illud Evangelii Quincunque dixerit c. For how could his Body suffice for so many to eat of that it should become nourishment for the whole World It is says he for this reason that he mentioned the Son of Man's ascending into Heaven that he might draw them off from the Corporeal Notion Which Testimony as it manifestly shewed his Judgment to be that our Saviour did not require the proper eating of his Natural Body so it contains a very probable Argument that he did not understand those Words of eating his Sacramental Body For if he had so understood them it had been very accountable that the Body of Christ i. e. his Sacramental Body was sufficient for the nourishment of the whole World And by removing all Corporeal Notions of eating and drinking he seem'd to establish only a Spiritual Notion But St. Hierom is plain and full to this purpose beyond all contradiction as I am perswaded For thus he speaks (k) Quando dicit qui non comederit Carnem meam biberit Sanguinem meum licet in Mysterio posset intelligi tamen verius Corpus Christi Sanguis ejus Sermo Scripturarum est Doctrina Divina est Si quando audimus Sermonem Dei Sermo Dei Caro Christi Sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur nos aliud cogitamus in quantum periculum incurrimus Sic in Carne Christi qui est Sermo Doctrinae hoc est Scripturarum Sanctarum Interpretatio sicut volumus ita cibum accipimus Hieron Comment in Psal 147. When Jesus saith He that eateth not my Flesh and drinketh not my Blood although it may be understood in a Mystery i. e. as I think of the Eucharist yet the truer sence is that the Body of Christ and his Blood is the Word of the Scriptures is Divine Doctrine And therefore he continues not long after in this manner If when we hear the Word of God the Word of God and the Flesh of Christ and his Blood is poured into our Ears and we think of something else into how great a danger do we run Afterwards comparing it to Manna which was said to give that Taste to every Man which he liked best So saith he in the Flesh of Christ which is the Word of Doctrine that is the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures as we would have it so we receive Food If thou art holy here thou findest Comfort St. Hierom could not have been more express if he had been to maintain this Interpretation against an Adversary Nor does the Paraphrase of Eusebius come much behind St. Hierom's Interpretation For he makes our Saviour's Explication V. 63. to run as if he had said (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Caesariensis contra Marcel de Eccles Theol. lib. 3. c. 12. Do not think that I speak of that Flesh which I carry about me as if you ought to eat that or that I command you to drink my sensible and corporeal Blood You well understand that the words which I speak to you are Spirit and Life So that as Eusebius goes on his Words and Doctrines are Flesh and Blood of which whoever constantly partakes he being nourished with Heavenly Bread as it were shall partake of the Heavenly Life He that says this and knows what he says could hardly suppose that the Eucharist was particularly intended by our Saviour in these Passages I shall trouble you with no more Instances of this kind these being sufficient to shew that All the Ancients did not understand those words of the Eucharist And now I will make no difficulty to grant that the other Opinion is not destitute of all Authority but has the Countenance of some Fathers to support it For we do not pretend to any such priviledge of speaking as to say we have All the Fathers in a Case where we have not every One But this I must needs say That those Fathers who as far as I have yet discovered seem to speak most expresly in favour of the Sacramental Sense do not come up to the peremptoriness and clearness of those who are for the Spiritual Sense (m) Cypr. de Orat. Dom. St. Cyprian understanding the daily Bread which we pray for not only of common Food but of the Eucharist applies those Words to it If any man eateth of this Bread he shall live for ever And says he as 't is manifest that * Qui corpus ejus attingunt they who belong to his Body or Family and having a right thereunto communicate in the Eucharist do live so it is to be feared and we are to pray lest any of us being excommunicated and separated from the Body of Christ should be far removed from Salvation since himself uttered this threatning Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood c. Now I desire not to make less of these words than they imply But yet I must say that St. Cyprian seems in these and in the foregoing Words which are to the same purpose to interpret that Bread which he that eateth of shall live for ever and the Flesh and the Blood of Christ not only of the Eucharist but of all the Means of Grace that are afforded to his Members in the Communion of his Body whereof as he had reason he thought the Eucharist to be the principal to which no excommunicated Person had right Not to say that the Eucharist might be here particularly mentioned because those words Except ye eat c. have a more clear allusion to the Eucharist than to any other Means Nor am I alone in this Interpretation of St. Cyprian †Notae in Cypr. Paris For thus saith Priorius The Explication of this place is taken from Tertullian Cap. 6. de Orat. Therefore by desiring daily Bread we pray for a perpetual continuance in Christ and to remain undivided from his Body Thus also Rigaltius upon the place The words of God the Father which Christ in the Flesh brought for our Salvation are here to be understood Therefore all that time in which Christ lived amongst us in the Body his Preaching his Gospel is the Body and Flesh of Christ It is the Cross of Christ 't is the Blood of Christ With this Meat and Drink we Christians are nourish'd to eternal Life By which 't is manifest that Rigaltius did not understand St. Cyprian in that manner as to abate at all of his Judgment that the * Observ Galeat in Cypr. Id. spiritual sense of eating and drinking is to be understood throughout in the 6th of St. John (n) Basil Moral Reg. 21. St. Basil is another who applies these Words to the Sacrament not where he undertakes to give their proper meaning but in his moral Collections under the Head of receiving the Eucharist which I do not see but he might do and yet believe that the Spiritual Sense of eating and drinking Christ was directly intended For as I have already told you the Eucharist
in Christo manere ut in illo maneat Christus Sic enim hoc dicit tanquam diceret Qui non in me manet in quo ego non maneo non se dicat aut existimet manducare Corpus meum aut bibere Sanguinem meum De Civit. Dei lib. 21. c. 25. For neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ because neither are they to be accounted amongst his Members For to omit other things they cannot be both the Members of Christ and the Members of an Harlot Lastly himself saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him sheweth what it is to eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood not by the Sacrament but verily and indeed for this is to dwell in Christ so as that Christ dwelleth in him For his speaking this was as if he had said He that dwelleth not in me and in whom I dwell not should not say or think that he eateth my Flesh or drinketh my Blood Now the Persons here spoken of were Christians of vicious Lives who yet received the Sacrament and continued in the Communion of the Church to the last But since St. Austin denying that they ate the Body of Christ in Truth even when they received the Sacrament does also affirm that Christ spake of receiving his Body in Truth only when he said He that eateth my Flesh c. it seems evidently to follow that when St. Austin wrote these Passages he did not understand those places in St. John of Sacramental Eating Finally by comparing this place with the former it is plain also that to eat and drink Christ Spiritually and to eat and drink him in Truth and Reality was in St. Austin's Judgment all one and consequently that we may really eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood though we do it not corporeally These Passages of this Father I have the rather insisted upon because I have affirmed in the Notes that he would not allow that a wicked Man is truly a partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ which is evident from these Passages tho I have produced them chiefly to shew what his most deliberate Thoughts were concerning the sense of the sixth Chapter of St. John But after all though I verily think that I could make out a Title to the Consent of All the Fathers with vastly more probability than those who claim it for the other Opinion yet suppose that they have these three that are cited last and as many more as they can name with any colour what would they get by it if notwithstanding these Fathers did not believe that the Natural Flesh of Christ was properly eaten and his Blood properly drank by the