufficient
proof of our high regard to his authority. They maliciously represent,
that human reason prevents us from believing what Christ himself has
declared with his sacred mouth; but how unjustly they stigmatize us with
this reproach, I have explained, in a great measure, already, and shall
presently make still more evident. Nothing prevents us, therefore, from
believing Christ when he speaks, and immediately acquiescing in every
word he utters. The only question is, whether it be criminal to inquire
into his genuine meaning.
XXIII. To show themselves men of letters, these good doctors prohibit
even the least departure from the literal signification. I reply, When
the Scripture calls God “a man of war,” because this language would be
too harsh, unless it be explained in a figurative sense, I hesitate not
to consider it as a comparison borrowed from men. And indeed it was upon
no other pretext that the ancient Anthropomorphites molested the
orthodox fathers, than by laying hold of such expressions as these: “The
eyes of the Lord behold; It entereth into the ears of the Lord; His hand
is stretched out; The earth is his footstool;” and accusing them of
depriving God of his body, which the Scripture ascribes to him. If this
canon of interpretation be admitted, all the light of faith will be
overwhelmed in the crudest barbarism. For what monstrous absurdities
will not fanatics be able to elicit from the Scripture, if they are
permitted to allege every detached and ill-understood word and syllable
in confirmation of their notions? The objection which they urge, from
the improbability that Christ, when he was preparing peculiar
consolation for his disciples in seasons of adversity, should express
himself in enigmatical or obscure language, is completely in our favour.
For if it had not been understood by the apostles, that the bread was
called his body in a figurative sense, because it was a symbol of his
body, they would undoubtedly have been disturbed about so monstrous a
declaration. Almost at the same moment, John states that they were
embarrassed and perplexed with every minute difficulty. They who debated
among themselves how Christ was to go to the Father, and were at a loss
to know how he would depart from this world; who could understand
nothing that was said of a heavenly Father, because they had not seen
him; how could they have been so ready to believe any thing so entirely
repugnant to every dictate of reason, as that Christ was sitting at the
table before their eyes, and yet was invisibly enclosed in the bread? By
eating the bread without any hesitation, they testified their consent,
and hence it appears that they understood the words of Christ in the
same sense that we do, considering that it is common in all sacraments
for the name of the sign to be transferred to the thing signified. To
the disciples, therefore, it was, as it is to us, a certain and clear
consolation, involved in no enigma; nor is there any other cause to be
assigned why some reject our interpretation, except that the devil has
blinded them by his delusions, in consequence of which they imagine
enigmatical obscurities, where a beautiful figure furnishes such an
obvious and natural meaning. Besides, if we rigidly adhere to the
letter, what Christ said of the bread would be inconsistent with what he
said of the cup. He calls the bread _his body_, he calls the wine _his
blood_: either this must be a vain repetition, or a distinction which
separates the body from the blood. It might be said of the cup, This is
my body, as truly as of the bread; and the converse of this proposition
would be equally correct, that the bread is his blood. If they reply,
that we ought to consider for what end or use the symbols were
instituted,—this I acknowledge; but it is impossible to free their error
from this absurd consequence, that the bread is the blood, and the wine
the body. Now I am at a loss how to understand them, when they admit the
bread and the body to be different things, and yet assert that the bread
is properly and without any figure called the body; as if any one should
say that a garment is different from a man, and yet that it is properly
called a man. At the same time, as if their victory consisted in
obstinacy and calumny, they charge us with accusing Christ of falsehood,
if we inquire into the true meaning of his words. Now it will be easy
for the readers to judge how unjustly we are treated by these
syllable-hunters, when they persuade the simple to believe that we
derogate from the authority due to the words of Christ, which we have
proved to be outrageously perverted and confounded by them, but to be
faithfully and accurately explained by us.
