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
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
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
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
believing that all things would go well now he was with them and so it proved For though they had made so little Progress before yet now the Ship came presently to the place whither it was bound 22. Now the People whom Jesus had fed in the Desert were not so perfectly dispersed but that many of them kept together till the day following and came to the Shore where the Disciples took Ship the Evening before and although they knew there was no other Boat there when the Disciples went to Sea but that into which they entred and that Jesus did not go with them 23. Tho' there came other Boats from Tiberias afterwards which these Men found that morning near the place where the Miracle was wrought 24. Yet knowing that the Disciples were gone and not being able to find Jesus on that side they believed he was gone after them tho' they knew not how v. 25. And so they resolved to follow the Disciples in those Boats that were newly come from Tiberias hoping to find Jesus himself with them at Capernaum or Bethsaida 25. And when they found him they desired to know by what Miracle he got thither so soon for they knew he went not over with his Disciples and no other Boat was on the other side to transport him but those in which they came and the way by Land over the Bridge of Tiberias was too far about to get thither in so short a time 26. But Jesus without satisfying their curiosity in this matter turned the Discourse to things of greater moment and answered them in this manner I certainly know that ye do not follow me for the true end of those Miracles which I work which is that ye might believe in me and obtain everlasting Life but meerly for that present Benefit which you hope to receive by them as you did yesterday when you did eat c. 27. But I had a farther end in feeding your Bodies which now I require you to mind and that is to perswade you not to take so much pains for the prolonging of a Life which will shortly end as for that Vertue and Knowledge which are the Food of Souls and the means of living happily for ever when this Life shall be no more You should follow the Son of Man for such things as these the Father having shewed him to be the Person who should convey these Blessings to the Souls of Men and that by those wonderful Works which he hath sent him to do for the relief of their Bodies 28. These Men were so suddainly disgusted with this Spiritual Doctrine that they replied in this manner We who have the Law of Moses do already know what Works God requires And canst thou tell us what will be more pleasing to him than our keeping of the Law 29. Jesus answered God hath sent his Son into the World to reveal a better Doctrine and to prescribe a better Life than Moses did And that Work pleasing to God and necessary to your Salvation which you must do is in short this To believe him whom God hath sent and to take his Word for your Security in doing all that he requires 30. But they were so strangely prejudiced against Jesus upon his calling them off from the Cares of this World to a Heavenly Life and a better Hope that the late Miracle for which they had so extolled him v. 14. was now in their Opinion nothing at all And so they replied to him as if they had said If thou pretendest to a higher Doctrine than Moses taught why dost not thou shew us equal if not greater Signs and Wonders than he wrought that we may see them and believe thee for their sake What dost thou perform answerable to such a mighty Faith as thou requirest of us NOTES V. 30. This suddain Turn of theirs was so strange that Grotius does not allow those that said this to be the same Persons that were fed in the Wilderness the day before But I can see no reason for his Opinion for the Evangelist plainly seems to continue the Relation as of the same Persons and it is no unusual thing for Men either to keep or alter their Perswasions as they are led by their Prejudices and Interests And our Saviour told those that had been fed in the Wilderness that they followed him for worldly Advantages and not for Instruction in Spiritual and Heavenly matters v. 26. So that finding themselves disappointed it was not unlikely that they would fall in their Opinion of him To which we may add that one main Design of his following Discourse was to shew that external Evidence was not sufficient to create Faith without the inward preparation of a sincere and honest Mind Which was very pertinent to the Case of those Men who were made confident that Jesus was that Prophet by the late Miracle till they found that his Doctrine was contrary to their worldly Affections For which reasons I have chose to continue the Discourse in the Paraphrase as the Text seems to direct i. e. between Jesus and the same Persons that spake to him v. 25. rather than to substitute other Speakers for which there is neither Authority of the Text nor any need upon the account of avoiding inconvenience V. 31. Our Fathers did eat Manna in the Desert as it is written He gave them Bread from Heaven to eat V. 32. Then Jesus said unto them Verily verily I say unto you Moses gave you not that Bread from Heaven but my Father giveth you the true Bread from Heaven V. 33. For the Bread of God is he that cometh down from Heaven and giveth life unto the World V. 34. Then said they unto him Lord evermore give us this Bread V. 35. And Jesus said unto them I am the Bread of Life He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst V. 36. But I said unto you that ye also have seen me and believe not V. 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out V. 38. For I came down from Heaven not to do my own Will but the Will of him that sent me V. 39. And this is the Father's Will which hath sent me that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day V. 40. And this is the Will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day V. 41. The Jews then murmured at him because he said I am the Bread which came down from Heaven V. 42. And they said Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph whose Father and Mother we know how is it then that he saith I came down from Heaven V. 43. Jesus therefore answered and said unto them Murmur not among your selves V. 44. No man can come
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
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
