IN this chapter, it is earnestly pretended, that our blessed Saviour taught the mystery of transubstantiation; but with some different opinions; for in this question they are divided all the way: some reckon the whole sermon as the proof of it, from verse 33. to 58.; though how to make them friends with Bellarmine I understand not; who says [Lib. de Euchar. cap. 5.], "'Constat,' 'It is known that the eucharist is not handled in the whole chapter; for Christ there discourses of natural bread: the miracle of the loaves, of faith, and of the incarnation, are a great part of the chapter; 'Solum igitur quaestio est de illis verbis,--Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita--et de sequentibus, fere ad finem capitis;'--'The question only is concerning those words, (verse 51.) The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,--and so forward almost until the end of the chapter.' "The reason which is pretended for it, is, because Christ speaks in the future, and therefore probably relates to the institution which was to be next year: but this is a trifle; for the same thing, in effect, is before spoken in the future tense, and by way of promise'; "Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat, that endureth to everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you." The same also is affirmed by Christ, under the expression of water, St. John, iv. 14.; "He that drinketh the water which I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water which I shall give him, shall be a fountain of water springing up to life eternal." The places are exactly parallel; and yet, as this is not meant of baptism, so neither is the other of the eucharist; but both of them of spiritual sumption of Christ. And both of them being promises to them that shall come to Christ and be united to him, it were strange if they were not expressed in the future; for although they always did signify in present and 'in sensu currenti,' yet because they are of never-failing truth, to express them in the future is most proper, that the expectation of them may appertain to all,

Ad natos natorum et qui nascentur ab illis.

But then, because Christ said, "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,"--to suppose this must be meant of a corporal manducation of his flesh in the holy sacrament, is as frivolous as if it were said, that nothing that is spoken in the future, can be figurative; and if so, then let it be considered what is meant by these; "To him that overcomes, I will give to eat of the tree of life:" and, "To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the hidden manna g." These promises are future, but certainly figurative; and, therefore, why it may not be so here, and be understood of eating Christ spiritually or by faith, I am certain there is no cause sufficient in this excuse. For if eating Christ by faith be a thing of all times, then it is also of the future; and no difference of time is so apt to express an 'eternal truth' as is the future, which is alway in flux and potential signification. But the secret of the thing was this; the arguments against the sacramental sense of these words, drawn from the following verses between this and the fifty-first verse, could not be so well answered; and therefore, Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither, as appears in his answer to the ninth argument: "that of some Catholics." [Lib. 1. Euch. c. 7. sect. Respondeo Verba,] However, as to this article I am to say these things:--

1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm, that, in this chapter, Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation, or of the sacrament at all: Johannes de Ragusio, Biel, Cusanus, Ruard, Tapper, Cajetan, Hessels, Jansenius, Waldensis, Arrnachanus:--save only that Bellarmine, going to excuse it, says in effect, that they did not do it very honestly; for he affirms, that they did it, that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the communion under both kinds: and if it be so, and not be so, as it may serve a turn, it is so for transubstantiation, and it is not so for the half-communion, we have but little reason to rely upon their judgment or candour in any exposition of Scripture. [De Commnnione sub utraque specie; In Canon; Epist. 7. ad Bohem; Artic. 15; Part. 3. q. 80. art. 8; Lib. de Commun. sub una specie; Concord. Evang. c. 59; Tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 91; Lib. 9. c. 8. Ejusdem sententiae sunt Aeneas Sylvius dial. contr. Tabor. Alensis, part. 4. q. 11. mem. 2. a. 4, Lindanus, Caspar Sagerus, et alii.] But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so. The heretic Severus, in Anastasius Sinaita, maintained it lawful, and even necessary, "according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the doctrines of Christ:" and the Cardinal of Cusa affirmed it lawful, "diversely to expound the Scriptures according to the times." [Epist. 2. ad. Bohem. ver. 53.] So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing: and I doubt not but it is practised too often, since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker.