Faithful in the Eucharist What if they believed the Substance of Bread and Wine to remain in the Sacrament and that Christ himself could be fed upon by the Mind only and therefore that these words themselves Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. though spoken of the Sacrament were not properly but figuratively to be understood If this be so they have lost their main Cause and have taken a great deal of pains to be where they were at first and this Dispute whether the Church has always understood the Eucharist to be directly intended by our Saviour in the mentioned Passages is lost as to any Advantage that Transubstantiation can get by it That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration is manifest from (r) Epist ad Caecilium St. Cyprian and that Christ is fed upon by the Mind only from (s) In Isai cap. 3. St Basil to whom I refer you that I may not be over-tedious especially since for the present one Testimony of St. Augustin may serve the turn Observe therefore these words of his concerning the Exposition of Scripture-Phrases (t) Si praeceptiva est locutio aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut beneficentiam jubens non est Figurata Si autem Flagitium aut Facinus videtur juberi aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare Figurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit carnem filii hominis sanguinem biberitis vitam in vobis non habebitis Facinus vel Flagitium videtur Jubere Figura ergo est praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter in memoriâ recondendum quod caro ejus pro nobis crucifixa vulnerata sit De Doctrinâ Christianâ lib. 3. c. 16. If the Saying be preceptive either forbidding a wicked Action or commanding to do that which is good it is no figurative saying But if it seems to command any Villany or Wickedness or to forbid what is profitable and good it is Figurative This saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you seems to command a villanous or wicked thing It is therefore a FIGVRE enjoyning us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay it up in dear and profitable remembrance that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes The vast pains that have been taken to avoid this Testimony are a convincing Argument that Prejudice may grow to that strength as to be invincible You will confess I doubt not that this Passage so plainly shews St. Austin's perswasion in this matter that as it needs no words to illustrate it so it is capable of no Answer to the purpose To come to a Conclusion As I have shewn that several Fathers did not understand the mentioned Words of our Saviour as spoken of the Eucharist so I could shew that very many Doctors of the Roman Communion have declared against it amongst whom Cardinal Cajetan for his singular Merit and because I have referred to his Reasons in my Notes ought to be particularly remembred In his Commentary upon V. 53. Verily verily I say c. he comes to speak of a third Sence viz. of Sacramental eating by worthy Receivers And says he the Sence is this Except ye really eat the Flesh of the Son of Man in the Sacrament of the Host and drink his Blood in the Sacrament of the Chalice you have no Life in you So that according to this sence not only the Sacrament of Baptism but the Sacrament of the Eucharist also under both kinds is necessary to Salvation But the usage of the Church is repugnant to this sence since she does not give the Communion to Infants at all nor to the People under both kinds and not only the Usage but the Doctrine of the Church too because she teaches that 't is sufficient to Salvation to communicate under the Species of Bread And tho' this Authority be sufficient to shew that the Text does not deliver a Precept of receiving the Sacrament in both kinds and consequently that it does not deliver a Precept of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist yet the Bohemians are not satisfied
remember what he said rather than that they should understand it presently But neither to the Multitude nor to his Disciples did he clearly signifie the Reasons and Ends of his Passion this seeming to be one of those things that they could not bear now but which the Comforter should reveal to them afterward It may therefore be said That our Lord did not deliver the Doctrine concerning the Death he was to suffer and the blessed Fruits thereof to all Believers in such-like plain words and expressions as I have endeavoured to use in the Paraphrase because he used to conceal the former from the People and reserve the clear manifestation of the latter till after his Resurrection and Ascension when these Sayings would be brought to remembrance and better understood than they were at first But one may ask Why did he not at least tell these Men that these were still but Expressions of spiritual things by way of allusion to things sensible To which I answer That he did thus explain himself to his Disciples presently after and that upon occasion of this gross Mistake see V. 62 63. and nothing appears to the contrary but that this Explication was made in the Synagogue in the Hearing of all But whether it was so or not 't is sufficient for us that he explained himself as he did to the Disciples In the mean time Cardinal Cajetan's Argument that this place cannot be understood of the Eucharist because then it would infer a necessity of the Peoples receiving the Cup is an Argument ad Homines plain and strong Neither is it to be avoided by pretending that Christ does not speak of the Species either of Bread or Wine but of the Things contained under them and therefore that because whole Christ is contained under one kind the Condition of Eternal Life is fulfilled by receiving him under either kind For they that receive him under the Species of a Wafer or a morsel of Bread only which is to be eaten cannot with any Modesty be said to drink his Blood which is yet made as necessary as eating his Flesh We grant that eating and drinking being taken as figurative Expressions do signifie the same thing viz. believing and we say that believing when 't is expressed by eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood refers to that particular Object of Faith the Death of Christ signified by the separate mention of his Body and Blood But eating and drinking being taken properly do not signify the same thing If therefore our Saviour is to be understood properly of receiving him in the Eucharist by eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood The words are plain beyond all dispute that he is to be received by drinking his Blood there as well as by eating his Flesh Which since the Church of Rome denies to the Laity the Cardinal had good reason not to understand these words of the Eucharist being concerned as he was to make the best of all those Usages which he found in his Church And yet I doubt this great Man hath not quite delivered that Church from all the Reproof this very Text has for their half Communion For although these words are not to be understood properly of the Eucharist yet I think what Grotius says cannot be reasonably denied viz. that here is a Tacit Allusion to the Eucharist And if that be true the Text even thus taken will condemn their witholding the Cup from the Laity For the Allusion must consist in this that as according to the Institution of the Eucharist the Holy Bread and Cup were separately taken to shew forth the violent Death of Christ so in these words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood the believing of his meritorious Death and following the Example of his Patience c. is expressed by the separate mention of his Flesh and Blood and therefore of eating the one and drinking the other Which allusion is so apt that I should not wonder if it inclines those that enquire no further to believe that our Saviour here speaks of the Eucharist But since the separate taking of the Holy Bread and the Holy Cup in the Eucharist on the one side and the separate mention of his Flesh and Blood on the other is that in which the Allusion consists it is utterly destroyed by the pretended Concomitance i. e. by giving the Body and Blood not as separated but as united or by giving the Body and Blood to be eaten not the Flesh to be eaten and the Blood to be drunk In short as our Saviour did Sacramentally represent his Death by taking the Holy Bread and the Holy Cup separately and giving them separately so he did in Words alluding to that Sacrament represent the same Death i. e. by the distinct mention of his Flesh and Blood and he represented also the necessity of Faith in his Death under the distinct Expressions of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood And therefore they who in the Eucharist pretend to give both Kinds in one destroy the reason why these words allude to the Eucharist But if they say that our Saviour here speaks properly of the Eucharist nothing can be more evident than that they openly condemn