same Words The Words that I speak unto you they are Life or the Words of Eternal Life As if St. Peter had said We do not understand thee in that gross and absurd Sense to which these Men have perverted thy Sayings for we perceive that thou speakest of those Doctrines and Revelations by which we are to be guided to eternal Life But if St. Peter had understood our Saviour in that sence wherein the unbelieving Jews and his revolted Disciples understood him St. Peter's Answer would surely have been to this purpose Whatever appearance there is of Inhumanity and Contradiction in giving thy Flesh to be eaten and thy Blood to be drunk for the Life of the World yet we believe that we shall eat thy natural Flesh and drink c. because thou hast said it For though this hard Saying staggered those Men that are gone off yet it does not stagger us at all This had been a Confession of Faith suitable to the occasion and to the Spirit of St. Peter if he had understood our Saviour as the Jews did At least he would have used those very Expressions which our Saviour used when the Jews took offence i. e. he would have said To whom should we go but to thee who wilt give us thy Flesh to eat and thy Blood to drink that we may have Eternal Life But when he rather chose to confess his Faith in the Explanatory words V. 63. Thou hast the words of Eternal Life I think a reasonable Man must acknowledge that St. Peter did not understand our Saviour's Expressions as the perverse Jews understood them 69. And we have already arrived to this Faith by seeing thy mighty Works and hearing thy Divine Doctrines for by these Testimonies we are convinced beyond all doubt that thou art the promised Messias and whereas these Men casted thee the Son of Joseph we assuredly believe that thou art the Son of that God who giveth Life to All and will give Eternal Life to all that believe in thee And to this Answer of Peter's all the rest assented V. 69. And St. Peter having thus shewed plainly enough what he understood by the Flesh and Blood of Jesus viz. his Doctrine or words of eternal Life he shews as plainly in this Verse what he and the rest understood by eating viz. believing as Jesus himself had explained it before Vers 47. Therefore says he And we believe and are sure c. So that by what St. Peter said upon this occasion it appears sufficiently that if Jesus had meant the literal and gross sence the Jews and the Disciples that forsook him understood him aright and Peter and the rest of the Apostles and Disciples that staid mistook him which 't is certain they did not because our Saviour approved what St. Peter said in the name of all the rest And in the Interpretation of our Saviour's words it is I believe more safe to follow St. Peter with the approbation of our Saviour than to follow any of his Successors without it 70. But this being spoken in the Name of All Jesus to shew that he as well understood the Hearts of his Twelve Apostles as he did of the multitude of his Disciples V. 64. answered them to this purpose What one of you hath said in behalf of All is true of All but one I have indeed chosen you Twelve before all my other Disciples to be my chief Companions and Ministers but there is one of you who already hates me and is treacherously bent to do me mischief 71. Though he did not mention Judas the Traytor yet he meant him and not any other of the Apostles THE CONCLUSION AND now I heartily beseech All into whose Hands these Papers may chance to come not to think that this Chapter is to be done withal when they are once satisfied what our Lords meaning was in those Expressions of Eating him and the like but that they would please to attend to the Reason and End of these and such kind of Sayings which will convince them I doubt not that this excellent Chapter is fit to be thought of and laid to heart every day they live Great pity it is that this Portion of God's Word also should come to be a Bone of Contention which was designed to beget and improve in the Disciples of Jesus a Spirit of true Wisdom and Piety and to establish them in a Holy Life That which our Lord principally aimed at in all this Discourse was to make his Hearers concerned in good earnest for their Eternal State which will at first sight appear to any Man that mindeth how often those Sayings return of everlasting Life and living for ever and being raised up at the last day Now this indeed seemed to be his great Design in almost all his Sermons and Applications to the People from whence we may gather this profitable Instruction that Men were more or less prepared to receive the Truth as it is in Jesus according as they were more or less affected with the End of his coming into the World which was to bring them to everlasting Life But in this Chapter and in some others there is a peculiar Instruction tending to this purpose which we ought all of us very frequently to consider not slighting it because it is very plain but making much of it both because it is very useful and strongly suggested by our Lord himself And 't is in short this that the Care we are at and the Pains we take for the Welfare of this short Life should awaken in us a greater care and concern for our everlasting Welfare And that we who are so thoughtful and diligent in pursuing our Temporal Interests should be ashamed and count our selves reproved by our worldly Cares if we are not much more careful to work out our Salvation This was the Method our Lord took to bring those People to Wisdom and therefore he represented to them the Means and Conditions of everlasting Life under the Names of those Things which their Hearts had hitherto been most set upon i.e. Bread and Eating and Drinking For these were the Men that had been fed by him the day before and now they followed him for the Loaves that is in hope to reap such bodily Advantages as these from him every day But to bring them to some sense of better things and to lead them towards a due Esteem of that end for which he came into the World he proceeds in his Admonitions by calling the Spiritual Benefits which he had in store for them Bread and Food and their receiving those Benefits Eating and Drinking ever and anon letting them know that if they ate and drank of that Food which he came to give them they should live for ever And what was the Instruction of this way of discoursing to them but that if the bodily Food for which they were so sollicitous were a valuable Enjoyment which yet would serve but for the prolonging of a mortal Life how ought