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