XXIV. But the infamy of this falsehood cannot be entirely effaced,
without repelling another calumny; for they accuse us of being so
devoted to human reason, as to limit the power of God by the order of
nature, and to allow him no more than our own understanding teaches us
to ascribe to him. Against such iniquitous aspersions I appeal to the
doctrine which I have maintained; which will sufficiently evince that I
am far from measuring this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or
subjecting it to the laws of nature. Is it from natural philosophy that
we have learned that Christ feeds our souls with his flesh from heaven,
just as our bodies are nourished with bread and wine? Whence is it that
flesh has the power of giving life to our souls? Every one will
pronounce it not to be from nature. No more will it accord with human
reason that the flesh of Christ descends to us to become nourishment to
us. In short, whoever shall understand our doctrine, will be enraptured
with admiration of the secret power of God. But these good zealots
contrive a miracle, without which God himself, with all his power,
disappears from their view. I would again request of my readers a
diligent consideration of the nature and tendency of our doctrine,
whether it depends on human reason, or on the wings of faith rises above
the world and ascends to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us both
by the external symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly vivify our
souls with the substance of his flesh and blood. He who perceives not
that many miracles are comprehended in these few words, is more than
stupid; for there is nothing more preternatural than for souls to derive
spiritual and heavenly life from the flesh, which had its origin from
the earth, and was subject to death; nothing is more incredible than for
things separated from each other by all the distance of heaven and
earth, notwithstanding that immense local distance, to be not only
connected, but united, so that our souls receive nourishment from the
flesh of Christ. Let these fanatics, then, no longer attempt to render
us odious by such a foul calumny, as though we, in any respect, limited
the infinite power of God; which is either a most stupid mistake, or an
impudent falsehood. For the question here respects not what God could
do, but what he has chosen to do. We affirm that what pleased him, came
to pass. It pleased him for Christ to become in all respects like his
brethren, sin excepted.[1282] What is the nature of our body? Has it not
its proper and certain dimensions? is it not contained in some
particular place, and capable of being felt and seen? And why, say they,
may not God cause the same flesh to occupy many different places, to be
contained in no particular place, and to have no form or dimensions? But
how can they be so senseless as to require the power of God to cause a
body to be a body, and not to be a body, at the same time? It is like
demanding of him to cause light to be at once both light and darkness.
But he wills light to be light, darkness to be darkness, and flesh to be
flesh. Whenever it shall be his pleasure, indeed, he will turn darkness
into light, and light into darkness; but to require that light and
darkness shall no longer be different, is to aim at perverting the order
of Divine wisdom. Therefore body must be body, spirit must be spirit,
every thing must be subject to that law, and retain that condition,
which was fixed by God at its creation. And the condition of a body is
such, that it must occupy one particular place, and have its proper form
and dimensions. In this condition did Christ assume a body, to which, as
Augustine observes, “he gave incorruption and glory, but without
depriving it of its nature and reality.” The testimony of the Scripture
is clear—that he ascended to heaven, whence he will come again, in like
manner as he was seen to ascend.[1283]
XXV. They reply, that they have the word in which the will of God is
clearly revealed; that is, if they be allowed to banish from the Church
the gift of interpretation which elucidates the word. I confess that
they have the word and quote the letter of Scripture; but just as did
the Anthropomorphites in past ages, who represented God to be corporeal;
just as did Marcion and the Manichæans, who attributed to Christ a
celestial or visionary body. For they quoted these texts: “The first man
is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”[1284]
“Christ made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of man.”[1285] These groveling
souls imagine that God can have no power, unless the whole order of
nature be reversed by the monster which they have fabricated in their