themselves in denying that to the People which as they say he required in proper and express Terms and that is the drinking of his Blood And in truth they destroy the significancy of the Sacrament which is no otherwise a representation of our Lord's Death than as it represents the separation of his Flesh and Blood And then I desire them to tell me how they can be said to commemorate the Death of Christ by receiving a Sacrament that shews forth the separation of his Body and Blood who do not receive them separated but united St. Paul concluding the End of the Sacrament from the Institution of it said As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come The Reason whereof is exceeding plain viz. Because the separation of the Blood from the Body is shewn by the distinct taking of the Bread and the Cup to eat the one and drink the other But this Reason is so confounded by the Half-Communion and the Doctrine of Concomitance that the Institution is not only contradicted but I fear the Sacrament is denied to them that receive one Kind only and that they have not so much as an Half-Communion inasmuch as they do not receive a Sacrament that shews the Death of Christ 54. But he that is so far from rejecting me and being offended at me because of that painful Death which I am to suffer that he doth on the other hand receive all that Divine Instruction which it does afford and turns it into spiritual Nourishment by learning the high displeasure of God against Sin and his infinite Love to Mankind and the Vanity of this World and the worth of his own Soul and the necessity of Repentance and of a Godly Life my Death
represents the Death of Christ and our Spiritual feeding thereupon and these words in St. John signifie what the Eucharist represents No wonder therefore if Christian Writers in speaking of the Eucharist produce these words which have so near an affinity with it And this I think they may do pertinently enough without supposing that these Passages in St. John signifie the Eucharist because they signifie some of the same things which the Eucharist signifies St. Augustin indeed brings forth that saying Except ye eat the Flesh c. in his Disputations against the Pelagians supposing there as it should seem that it was a direct and proper Command to receive the Eucharist under the penalty of Damnation And I remember that in one place he urges it for the necessity of Communicating Infants This is so notoriously known that I shall not turn to the places and though I will not be positive yet I think he is not clear for this Sense in any other Cause but that wherein he was engaged against the Pelagians But there is this very great Prejudice against his Authority in this matter that elsewhere viz. out of the Heat of that Controversie he gives clearly another sence of these words and speaks of them as if they were reductive only to the Eucharist Mark therefore what he says (o) Hunc itaque cibum potum societatem vult intelligi corporis membrorum suorum quod est Sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis vocatis justificatis glorificatis Sanctis fidelibus ejus Hujus rei Sacramentum id est unitatis Corporis Sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis intervallis dierum in Dominicâ Mensâ praeparatur de Mensâ Dominicâ sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res vero ipsa cujus Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus particeps fuerit Aug. Tract 26. in Johan Therefore by this Meat and Drink he would have us to understand the Society of his Body and Members that is the Holy Church consisting of his predestinated and called and justified and glorified Saints and Faithful And presently after The Sacrament of this thing that is of the Vnity of the Body and Blood of Christ is in some places every day in other places upon certain days prepared upon the Lord's Table and received from the Lord's Table by some to Life by some to Destruction But the thing it self of which it is the Sacrament is for Life to every Man for Destruction to no Man whosoever he be that partakes of it By which words it is evident that St. Austin did not here understand that eating of the Flesh and drinking of the Blood of Christ to which Salvation is promised of sacramental eating but of being incorporated into the Invisible Church of Christ and this because he says The Sacrament of this thing may be received to Destruction and because he expresly says That this Meat and Drink is the Society of the Body of Christ consisting of his predestinated c. Members And that therefore he would not have scrupled to interpret eating by believing since 't is Faith by which we are united to the Body of Christ no reasonable Man will question However we have his own Word for it who upon that Saying of our Saviour This is the work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath sent Goes on thus †Hoc est ergo manducare cibum non qui perit sed qui permanet in vitam eternam Ut quid paras dentes ventrem Crede manducasti Id. Tract 25. This therefore is to eat that Food which perisheth not but endureth to everlasting Life To what purpose dost thou make ready thy Teeth and thy Belly Believe and thou hast eaten Afterwards he puts both together * Accedat credat incorporetur ut vivificetur Id. Tract 26. Let him come and believe and be incorporated that he may be quickned Which Words of his are the more remarkable because in that place he professedly treats of the Exposition of this Chapter Where also upon that saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him he discourseth thus (p) Hoc est manducare escam illam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in me habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo Christus non manet proculdubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem ejus nec bibit ejus sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat bibit quia immundus praesumsit ad Christi accedere Sacramenta quae aliquis non digne sumit nisi qui mundus est c. Tract 26. in Joh. This it is to eat that Food and drink that Drink viz. to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwelling in me And therefore he that dwelleth not in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not undoubtedly doth not spiritually eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood although he doth carnally and visibly press with his Teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing to his Condemnation because being impure he hath presumed to come to Christ's Sacraments which none worthily receives who is not pure of which 't is said Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God Whence it is manifest that in St. Austin's Judgment to eat the Flesh of Christ and to drink his Blood was to eat and drink it Spiritually so as good and holy Men only do partake thereof not all that do press the Sacrament thereof with their Teeth And it is further observable that if to eat that Food and drink that Drink be as St. Austin says to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell in us then all holy Persons do constantly e t the Flesh and drink the blood of Christ because they still dwell in Christ and Christ in them but they are not always receiving the Sacrament and therefore St. Austin could not understand these words properly of the Eucharist And that these were not sudden Notions of his appears from this that we find them elsewhere and particularly in his Book of the City of God towards the end which Book he finished just before his Death There he hath these words (q) Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare Corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Ut. enim alia taceam non possunt simul esse Membra Christi Membra Meretricis Denique ipse dicens qui manducat Carnem meam bibit Sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid fit non Sacramento tenus sed reverâ Corpus Christi manducare ejus Sanguinem bibere hoc est enim
