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