own brains; but this is an attempt to circumscribe God, and to measure
his power by the fancies of men. For from what word have they learned
that the body of Christ is visible in heaven, and yet is on earth,
concealed in an invisible manner under innumerable pieces of bread? They
will say that necessity requires this, in order to the body of Christ
being given in the supper. The truth is, that when they had determined
to conclude, from the language of Christ, that his body was eaten in a
carnal manner, carried away with this prejudice, they found it necessary
to invent that subtlety, which the whole tenor of the Scripture
contradicts. That we derogate any thing from the power of God, is so far
from being true, that our doctrine peculiarly tends to magnify it. But
as they never cease to accuse us of defrauding God of his due honour, by
a rejection of every thing which natural reason finds it difficult to
believe, though promised by the mouth of Christ himself, I repeat the
answer which I have lately given, that we consult not natural reason
respecting the mysteries of faith, but that, with the placid docility
and gentleness of spirit recommended by James,[1286] we receive the
doctrine which comes down from heaven. Yet, in a point in which they run
into a pernicious error, I admit that we pursue a useful moderation. On
hearing the words of Christ, “This is my body,” they imagine a miracle
the most distant from his intention. This notion gives birth to
prodigious absurdities; but, having already embarrassed themselves by
their foolish precipitation, they plunge themselves into the abyss of
the Divine omnipotence, in order to extinguish the light of truth. Hence
the haughty presumption, with which they profess to have no wish to know
how Christ is concealed under the bread, being content with that
declaration, “This is my body.” We, on the contrary, with equal
obedience and care, endeavour to ascertain the true meaning of this
passage, as we do of all others; nor do we, with preposterous eagerness,
temerity, and indiscretion, seize the first thought which presents
itself to our minds, but after diligent meditation we embrace that sense
which the Spirit of God suggests; established in which, we look down
with contempt on every opposition made to it by the wisdom of this
world; we even impose restraints on our own minds, that they may not
dare to utter a word of cavil, and keep them humble to prevent their
murmuring against the authority of God. Hence has proceeded that
exposition of the words of Christ, which all, who are but moderately
versed in the Scripture, know to be agreeable to its invariable usage
respecting sacraments. Nor do we esteem it unlawful, in a difficult
case, after the example of the holy virgin, to inquire how it can
be.[1287]
XXVI. But as nothing will be more effectual to confirm the faith of true
believers, than a knowledge that the doctrine which we have advanced is
drawn from the pure word of God, and rests upon its authority, I will
demonstrate this with all possible brevity. It is not from Aristotle,
but from the Holy Spirit, that we have learned that the body of Christ,
since its resurrection, is limited, and received into heaven till the
last day. I am fully aware that our adversaries contemptuously elude the
passages which are adduced for this purpose.[1288] Whenever Christ
speaks of his approaching departure from the world, they reply that this
departure was nothing more than a change of his mortal state. But if
this were correct, Christ would not substitute the Holy Spirit to supply
the defect of his absence, as they express it, since the Spirit does not
succeed to his place, nor does Christ himself descend again from the
glory of heaven to assume the condition of this mortal life. The advent
of the Spirit, and the ascension of Christ, are clearly opposed to each
other; and, therefore, it is impossible for Christ to dwell with us,
according to his flesh, in the same manner in which he sends his Spirit.
Besides, he expressly declares that he shall not always be with his
disciples in the world.[1289] This declaration also they think they have
completely explained away, by saying that Christ merely intended that he
should not always be poor and mean, and exposed to the necessities of
this transitory life. But they are evidently contradicted by the
context, which relates, not to his poverty, or indigence, or any of the
miseries of this life, but to his reception of respect and honour. The
unction performed by the woman displeased the disciples, because they
thought it an unnecessary and useless expense, bordering on luxury; and,
therefore, they wished that the value of the ointment, which they
considered as improperly lavished, had been distributed to the poor.
