Q78. Are the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ?

The Catechism, in the answer to this Question, rejects the doctrine of transubstantiation advocated by the Papists, and also the doctrine of consubstantiation defended by the Ubiquitarians and others, and explains the language which is here used together with the true sense of the words of Christ, "This is my body". In our exposition of this question we shall consider, in the first place, the form of speech here used, and the true sense of the words of Christ, and then notice the controversies in regard to this subject. And here we must refer to this sacrament, what was said when speaking of sacramental phrases in general. It is in this way that Augustin makes an application of the general rule of sacramental phrases to the particular instance of eating the flesh of Christ when he says, ""The only way by which we can determine whether a Scriptural phrase is to be taken in a proper, or figurative sense, is to see if it can properly be referred to some moral duty, or be made to harmonise with the true faith, and if this cannot be done, then we may know that it is spoken figuratively."" And then a little further on he produces this example: ""Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye have no life in you. Here Christ seems to enjoin a shameful crime. Hence it must be understood figuratively, as teaching us, that we must partake of the passion of our Lord, and joyfully and profitably call to mind, that his flesh was wounded and pierced for us."" As the Scriptures sometimes speak of baptism properly, and at other times figuratively, as we demonstrated when speaking of baptism, so they speak in like manner of the Lord's supper. It is, for instance, a figurative mode of speech when Christ says, of the bread, "This is my body"; and of the cup, "This is my blood": and when Paul says, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood". For in all these instances the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign by a sacramental metonymy. It is in the same way that we must understand Paul, when he says, "This is my body which is broken for you", because he attributes the property of the sign (which is to be broken) to the thing signified. It is in the same way that Cyprian says: ""When we drink of the cup we hang to the cross, we suck the blood, and place our tongues in the very wounds of our Redeemer."" It is in the same way that we must understand Chrysostom, when he says: ""The blood of Christ is in the cup; the body of Christ which is in heaven is placed on earth to our view; nor is it only seen; but it is touched; nor is it only touched, but eaten; it is held, and eaten by us, as a token of love, as we sometimes fondle those whom we love,"" &c. These declarations are all to be understood as spoken figuratively of the body of Christ.

These are proper forms of speech, when Christ says, "This do in remembrance of me": and when the Fathers every where in their writings say, "The breaking of the bread is a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ: The bread signifies the body of Christ: It is a figure, a sign, a sacrament of the body of Christ."

Of The Controversy Respecting The Words Of The Institution Of The Holy Supper.