shall be to him a means of that Eternal Life to which I shall raise him at the last day and this as certainly as if he were now in actual possession of it V. 54. Because our Lord continues in his Speech to make a separate mention of his Flesh and Blood it follows that he still speaks of his Death and the particular Doctrine concerning his Death which would be entertained with the greatest difficulty viz. that he was a Sacrifice for the Sins of the World and therefore a Saviour because crucified c. The lively belief whereof is that which our Lord means by eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood and not eating and drinking the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which a Man may do to his Condemnation And therefore although St. Austin sometimes understood these words of the Eucharist yet he did not so understand them as if every one who partakes of the Eucharist does also Eat the Flesh and Drink the Blood of Christ for he manifestly denied that the Wicked were partakers of the very Body of Christ though they partook of the Sacrament of his Body And yet 't is impossible but they must do the one as well as the other if it be true that the proper Substance of the Body of Christ is in the Sacrament as the Church of Rome pretends And by consequence if this corporal eating be intended it seems clearly to follow that no Man who partakes of the Eucharist can be damned which is certainly very false and therefore corporal eating cannot be meant here but only spiritual eating And so St. Austin understood it although he applied these Words sometimes to the Eucharist inasmuch as he denied that the Wicked do eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ although with their Mouths they take the Sacrament of his Body and Blood But because this spiritual eating which is necessary to Salvation is by no means confined to the participation of the Eucharist and because many do not partake spiritually in the Body and Blood of Christ that yet do partake of the Sacrament I cannot understand why our Saviour should speak here directly and properly of the Eucharist and therefore I adhere to the sence of those Fathers who interpret this place and those that follow of spiritual Actions only 55. So that the Doctrine concerning my Sufferings and Death which will give the greatest offence to Unbelievers is the most excellent Meat and Drink because it is the Food of Souls when 't is received with a firm and efficacious Faith and will secure also the Resurrection of the Body to everlasting Life V. 55. He continues to distinguish the Flesh from the Blood and therefore still speaks of his Passion giving some kind of preeminence to Faith in his Death above the belief of other particular Doctrines though that would be admitted with greatest difficulty 56. And therefore he that believeth my Death to be a Sacrifice for the Sins of the World and does thereby learn that Duty which it teacheth and receive that Comfort which it affordeth he will love me and devote himself entirely to my Service because I have thus humbled my self though that be the reason for which such as you will be violently prejudiced against me And on the other side he shall be peculiarly beloved and cared for by me For though in love to Mankind I am to be made an Offering for Sin yet 't is a particular care I shall express towards those who have a true sense of my Sufferings in their behalf who make a right use of them and return that thankfulness and obedience which their Faith requires 1 Tim. 4.10 V. 56. His pursuance of the same Expression still shews that he speaks of the same thing viz. believing his death to be a Sacrifice c. And here he intimates that his Sufferings which would be a Stumbling block to Unbelievers would be an effectual Engagement to all good Men to love him and that their fervent Love and humble Gratitude would be rewarded with his especial Love For as God's dwelling in Men signifies his gracious Presence amongst them and his delight in doing them good so their dwelling in him signifies their Love to him and constant attendance upon the doing of his Will and the delight they have in knowing themselves to be always in his Presence 57. And one remarkable Expression and that of weight enough to make you consider what I say of my peculiar love to every such Believer is what I have told you already and I do earnestly repeat it again As sure as the Father who sent me will raise me from the Dead so surely will I raise up every one to everlasting Life that believeth my Doctrine and liveth by his Faith V. 57. Here our Lord seems to leave the special consideration of his Sufferings and Death and to speak now of his whole Doctrine as he had done before for as by eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood we are to understand believing the merit and instruction of his Death c. so by eating Him we are taught before V. 35 47 50. to understand believing him in general that is believing all his Doctrine 58. Mark therefore what I say to you V. 33 35. at first That I am that true Bread from Heaven wherewith the Manna that your Fathers ate and the Bread which you ate yesterday are not to be compared for they were good for nothing but to preserve a mortal Life for a short time whereas he that feedeth upon the Word and Doctrine which God hath sent you from Heaven shall be raised from the Dead to ascend thither and to live there for ever V. 58. Here he concludes all with returning to the same thing and using the very Expressions that he began withal V. 32 35.50 than which we need not a clearer proof that he all along spake in the same style and in those Expressions of eating and drinking perpetually alluded to the Manna and the Loaves in the Wilderness which gave occasion to all this Discourse 59. These things he said publickly in the Synagogue at Capernaum where the People whom he had fed in the Wilderness found him V. 24 25. and gave him the occasion of discoursing in this manner by following him for the Loaves V. 26. and when they found themselves disappointed by setting the Manna which Moses gave their Fathers against the feeding so many thousands the day before V. 31. And the great end of his Discourse upon this occasion was to draw their Minds from worldly to heavenly Things and to make them more desirous of the Spiritual and Heavenly Benefits of his Miracles than of the bodily relief which they had found by them 60. But because he expressed his Mind in this figurative way and was by many understood as if he had commended to them the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood in the literal sence therefore many even of those that had for some time followed him
Saviour Lay not up for your selves Treasure upon Earth where Moth and Rust doth corrupt and where Thieves break through and steal But lay up for your selves Treasure in Heaven where neither Moth c. And Be not afraid of them that kill the Body and after that have no more that they can do But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear Fear him which after he hath killed hath power to cast into Hell yea I say unto you fear him And that in this Chapter Labour not for the Meat which perisheth bat for that which endureth to everlasting Life which the Son of Man shall give unto you Which Rules seeming at first sight to discharge us of all Care for our Life and Welfare in this World St. Chrysostom thought it needful to observe upon the last of them that our Lord did not intend to countenance Laziness who himself said It is more Blessed to give than to receive And that St. Paul admonisheth a Man to work with his hands the thing that is good that he may have to give to him that needeth But since these Exhortations run as if we were to be absolutely unconcerned about this Life no question but that care of Eternal Life is prescribed in comparison to which our Cares for this World should seem nothing at all Therefore when we desire our appointed Food we should think how much more it is our Interest to hunger and thirst after Righteousness and that Meat which endureth to everlasting Life And when we most of all feel the hopes and fears of things that go no farther than this World we cannot entertain a better Thought than this that if we are so much concerned for this Life how careful ought we to be not to miss of Eternal Salvation Which kind of Reflections are the more necessary for us the more deeply we are engaged in this World For we do not only labour for the meat that perishes that is for just enough to serve the Necessities of Life but we would be at ease beside and live in reasonable Plenty and enjoy what is convenient for the Pleasure as well as the Sustenance of Life and there are very few that know when to make an end of multiplying Riches when once they are got into the way of Encrease But are we thus concerned for an end of infinitely greater Moment Or rather do not these very worldly Cares reprove our negligence about better and greater things while perhaps we do no more towards our Salvation than to avoid the grossest Sins of all but take little thought how to grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The whole Strain of our Saviour's Discourse in this Chapter naturally leads to such Considerations as these And if we mind them in good Earnest they will by the Grace of God moderate our Affections and Cares about this World in the first place and then leave all that Concern for present and transitory good things which we cannot be without as a perpetual Admonition to be much more thoughtful for our everlasting Salvation and to make it the greatest business of our Lives by Prayers and good Works to lay up for our selves Treasure in Heaven and to lay the stress of our Comfort whilst we are here in the joyful hope of being raised up at the last day to live for ever Amen A POSTSCRIPT SInce these Papers were almost Printed off I met with Dr. Godden's Sermon upon St. Peter's Day in which he endeavours from some Passages in this Chapter to infer