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
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
without the mediation of any other Person Ch. 1. v. 18. 47. Take notice therefore of what I say The Will of my Father which by me he makes known to you is this that he who receiveth my Doctrine firmly believing it and submitting his Heart and Soul to it shall as surely obtain Everlasting Life as if he were possess'd of it already V. 47. This Saying of our Saviour explains all that he says about the necessity of eating c. shewing clearly that he meant the believing of his Doctrine and being conformed to it in Heart and Life For if he that believeth shall obtain everlasting Life then he eateth Christ according to his meaning in this Chapter that believeth in him 48. And therefore as I told you before you are to look upon me as the True Bread of Life whereof I have been speaking to you for I came down from Heaven to guide you to everlasting Life V. 48. Here our Lord calleth himself Bread again thereby implying what he afterwards expressed that he is to be eaten Now most certainly we are in such a sence to eat Christ as that is wherein he is Bread But no Man will say that Jesus was or can be properly Bread therefore it is not eating him literally and properly that can be here meant but only believing on him which is by the same Figure called eating whereby he called himself Bread 49. Which should make you concerned to attend my Instructions instead of desiring such Bread as Moses gave your Fathers in the Wilderness which served only to sustain a short Life in this World for they are long since dead that ate it v. 31 34. 50. But I bring you Food from Heaven which whosoever eateth it shall preserve him to everlasting Life For I bring you a Doctrine the Belief and Obedience whereof will avail to your Salvation and I who bring it am come with the highest Authority to require your Faith and with Divine Testimonies of my Authority to justifie your Faith so that nothing is wanting to secure your Salvation but forwardness on your own parts to eat this Heavenly Food that I invite you to feast upon now that it is brought down to you from Heaven and is as near you as that Bread wherewith I fed you yesterday in the Wilderness Nothing is wanting I say but that you would think who it is that God hath sent to you and of how great concern to your Souls that Message is which I bring you from Heaven and how abundantly God hath testified that I am come from him to give you everlasting Life and that considering these things you would do like reasonable Men believe what I say and receive my Doctrine into your very Hearts and Souls and give thanks to God for his unspeakable Gift V. 50. This is the first place where our Saviour in pursuance of that Figure of calling himself Bread expresseth believing in him v. 35 47. by eating him In the 35th ver where he also calls himself the Bread of Life he did not pursue the Figure throughout by saying he that eateth me but he that cometh to me i. e. who is my Disciple shall never hunger and he that believeth on me not he that drinketh me shall never thirst Which makes it very plain that by eating here we are to understand believing not a corporeal but a spiritual Action And because it does not yet appear that he limits the Object of Believing we are therefore to understand him as speaking of the necessity of receiving his whole Doctrine and submitting to it in Heart and Life which whosoever does shall not die but live eternally 51. And when I tell you that I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven and which he that eateth of shall live for ever as you are to understand this with respect to all that Doctrine which I deliver so especially with respect to that part of it that I am come into the World to lay down my Life for the Salvation of Mankind And as I came for this end so I will give my Body to the Death for the Life of the World which is an infinitely greater Benefit than either your Fathers received from Moses when he gave them Manna to eat or than you received from me yesterday when you were filled with that Provision I made for your Bodies V. 51. Without doing great Violence to our Saviour's Words in this place they cannot be so understood as if he promised to turn Bread into his Flesh for the Life of the World as they must suppose who will ground the Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon this place For if some such Change were here to be understood it must be quite contrary viz. a Change of his Flesh into Bread inasmuch as he calls himself the living Bread and says That the Bread which he would give was his Flesh that he would give for the Life of the World If therefore it be insisted upon that the Words are to be properly understood and that therefore a change must be supposed of one Substance into another it must not be of Bread into the substance of Christ's Flesh but of Christ's Flesh into the substance of Bread which Interpretation I think no body has ever yet been so unreasonable as to contend for What account therefore is to be given of these Words but this That our Saviour having hitherto pursued a Figurative way of speaking upon the occasion so often mentioned went on in the same way of expression to lay before them that principal Doctrine of the Gospel that Christ was to die for the Salvation of Mankind which is the plain sence of giving his Flesh to be bread for us For he gave his Flesh for the Life of the World when he gave himself to the Death for us all And his Flesh so given is Bread to us because his Death is the means of our living for ever And whereas Christ mentioned the giving of his Flesh for the Life of the World as a future thing and likewise the giving of his Flesh to be Bread it does not follow that because the former was to be performed on the Cross only therefore the latter was to be performed only in the Eucharist This I say does not follow unless it could be proved that he promised in those Words to give us his natural Flesh to be eaten properly in the Eucharist which I have shewn is impossible to be proved from hence Still therefore we are to understand not a corporal but a spiritual eating And whereas our Saviour said The Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World the meaning is this that his Flesh shall be given for the Life of the World once for all but the Spiritual Food or Nourishment which his Flesh so given should afford would be given evermore not only in the Eucharist but in the whole ministration of the Gospel which holds forth the Death of Christ
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