Christ said, that he should not always be present to receive such
honour. Augustine has given the same explanation of this passage, in the
following explicit language:—“When Christ said, Me ye have not always
with you, he spoke of the presence of his body. For according to his
majesty, his providence, and his ineffable and invisible grace, is
accomplished what he said on another occasion—Lo, I am with you always,
even to the end of the world; but, with respect to the body, which the
Word assumed, which was born of the virgin, which was apprehended by the
Jews, which was affixed to the tree, which was taken down from the
cross, which was wrapped in linen clothes, which was laid in the
sepulchre, which was manifested at the resurrection, this declaration is
fulfilled—Me ye have not always with you. Why? Because in his corporeal
presence he conversed with his disciples for forty days, and while they
were attending him, seen, but not followed by them, he ascended to
heaven. He is not here; for he sits at the right hand of the Father: and
yet he is here; for he has not withdrawn the presence of his majesty:
otherwise, according to the presence of his majesty, we have Christ
always with us; but, with respect to his corporeal presence, he said
with truth, Me ye have not always with you. For the Church had his
bodily presence for a few days; now it retains him by faith, but does
not behold him with corporeal eyes.” Here let us briefly remark, this
father represents Christ as present with us in three respects—in his
majesty, his providence, and his ineffable grace; under the last of
which I comprehend the wonderful communion of his body and blood; only
we must understand this to be effected by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and not by a fictitious enclosure of his body under the bread. For our
Lord has declared that he has flesh and bones, capable of being felt and
seen; and _to go away_ and _to ascend_ import not a mere appearance of
ascent and departure, but an actual performance of that which the words
express. Shall we, then, it will be said by some, assign to Christ a
particular district of heaven? I reply, with Augustine, that this
question is too curious, and altogether unnecessary; provided we believe
that he is in heaven, that is enough.
XXVII. Does not the term _ascension_, which is so frequently repeated,
signify a removal from one place to another? This they deny, because
they consider his exaltation as only denoting the majesty of his empire.
But I ask, What was the manner of his ascent? Was he not carried up on
high in the view of his disciples? Do not the evangelists expressly
state that he was received up into heaven?[1290] These acute sophists
reply that he was concealed from their sight by an interposing cloud, to
teach believers that thenceforward he would not be visible in the world.
As though, to produce a belief of his invisible presence, he ought not
rather to have vanished in a moment, or to have been enveloped in the
cloud without moving from where he stood. But as he was carried up into
the air, and, by the interposition of a cloud between him and his
disciples, showed that he was no longer to be sought for on earth, we
confidently conclude that his residence is now in heaven. This also is
affirmed by Paul, who teaches us to expect him from thence.[1291] For
this reason the angels admonished the disciples—“Why stand ye gazing up
into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”[1292]
Here also the adversaries of sound doctrine have recourse to what they
think an ingenious evasion—that he will then become visible who has
never departed from the world, but remained invisible with his people.
As though the angels, in that address, insinuated a twofold presence,
and did not simply make the disciples ocular witnesses of his ascension,
with a view to preclude every doubt; just as if they had said, Received
up into heaven in your sight, he has taken possession of the celestial
empire; it remains for you to wait with patience till he shall come
again as the judge of the world; for he is now entered into heaven, not
to occupy it alone, but to assemble you and all the godly to enjoy it
with him.
XXVIII. As the advocates of this spurious doctrine are not ashamed to
defend it by the suffrages of the fathers, and particularly of
Augustine, I will briefly expose the disingenuousness of this attempt.