the substantial Change of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ But upon the most Impartial Judgement that I can make of his Performance I do not find that he offers any colour of Argument for his Conclusion which I have not prevented And therefore instead of stopping these Papers for the sake of his Sermon I think it fair enough to say to him and to the World that I can see no reason obliging me to do it A DISCOURSE OF HUMANITY AND CHARITY GAL. VI. 10 As we have therefore opportunity let us do good unto all Men especially unto them that are of the Houshold of Faith By W. CLAGET D. D. LONDON Printed for J. Robinson at the Golden Lion and T. Newborough at the Golden Ball in St. Paul's Church-yard 1693. A DISCOURSE OF Humanity and Charity GAL. VI. 10 As we have therefore opportunity let us do good unto all Men especially unto them that are of the Houshold of Faith FROM these Words I might well take occasion to discourse upon three distinct Subjects First Of the several Acts or Expressions of Charity which are here all comprehended under doing good although by the 6th Verse it should seem that the Charity of communicating in the good things of this World was principally intended in this place Secondly Of the Objects of Charity concerning which the Text expresly affirms that they are all Men in general but especially the Houshould of Faith And Thirdly Of the Rewards of Charity which are intimated in the Text by the reference of those words As we have therefore opportunity in the foregoing Promise vers 9. In due season we shall reap if we faint not For this shews the Opportunity here mentioned to be the time that we have for sowing our good Works and that if we use it they will yield a Harvest of Rewards which we shall certainly reap in due season But in so narrow a compass of time I must not undertake to enlarge upon these three Particulars and therefore omitting the First I chuse to insist upon the Second and to conclude with some few Reflections upon the last And thus the first thing to be considered is the Exhortation to doing Good with respect to the general Object Let us do good unto all Men. Now because it is impossible that we should be actually beneficent to every Man in the World otherwise than by our Prayers for All Therefore the plain meaning of the Exhortation is this that we should exclude no Man out of our Charity who needs our Help and comes within the Compass of our Ability to do him good Which tho it be a Duty so much for the Interest of Mankind that one would think no body should be against it yet as the World goes it seems to need the Charity of us All in standing up for it against all false Principles and bad Examples that are advanced in opposition to it I must be content at this time to speak for it without reflecting upon any Opinions or Practices that are against it And therefore I proceed forthwith to represent this part of the Apostle's Exhortation To do good unto all as a Duty under Obligations common to all Men and under Obligations peculiar to Christians I. The Obligations of the first sort are Common Humanity and Natural Piety 1. Common Humanity For the sense of that Nature which is common to us All does oblige us to bear
A PARAPHRASE WITH NOTES Upon the Sixth Chapter of St. JOHN With a Discourse on Humanity and Charity By W. CLAGET D. D. The Second Edition Imprimatur Jo. Battely RRmo Patri ac D no D no Wilhelmo Archiepisc Cantuar. à Sacris Domesticis Ex Edibus Lambeth Maii 31. 1686. LONDON Printed for J. Robinson at the Golden Lion and T. Newborough at the Golden Ball in St. Paul's Church-yard 1693. THE PREFACE SIR 'T IS not for nothing that we are desired to read the Sixth Chapter of St. John every day I have engaged my Thoughts with what attention I can upon those Passages between the 51 and 61 Verses and the more I consider them the more favourably they seem to me to look upon that Opinion that the very Flesh of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament I know not what to say to this that though the Jews understood Christ's Words of eating his very Flesh and he saw plainly enough that they did so yet he went on in the same strain of Expressions Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you I know you told me that these Passages are not to be interpreted of the Sacrament and that there is no mention in them of any outward and visible Signs which are necessary to a Sacrament But I have heard that the Church always thought these words to be spoken of the Sacrament And besides though there be no mention of a Sacrament yet if Christ's Words enforce this that the natural Substance of his Flesh must be properly eaten by us it will follow that it must be thus eaten in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood unless we could tell how or where else it is to be done I would be glad to see such a Paraphrase upon this Chapter as you speak of which would help to make all appear plain And it were well if others might see it too and thereby see this at least that you are so well satisfy'd with your own Reasons that you are not afraid to let those judge of them that are otherwise perswaded I am c. The PREFACE SIR YOU are desired to read the 6th Chapter of St. John's Gospel every day and this I doubt not for the sake of that part of it between V. 51 and V. 61 which seems to require eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ in the proper sense And here I make no question your Thoughts were closely engaged But perhaps you have not applied that attention to the rest of the Chapter which you gave to that part where the difficulty lies and then no wonder that the difficulty still remains For I beg leave to put you in mind once more that the true Sense of those difficult Passages as you count them is to be gained by observing their connexion with all the rest And therefore to that Request that you would often read the 6th Chapter of St. John which I acknowledge to be a reasonable Request I must add another as reasonable as that which is that you would not only often read but likewise often consider the whole Chapter and mind our Saviour's Design in it That you would therefore observe what sort of People he had to do with and what was the occasion of this Conversation between him and them What was the Fundamental Cause of their Prejudices against him and with what Arguments and Applications he laboured to remove those Prejudices For you will then find that they were Men whose Belly was their God and who minded earthly things that they followed Christ for the Loaves that he disappointed their Hopes that they were angry at it and altered their Opinion of him upon it that their earthly-mindedness was the Reason why they now liked him not but set themselves to cavil at all his Sayings that to take them off from the Cares and Pleasures of this present Life he laid before them better and greater Things the Means and Hopes of everlasting Life Finally that he calls the Means and Causes of bettering our Minds and bringing us to everlasting Life Meat and Drink and our believing and obeying his Doctrine eating and drinking And then if I am not deceived you will easily acknowledge that in particular he calls the Belief of his Death and Passion for the Sins of the World and the saving Fruits of that Faith eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood And that there is no more reason to imagine that his Flesh should be eaten and his Blood drank in the proper and corporeal sense than that he should make himself Bread to be eaten by us as we use to eat Bread But that there is good reason to understand throughout by that eating and drinking which he required spiritual Actions only which the whole strain of his Discourse shews that he opposed to that corporeal feeding which they were so inordinately sollicitous for I must for the same Reason desire you to mind those plain Intimations scattered here and there in our Lord's Discourse by which it is evident what he meant by eating and drinking He saith V. 29. This is the (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Work of God that ye BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent which is an Interpretation of V. 27. (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labour not for the meat that perisheth but c. Again V. 35. He that BELIEVETH on me shall never thirst And again V. 47. He that BELIEVETH on me hath everlasting Life So likewise V. 36. and V. 40. This I say is fit to be minded For when not only the occasion he had to use these Terms of eating and drinking which was their following him for their Bellies shews these Terms to be allusive but as if that were not enough he likewise added now and then the plain and proper meaning of those Allusions it must I think be a wilful Mistake in him that attends to this to interpret those Expressions as if they were not allusive Nor is this all for you may please to consider also that when our Saviour found some of his Disciples to understand him as the Carnal Jews did he thought fit for more abundant satisfaction to explain his meaning once for all V. 62 63. as you will find by the ensuing Paraphrase and Notes As for our Saviour's repeating those Expressions at which the Jews had already taken offence you may consider that V. 51. he added that Expression of drinking his Blood to that of eating his Flesh which was a more plain Intimation of that violent Death which he was to suffer for us than that former Saying of giving his Flesh for the Life of the World And so tho' he kept still to the Allusion yet he represented what kind of Death he was to suffer more fully than he had done before But perhaps you are at a loss why he continued to speak allusively at all when he found that he was so grosly