2. These great clerks had reason to expound it, not to be meant of sacramental manducation, to avoid the unanswerable argument against their half-communion: for so Christ said, "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." 1. It is therefore as necessary to drink the chalice as to eat the bread, and we perish if we omit either. And their new whimsey of 'concomitancy' will not serve the turn, because there it is 'sanguis effusus,' that is, sacramentally poured forth: 'blood that is poured forth,' not that is in the body. 2. If it were in the body, yet a man, by no concomitancy, can be said to drink what he only eats. 3. If in the sacramental body, Christ gave the blood by concomitancy, then he gave the blood twice; which to what purpose it might be done, is not yet revealed. 4. If the blood be, by concomitancy, in the body, then so is the body with the blood: and then it will be sufficient to drink the chalice without the host, as to eat the host without the chalice; and then we must drink his flesh as well as eat his blood, which if we could suppose to be possible, yet the precept of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, were not observed by drinking that, which is to be eaten,--and eating that, which is to be drunk. But certainly they are fine propositions which cannot be true, unless we can eat our drink and drink our meat, unless bread be wine and wine be bread, or, to speak in their style, unless the body be the blood, and the blood the body; that is, unless each of the two symbols be the other as much as itself; as much that which it is not, as that which it is. And this thing their own Pope Innocentius the Third [Lib. 4. de Miss. Myster. c. 21.], and from him Vasques [In 3. t. 3. dist.216. n. 50.], noted, and Salmeron,--who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing; and that, without eating and drinking, the precept of Christ is not obeyed. [Tom. 8. tr. 24.]

3. But whatever can come of this, yet upon the account of these Words so expounded by some of the fathers concerning oral manducation and potation, they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the eucharist to infants, as to give them baptism; and did, for above seven ages together, practise it; and let these men, that will have these words spoken of the eucharist, answer the argument:--Bellarmine is troubled with it, and, instead of answering, increases the difficulty, and concludes firmly against himself, saying, "If the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually, or by faith, it will be more impossible to infants; for it is easier to give them 'intinctum panem,' 'bread dipped in the chalice,' than to make them believe." [Clem. Hom. 1. 8. c. 20. Constit. Aposl. Eccles. Hierarch. cap. ult. Gennadius, cap. 52. de Dogmat. Eccles. cap. de Sabbato Sancto Paschatis. S. Cyprian. Epist.59. ad Fiduc. Concil. Tolet.2. c. 11. S. August. Epist. 93. 106. Innocentius Papa, ibid. Paulinos Episc. Nolanus A. D. 333. Epist. 12. ad Severum. Paulinus de Infantibus ait: Pura salutiferis imbuit ora cibis.--Hic mos duravit ad tempora Ludovici Pii, el Lotharii, ait Beat. Rhenan. in Tertul. de Cor. Milit.] To this I reply, that therefore it is spoken to infants in neither sense, neither is any law at all given to them; and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity. But then, although I have answered the argument, because I believe it not to be meant in the sacramental sense to any; nor in the spiritual sense to them; yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause. For since it is certain (and he confesses it) that it is easier, that is, it is possible to give infants the sacrament; it follows, that if here the sacrament be meant, infants are obliged; that is, the church is obliged to minister it, as well as baptism: there being, in virtue of these words, the same necessity, and, in the nature of the thing, the same possibility, of their receiving it. But then, on the other side, no inconvenience can press our interpretation of 'spiritual eating Christ by faith,' because it being naturally impossible that infants should believe, they cannot be concerned in an impossible commandment. [Lib. 1. Euchar. c. 7. sect. Respondeo Communem] So that we can answer St. Austin's and Innocentius's arguments for communicating of infants, but they cannot.

