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