mistunderstood And then I answer as I have done in the Notes upon that place that I am not obliged to say precisely what our Saviour's reason was for that But besides what you will find there it may be said that sometimes it well becomes a Man of Wisdom and Authority when he finds his Words perverted by caviling People to repeat them again and thereby to speak his own Assurance that they did not drop unadvisedly from him and that 't is not his own but his Hearers Fault that he is misunderstood And this is the more reasonable to be said in the present case if the Jews wilfully perverted our Saviour's Words to that absurd sense of eating his Flesh with their Teeth as 't is probably they did and that because his Expressions were plainly allusive and because also the Allusion was now and then explain'd as I shew'd before What inconvenience is it therefore to suppose that our Lord perceiving that his Divine Discourses and Exhortations had but hardened them in a Spirit of Contradiction did not think himself bound to use presently the utmost plainness of Words for the sake of Men to whom he had spoken plainly enough already if any good were to be done upon them But for further satisfaction in this matter I refer you once more to the Paraphrase and Notes which are already finished and where some little Light is given to those Passages which may seem obscure enough I hope to lead you out of all danger of suspecting those words of our Saviour V. 51 c. to enforce that the Substance of his Flesh must be eaten by us either in or out of the Sacrament It seems I told you that these Passages were not to be understood of the Sacrament I should have added that because they signify those things which are signify'd in the Sacrament that they may be very aptly applied to the Sacrament especially in Exhortations to Devotion nay and that there are some cases in which a Man may argue from the one to the other and some Questions to which both the one and the other give equal Light which may very well be and yet it will by no means follow that these words are primarily to be understood of the Eucharist And this Opinion I cannot deliver up meerly because you have heard that the Church always held the contrary No Man I believe has a greater regard to the constant and universal Tradition of the Church than my self But then I do not think my self bound to believe that the Church has always held this or that because this and that Man tells me so For if a Man can speak and has a Cause to serve 't is as easie to say Thus saith the Church as to say Thus saith the Scripture I remember indeed that our Country-man Nicholas Sanders tells us That (c) Nic. Sanderus de Euchar. p. 23. to deny these words to be understood of the Eucharist is contrary to the Instruction and Authority of all Antiquity And Maldonate says That (d) Maldon in Joan. 6. all the ancient Fathers acknowledge it And others say the same thing and it seems you have heard it Now this is but a custom of speaking which some Men have gotten For I am well assured that all the Fathers were not of their mind Clemens Alexandrinus (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. lib. 1. c. 6. p. 105. Paris supposes these Expressions to eat the Flesh of Christ and to drink his Blood to be as figurative as that of St. Paul to feed with Milk and tells us upon this occasion that the word is variously allegorized being called Meat and Flesh and Nourishment and Bread and Blood and Milk and that our Lord is all these things for our enjoyment who believe in him Now I am perswaded you will not say that this Father interpreted the Words under Debate of the Eucharist Tertullian to shew that these Words the Flesh profiteth nothing do not make against the Resurrection of the Flesh saith (f) Sic etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensus Nam quia durum intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus quasi vere Carnem suam illis edendam determinasset ut in Spiritum disponeret statum salutis praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat atque ita subjunxit Caro nihil prodest ad vivificandum scilicet Exequitur etiam quid velit intelligi spiritum Verba quae locutus sum vobis Spiritus sunt Vita sunt Sicut supra qui audit Sermones meos credit in eum qui c. Itaque Sermonem constituens vivificatorem quia Spiritus Vita Sermo eundem etiam Carnem suam dixit quia sermo Caro erat Pactus proinde in causam Vitae Appetendus devorandus Auditu ruminandus intellectu Fide digerendus Nam paulo ante Carnem suam panem quoque Coelestem pronunciaret urgens usquequaque per Allegoriam c. Tertul. de Resâ—r Carnis c. 36 37. That we are to be directed to the sence of what is said by the subject-matter of it For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as if he intended his Flesh should be truly eaten by them he to shew that the Cause of Life and Salvation was spiritual premised this That the Spirit quickneth and then added The Flesh profiteth nothing that is in respect of quickning And then he shews what he means by the Spirit The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life As he had said also before He that heareth my words and believeth in him that sent me hath Eternal Life and shall not come into Condemnation but hath passed from Death to Life Therefore making his Word to be the quickning Principle since his Word is Spirit and Life he called his Word also his own Flesh for the Word was also made Flesh and therefore in order to Life it is to be hungred after and devoured by HEARING and to be chewed again by the VNDERSTANDING and to be digested by FAITH And afterwards he affirms that our Lord all along urged his Intent by an Allegory So that Tertullian was so far from thinking these Passages to refer to the Eucharist that I am in some doubt whether he understood them with any special reference to the Death of Christ. Origen also interprets Flesh and Blood in like manner For says he (g) Carnibus enim sanguine Verbi sui tanquam mundo cibo atque potu reficit omne hominum genus Orig. in Levit. Hom. 7. By the Flesh and the Blood of his WORD as with pure Meat and Drink he refresheth all Mankind And †Vide in Mat. Tract 12. elsewhere he speaketh to the same purpose St. Athanasius likewise seems to me to be of the same Opinion who speaking of the literal sence in which the Jews understood our Saviour hath these words (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Athan. in
but produce this Text for themselves against our Usage and Doctrine saying That if our Lord had not treated of receiving the Sacrament in these words he would not have distinguished between eating and drinking least of all between eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood but since he so accurately distinguisheth between these things he insinuates his Discourse to be concerning the reception of the Eucharist c. But says the Cardinal these things are easily thrown off by observing that in this very Chapter Jesus said not long before He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst For in these words which 't is plain do not belong to the Sacrament of the Eucharist our Lord plainly distinguishes Hunger from Thirst which is equivalent to his distinction between eating and drinking For Hunger refers to eating and Thirst to drinking Therefore from the distinction between eating and drinking no solid Argument can be drawn to infer the Discourse to be of the Sacrament of the Eucharist In like manner the distinction between Flesh and Blood availeth nothing to their purpose but rather against them because the Flesh is not distinguished from the Blood after any sort but only as they are separated as Meat from Drink But 't is evident that the real separation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament is represented only But in the Death of Christ it was actual and according to the thing it self And if it be urged that the Flesh and the Blood are here discoursed of under the Notion of Meat and Drink and not according to what they were in their own Nature and that for this reason the Discourse runs upon the Flesh in the Sacrament and the Blood in the Sacrament separated one from another The Answer to this