Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
CHAPTER XVII.05
The Lord’S Supper And Its Advantages - Reading 05
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] [1258]