Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
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.