is afforded by what has been already said viz. that our Lord had spoken of himself before as of one that takes away Hunger and of one that takes away Thirst and yet 't is not also inferred from hence that he spake of himself as under that species of the Sacrament whereby he takes away Hunger and that species of the Sacrament whereby he takes away Thirst For he discourses of the Flesh and Blood †Partibus mortis suae which are parted at his Death as they are to be embraced by the Mind being the Meat and Drink of the Soul Because unless our Spirit be sustained by the Death of Christ as by Meat and be delighted with it as with Drink there is not the Life of the Spirit in us And now Sir having given you so large an Account of this great Man's Opinion in his own Words I shall content my self to say in general that if it were needful others might be produced for the same even Popes Cardinals Bishops and Doctors who as far as I can discern were for number as well as quality not inferiour to those who maintained the contrary side before the Council of Trent Nay that Council it self would have better informed those that told you the Church has still understood this part of the Chapter as treating of the Eucharist There were warm Discourses in the Congregation between the Divines concerning the Interpretation of these Passages But at last it was concluded neither to affirm or deny them to be meant of the Eucharist but it was agreed however to deny that the necessity of communicating in both kinds could be inferred supposing that the Eucharist was meant that is to say it was carried by the Majority And to gratifie those that thought it was not meant it was to be acknowledged that they had Fathers and Doctors of their Opinion For the Matter all things considered was accommodated as well as it could be in these words (u) Sed neque ex Sermone illo apud Joâ—nnem sexto recte coligitur utriusque speâ—â—i communionem à Domino Praecepram esse â—â—cunque juxta varias sanctorum Patrum Doctorum Interpretationes inteliigatur Conc. Trid. Sess 21. cap. 1. Nor from that Discourse in the 6th of St. John is it rightly gathered that the Communion of both kinds was enjoined by our Lord however that Discourse be understood according to the various Interpretations of the Holy Fathers and Doctors I doubt I have said more than enough upon your short intimation of that Pretence that the Church has always interpreted these places of the Eucharist But I hope you will make this construction of it that I am one of those who bear a due regard to the Authority and Tradition of the Universal Church as I believe you to be another For which Reason I thought it more needful to remove so great a Prejudice out of your way as the belief of the foresaid Insinuation would have been And I am confident you now see that in maintaining the Eucharist not to be intended by our Saviour in any part of this Chapter any more than other parts of Christianity I am not obliged to encounter the Authority of All the Ancients or of the whole Church nay that in this matter I do not so much as entrench upon the Authority of the Council of Trent it self Indeed that Council would have me to believe that not one of the various Interpretations of the Fathers and Doctors makes against the Communion in one kind But I hope I may be excused if I can believe that which several Men of high Rank in their own Church were not able to believe And as for that Doctrine that Christ is properly eaten in the Eucharist I ought to be excused too if I can by no means believe it or else those Fathers must be condemned who believed the Capernaites to be a perverse sort of Men for turning our Saviour's words in this Chapter to so inhumane and absurd a sense as if he had exhorted them to eat a Man's Flesh according to the propriety of those words For no Man can say that this is either inhumane or absurd who believes the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that Christ is properly eaten in the Eucharist So that for what I can see this Chapter of St. John instead of affording a solid Argument for that Conclusion when it comes to be well considered upon the Grounds of Reason and Authority does at last yield a Terrible Objection against it I have thought of all these Things with the liberty of one that loves Truth not without due regard to the Ancient Doctors of the Church Our common Master hath taught me to call no man Master upon Earth yet I never refused the help of his Ministers to guide me into the knowledge of this Truth And since I have been able to use that help I have still valued in the first place that assistance which is offered me from the Primitive Bishops and Fathers And this Liberty I have been encouraged to use in the Church of England not only for judging of Points which she has not determined but those also which she has
to be believed and offers the blessed Fruits and Advantages thereof to all that are disposed to partake of them It is also objected against this Interpretation That if the Doctrine of our Lord's Passion and the believing of it be here meant no reason can be given why our Saviour should speak in the Future Tense The Bread which I will give is my Flesh Since this Spiritual Food was no less given before the Incarnation and Passion of Christ than afterward for the Patriarchs lived and were nourished by Faith And therefore if spiritual eating be only intended Christ seemed to promise a new thing which yet he had given of old So that his Promise is to be understood of giving his natural Flesh to be eaten which was never done before the Eucharist This is the Objection and a very strange one it must needs be to him that shall consider 1. That our Saviour speaketh in the Future Tense to the Woman of Samaria where yet the Expression is acknowledged to be Figurative and the meaning of it to be believing Whosoever drinketh of the Water that I shall give him shall never thirst but the Water that I shall give him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be in him a Well c. Now would not this be rare arguing Our Lord says I will give Water Therefore he promised something that he had never given before therefore spiritual drinking or believing is not meant because the Patriarchs believed of old therefore the Promise is to be taken literally and properly And yet this is that very Argument to prove the literal sence in this Verse But then 2. Our Lord speaks of the necessity of present eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood in the 53d and 54th Verses And therefore the Argument from the Future Tense to prove that he spake properly of the Eucharist is insufficient 3. Supposing that all had been future and that something was promised more than had been formerly given yet it follows not that Christ spake properly of the Eucharist much less of giving his Flesh properly to be eaten there For although the Fathers believed of old yet the Doctrine of the Passion was never clearly understood by the Faithful before our Saviour's Time no nor as yet by his own Disciples Our Saviour did now and then mention it and here he gave them some Intimations of it which they understood not then so well as they did afterwards See Note on V. 53. Himself said to them Many Prophets and righteous Men have desired to see those things that ye have seen and have not seen them and to hear those things that ye hear and have not heard them Matth. 13.17 And yet his Disciples hitherto had attained to a very imperfect knowledge of Christianity to what they had afterwards Although therefore the good Men of old were justified by Faith and saw the Promises afar off and had some general Intimations of the Gospel yet whether the particular Objects of our Faith were not a new thing worthy of Christ's Promise I leave indifferent Men to judge Lastly It has been said That the Natural Flesh of Christ was to be given or offered upon the Cross substantially or properly for the Life of the World and therefore the same Flesh was to be given with the same Propriety to be Bread for us and to be eaten by us viz. in the Eucharist To which I answer 1. as before That this arguing will conclude more than they desire who urge it For if the former Clause is to be understood in the same strictness and propriety of words with the latter Clause then the Flesh of Christ was to become Bread properly For he said The Bread which I will give is my Flesh But 2. It is much more reasonable to understand the giving of his Flesh to be Bread according to the meaning of this kind of Expressions throughout the whole Discourse And our Adversaries do acknowledge that those Passages I am the Bread of Life He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever that is all of this kind from Vers 32. to this very Clause in Vers 51. are to be understood of spiritual eating i. e. of believing Since therefore our Saviour gave no manner of intimation that he changed his style there is more reason to interpret those words of