Their testimonies having been collected by learned and pious writers, I
have no inclination to go over the same ground; any one who wishes may
consult their writings. Nor even from Augustine shall I adduce every
passage which would serve the argument; but shall content myself with
showing, by a few extracts, that he is, beyond all doubt, perfectly in
harmony with us. In order to deprive us of him, our adversaries allege
that, in various parts of his works, he states the flesh and blood of
Christ, even the victim once offered on the cross, to be dispensed in
the sacred supper; but this is altogether frivolous; since he also calls
the consecrated symbols either “the eucharist,” or “the sacrament of
Christ’s body and blood.” But in what sense he uses the words _flesh_
and _blood_, it is unnecessary to make any long or circuitous inquiry;
for he explains himself by saying, “that sacraments take their names
from the similitude of those things which they signify, and, therefore,
in some sense, the sacrament of the body is _the body_.” With this
corresponds another well known passage: “The Lord hesitated not to say,
This is my body, when he delivered the sign of it.” They object again,
that Augustine expressly says, that the body of Christ falls to the
earth, and enters into the mouth. I reply, that he says this in the same
sense in which he affirms it to be consumed; because he connects both
these things together. Nor does any objection arise from his saying,
that when the mystery is finished, the bread is consumed; because he had
just before said, “As these things are known to man, being done by man,
they may have honour as holy things, but not as miracles.” And to the
same effect is another expression, which our adversaries, without
sufficient consideration, represent as in their favour; that, “when
Christ presented the mystical bread to his disciples, he, in a certain
sense, held himself in his own hands.” For, by introducing this
qualifying phrase _in a certain sense_, he sufficiently declares that
the body of Christ was not truly or really enclosed in the bread. Nor
ought this to be thought strange, for in another place he expressly
maintains, “That if bodies be deprived of their local spaces, they will
be nowhere, and consequently will cease to have any existence.” It is a
poor cavil, to say that this passage does not relate to the sacred
supper, in which God exerts a special power; because the question had
been agitated respecting the body of Christ, and this holy father,
professedly answering it, says, “Christ has given immortality to his
body, but has not deprived it of its nature. In a corporeal form,
therefore, he is not to be considered as universally diffused; for we
must beware of asserting his Divinity in such a way as to destroy the
truth of his body. It does not follow, that, because God is every where,
all that is in him is every where also.” The reason is immediately
added—“For one person is God and man, and both constitute one Christ; as
God, he is every where; as man, he is in heaven.” What stupidity would
it have betrayed not to except the mystery of the supper, a thing so
serious and important, if it contained any thing inconsistent with the
doctrine he was maintaining! Yet, if any one will attentively read what
follows, he will find, that under that general doctrine, the Lord’s
supper is also comprehended. He says, that Christ, who is, in one
person, the only begotten Son of God and the Son of man, is every where
present as God; that, as God, he resides in the temple of God, that is,
in the Church; and yet that he occupies some particular place in heaven,
according to the dimensions of a real body. To unite Christ with his
Church, we see he does not bring down his body from heaven; which he
certainly would have done, if that body could not become our food
without being enclosed under the bread. In another place, describing how
Christ is now possessed by believers, he says, “You have him by the sign
of the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the food and drink of the
altar.” Whether he is correct in placing a superstitious ceremony among
the symbols of Christ’s presence, I am not now discussing; but in
comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he
sufficiently shows that he does not imagine Christ to have two bodies,
one visibly seated in heaven, and the other invisibly concealed under
the bread. If any further explication be necessary, it is soon after
added, “That we always have Christ, according to the presence of his
majesty; but that, according to the presence of his flesh, it is rightly
said, Me ye have not always.” Our adversaries reply, that it is also
observed, at the same time, “that according to his ineffable and
invisible grace, his declaration is fulfilled—Lo, I am with you always,
even to the end of the world.” But this is nothing in their favour,
because, after all, it is restricted to that majesty which is always
opposed to the body, and his flesh is expressly distinguished from his
power and grace. In another passage of this author, we find the same
antithesis, or contrast, “that Christ left his disciples in his
corporeal presence, that he might be with them by his spiritual
presence;” which clearly distinguishes the substance of the flesh from
the power of the Spirit, which conjoins us with Christ, notwithstanding
we are widely separated from him by local distance. He frequently uses
the same mode of expression, as when he says, “Christ will come again,
in his corporeal presence, to judge the living and the dead, according
to the rule of faith and sound doctrine. For in his spiritual presence,
he was to come to his disciples, and to be with his whole Church on
earth, to the end of time. This discourse, therefore, was addressed to
the believers, whom he had already begun to keep with his corporeal
presence, and whom he was about to leave by his corporeal absence, that
with the Father he might keep them by his spiritual presence.” To
explain _corporeal_ to mean _visible_, is mere trifling; for he opposes
the body of Christ to his Divine power; and by adding, “that _with the
Father he might keep them_,” clearly expresses that the Saviour
communicates his grace to us from heaven by the Holy Spirit.