Per Caritatem

Though I am still working through a good deal of Calvin, Vermigli, and others on the subject of the Eucharist and want to (re)emphasize that my thinking on this topic is still very much in progress, the following seem to me important additions to add to the on-going discussion of a Reformed view of the Eucharist. According to Vermigli (and it is understood by many scholars that Vermigli and Calvin were more or less in unison regarding their views of the Eucharist), Christ’s true flesh is given in the Supper,[1] but it must be received by faith and eaten (as Calvin claims) spiritually—a reference to the mode of our receiving. Yet, with his flesh Christ also gives a symbol (e.g., the bread) in which there is no substantial change. Some claim that such a position ipso facto severely diminishes our need for Christ’s humanity in the present life and is practically equivalent to affirming that Christ hung on the Cross only spiritually. Yet, it is entirely unclear to me how this follows unless perhaps one assumes the truth of transubstantiation. In fact, similar accusations were charged against Vermigli who in no way denies the reality of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross and even affirms that Christ’s “body is eaten by the communicants, yet not in the same way that it hangs or is crucified” (emphasis added; The Oxford Treatise and Disputation On the Eucharist, 1549, p. 267) [2]. Vermigli goes on to say that “a sacrament is something heavenly that nature did not form, but through consecration comes to the bread, yet not so as to throw its own substance away” (Ibid., p. 273). In other words, Vermigli claims that the nature of the symbols (bread/wine) need not be transubstantiated in order for Christ’s true substance to be present. The latter, viz., Christ’s true substance, is present in the Supper and is conjoined to the symbols. Vermigli clarifies further, stating that the elements are indeed, as it were, altered, but the change is not in terms of species understood as accidents of the bread and wine, for the senses show that these do not change. Rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ’s substance is brought into a sacramental relation with the symbols. As Vermigli explains, “while this holy rite is proceeding, a sacramental dimension [ratio] is brought to the symbols through the institutions of the words of the Lord. That relation of signifying both the mystical body and Christ’s body itself is grounded not in the accidents of bread and wine but in their natures, through the coming of the Holy Spirit, who uses them as instruments” (Ibid. , p. 274). In other to avoid an equivocation, Vermigli makes the following distinction, if change is understood according to substance such that the substance itself must perish or be converted into some other substance, then he denies such a change. However, if one understands “that the substance is changed in a way that receives another quality and condition than it had before,” then he grants that it has changed (Ibid. , p. 274). So after the words of consecration, the elements obtain another quality and “a greater dignity, namely, a sacramental state, which they did not have before” via the power of the Holy Spirit (Ibid. , p. 275). In short, Vermigli (and Calvin) do not deny the presence of the body (and blood) of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but rather their dispute is with the mode of presence in which we receive the body and blood of Christ. Vermigli and Calvin hold that we receive Christ’s body and blood sacramentally through an effectual or sacramental signification by faith, and we receive the symbols of these realities via the senses. Accordingly, the body of Christ is present through sacramental signification. One might counter that if one claims that the same body is given which Christ offered on the cross, then it must follow (in the very same way) that Christ is truly and substantially in the sacrament. However, Vermigli rejects this argument and claims that one would be guilty of turning quid (“what”) into quale (“how”) [Ibid., p. 281]. Vermigli thus affirms that it is the same flesh given in the Supper, but here it is received through the instrument of faith. Hence, an unbeliever would not receive Christ’s body, because he lacks the instrument, viz., the gift of faith, by which the body of Christ is received.

Neither Calvin nor Vermigli see themselves as pure innovators in their understanding of the Eucharist and regularly cite the Church Fathers for support of their position. Part II will discuss an important passage by St. Augustine found in De Trinitate III.4.10 to which Vermigli appealed in his disputation on the Eucharist.

Notes
[1] See e.g. Calvin’s Institutes IV.17.7, where he writes, “I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth.” Calvin goes on to describe the intimate nature of our relationship with Christ via union and participation in the Eucharist. “But ever since that fountain of life began to dwell in our nature, he no longer lies hid at a distance from us, but exhibits himself openly for our participation. Nay, the very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality. ‘I,’ says he, ‘am that bread of life;’ ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven;’ ‘And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world’ (John 6:48, 51). By these words he declares, not only that he is life, inasmuch as he is the eternal Word of God who came down to us from heaven, but, by coming down, gave vigour to the flesh which he assumed, that a communication of life to us might thence emanate. Hence, too, he adds, that his flesh is meat indeed, and that his blood is drink indeed: by this food believers are reared to eternal life. The pious, therefore, have admirable comfort in this, that they now find life in their own flesh.” Hence, for Calvin, Vermigli and we might add Bucer, Bullinger and others of the Reformed tradition, our participation in the humanity of Christ is not something that simply has to do with a future salvation. Rather, the nourishment and life that we receive from our participation in Christ’s body in the Eucharist is a present and on-going grace gift.

[2] As cited in Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Oxford Treatise and Disputation On the Eucharist. Trans. and ed. by Joseph C. McLelland. Kirksville, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 2000.