giving his Flesh to be Bread and of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood in a sence agreeable to that wherein eating Him is to be understood all along before than to understand them properly that is to say of bodily eating although it is the Flesh of Christ which is given to be eaten that Flesh which was substantially and properly given for the Life of the World 52. Upon this the Jews disputed against him afresh the greater part of them taking his last words in a gross sence as if he had promised to give them his Flesh to eat with their Teeth and to swallow it down their Throats as their Forefathers had eaten Manna and as they had eaten in the Wilderness the day before And upon this advantage which they thought they had against him they exclaimed as if he had spoken absurdly and inhumanly and taught his Disciples to devour Man's Flesh 53. But notwithstanding this perverse Construction of his words Jesus did not think fit to deliver his meaning in such proper Expressions as might avoid all the Cavils of these unreasonable Men but deferring for a while a further Explication of himself he vehemently repeated his Doctrine under such Expressions and figurative Speeches as they had hitherto given him just occasion to use only to signifie that he was to die a violent and bloody Death for the Salvation of Mankind To that Expression of eating his Flesh he added another of drinking his Blood affirming that except they did this they must not expect Eternal Life as if he had said Except ye believe the Merit of that Sacrifice which I shall offer for the Sins of the World and own me for your Saviour in dying a painful and ignominious Death for your sakes and learn Charity and Patience and Humility and Resignation to the Will of God by my Sufferings ye have not Spiritual nor shall have Eternal Life V. 53. If it be asked Why our Saviour still persisted in a figurative and allusive way of Expression although he saw their gross and perhaps wilful mistake of his former words v. 52. It may be answered That he knew good reason for it though the Reason be not left upon Record However a probable Conjecture ought to suffice in such a Case as this where the Objection is That no account can be given of it I answer therefore That our Lord did not think fit to foretel the ignominious Death he was to suffer upon the Cross so publickly as he foretold his Resurrection Sometimes he told his Disciples that he was to suffer and be killed Matth. 16. but to others he intimated it obscurely with intention that they might afterwards
talked amongst themselves as if these Sayings of their Master must needs be offensive to the Ears of all Persons that had a sence of Humanity and as for themselves that they knew not what to make of them 61. Neither did they desire him to explain himself further but he by his Divine Spirit knowing what they muttered amongst themselves applied himself to them in particular and upbraided them in this manner for taking so unreasonable an offence against him 62. When you shall see me ascend up to Heaven it will not seem strange that I came down from thence and because even then it will remain necessary that you should eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you may be sure I do not mean that gross feeding upon my Flesh and drinking my Blood in which you understand what I have said for my Body will then be too far removed from the Conversation of mortal Men to be capable of being so used 63. No when I speak to you of the Conditions of obtaining everlasting Life though I have now expressed them by eating my Flesh and drinking my Blood yet you had reason to understand me of spiritual Actions which do indeed tend to the bettering of the inward Man For they are such things only that feed the Soul and can preserve it to Eternal Life But to this purpose the flesh profiteth nothing No not my own Flesh if you should eat it as grosly as you understand my Sayings For even this would be but bodily Nourishment but would have no Influence upon the Mind But if you would know what those things are that better the Soul and it is my Business to call you off from that sollicitous Care you take of your mortal Bodies to mind your Souls and to provide for a blessed Resurrection If I say you would know what things are proper for the Improvement of the Mind they are the Words that I speak unto you they are those Precepts of a heavenly Life and those Promises of eternal Life which I have laid before you that Faith which I require you to have in my Death and that Example of Doctrine Charity and Humility which I require you to follow These are the spiritual means of renewing your Minds and therefore Means also of fitting you for Eternal Life V. 61 62 63. Our Lord perceiving how grosly the Jews and some of his own Disciples understood those Expressions of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood did upon this occasion explain his own meaning as fully as he did to Nicodemus in the point of Regeneration For Nicodemus having said How can a Man be born when he is old Can he enter the second time into his Mothers Womb and be born Jesus answered Verily verily I say unto thee except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit Which was as much as to say The Flesh profiteth nothing as here V. 63. And if you were by a strange Miracle to be born again the natural way by this fleshly Birth you would come again but into a mortal Life but that fleshly Birth would not avail you for everlasting Life In the very same manner our Saviour repeated in this Chapter those Sayings which the Jews and some of his own Disciples were offended at and in the same manner he explained them afterwards It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life Which being compared with the Answer to Nicodemus now mentioned and explained by the light that Answer affords can yield no other meaning than that which I have expressed in the Paraphrase As for the 62d V. it might be intended as an Answer to that particular Exception against him mentioned V. 42. that he was the Son of Joseph and could not therefore reasonably pretend to come down from Heaven To which if our Lord referred his words are a proper Answer viz. that when they should see him ascend into Heaven they would no longer doubt of the truth of his coming from thence But I rather think those words refer to that great Offence which some of his own Disciples took against him that he should speak of their eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood For they were his Disciples only that saw him ascend And when they should know that he was in Heaven they could not without great Stupidity think that he would give them his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink in that gross sence wherein they understood him However I have put both these Interpretations into the Paraphrase 64. But no wonder that you wrest my Sayings to so absurd a sence as you do for there are some amongst you that dislike my Doctrine and are grown weary of following me and wait for an opportunity to leave me For as soon as any Man professed himself his Disciple Jesus knew how he stood affected towards him And he did not only know who of the Multitude that follow'd him would revolt but likewise which of his Apostles would betray him See V. 36. 65. And Jesus added Because I knew that there were some such amongst you therefore I thought fit to tell you before V. 37 39 44. that my Doctrine would never be heartily entertained by any but those whom God had prepared for it by enduing them with a Mind willing to learn and with a prevailing desire of obtaining God's Favour and Eternal Life 66. Upon this close application of his Doctrine to the Consciences of those insincere Disciples of his they finding themselves discovered and that it was to no purpose to dissemble resolved to pretend themselves his Disciples no longer and went off from him without more ado 67. Jesus seeing them turn their Backs upon him took this occasion both to shew that some of his Disciples were sincere and that he cared not to be followed by any but those that were willing and therefore he said to the Twelve You see I do not compel Men to follow me but that I let them depart if they will go Now what say you will ye still continue my Disciples or follow the Example of these Men and go away 68. Whereupon Peter who was still the most forward Speaker in his Master's Cause answered for himself and the rest Lord our greatest concern is to attain eternal Life and there is none other but thy self who can guide us to it And we understand that those very Sayings of thine with which these Men were so unreasonably offended do shew us the necessity of believing thy Words and Doctrine as thou didst now tell them V. 63. that we may live for ever V. 68. Thou hast the words of eternal Life This saying of St. Peter confirms the Interpretation I have given of V. 63. For here he seems plainly to repeat our Lord's sence almost in the