4. If these words be understood of sacramental manducation, then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy sacrament. 1. For "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;" if it be answered, that the holy sacrament must be eaten in act, or desire; I reply, that is not true; because if a catechumen desires baptism only in the article of his death, it is sufficient to salvation, and they dare not deny it. 2. Fools, young persons, they that are surprised with sudden death, cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire. 3. There is nothing in the words, that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the sacrament; and it is a strange deception, that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the sacrament either in act or desire. For, they are not opposite but subordinate members, and differ only as act and disposition; and this disposition is not at all required, but as it is in order to the act, and therefore is nothing of itself, and is only the imperfection of, or passage to, the act; if therefore the act were not necessary, neither were the disposition; but if the act be necessary, then the desire, which is but the disposition to the act, is not sufficient. As, if it be necessary to go from Oxford to London, then it is necessary that you go to Henley, or Uxbridge; but if it be necessary to be at London, it is not sufficient to go to Uxbridge; but if it be not necessary to be at London, neither is it necessary to go so far. But this distinction, as it is commonly used, is made to serve ends, and is grown to that inconvenience, that repentance itself is said to be sufficient, if it be only in desire; for so they must, that affirm repentance, in the article of death, after a wicked life, to be sufficient; when it is certain there can be nothing actual but ineffective desires; and all the real and most material events of it cannot be performed, but desired only. But whosoever can be excused from the actual susception of a sacrament, can also, in an equal necessity, be excused from the desire; and no man can be tied to an absolute, irrespective desire of that, which cannot be had: and if it can, the desire alone will not serve the turn. And indeed a desire of a thing, when we know it cannot be had, is a temptation either to impatience, or scruple; and why, or how can a man be obliged to desire that to be done, which, in all his circumstances, is not necessary it should be done. A preparation of mind to obey in those circumstances, in which it is possible, that is, in which he is obliged, is the duty of every man; but this is not an explicit desire of the actual susception, which, in his case, is not obligatory, because it is impossible; and lastly, such a desire of a thing is wholly needless, because, in the present case, the thing itself is not necessary; therefore neither is the desire; neither did God ever require it but in order to the act. But however if we find by discourse, that for all these decretory words the desire can suffice, I demand by what instrument is that accepted; whether by faith, or no? I suppose it will not be denied. But if it be not denied, then a spiritual manducation can perform the duty of those words: for susception of the sacrament in desire, is at the most but a spiritual manducation. And St. Austin affirms, that baptism can perform the duty of those words, if Beda quotes him right; for in his sermon to infants, and in his third book 'de Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione,' he affirms that, in baptism, infants receive the body of Christ; so that these words may as well be understood of baptism, as of the eucharist, and of faith better than either. [Beda in 1 Cor. x. citat Augustini serm. ad Infantes.]

5. The men of Capernaum understood Christ to speak these words of his natural flesh and blood, and were scandalized at it; and Christ reproved their folly, by telling them his words were to be understood in a spiritual sense; so that if men would believe him, that knew best the sense of his own words, there need be no scruple of the sense; I do not understand these words' in a fleshly sense, but in a spiritual, saith Christ: "The flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken, they are spirit, and they are life." Now, besides that the natural sense of the words hath in it too much of the sense of the offended disciples, the reproof and consultation of it are equally against the Romanists, as against the Capernaites. For we contend it is spiritual; so Christ affirmed it: they that deny the spiritual sense, and affirm the natural, are to remember, that Christ reproved all senses of these words, that were not spiritual. And by the way let me observe, that the expressions of some chief men among the Romanists are so rude and crass, that it will be impossible to excuse them from the understanding the words in the sense of the men of Capernaum; for as they understood Christ to mean his 'true flesh natural and proper,' so do they: as they thought Christ intended they should tear him with their teeth and suck his blood, for which they were offended, so do these men not only think so, but say so, and are not offended. So said Alarms; "Apertissime loquimur, corpus Christi vere a nobis contrectari, mauducari, circumgestari, dentibus teri, sensibiliter sacrificari, non minus quam ante consecrationem panis." [Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 37.] And they frequently quote those metaphors of St. Chrysostom, which he preaches in the height of his rhetoric, as testimonies of his opinion in the doctrinal part: and Berengarius was forced by Pope Nicolas to recant in those very words, affirming that Christ's body, "sensualiter non solum sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri," that "Christ's flesh was sensually not only in the sacrament, but in truth of the thing, to be handled by the priest's hands, to be broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful:" insomuch that the gloss on the canon 'de Consecratione, dist. 2. cap. Ego Berengarius,' affirms it to be a worse heresy than that of Berengarius, unless it be so soberly understood: to which also Cassander assents:--and indeed I thought that the Romanists had been glad to separate their own opinion from the carnal conceit of the men of Capernaum, and the offended disciples,--supposing it to be a great objection against their doctrine, that it was the same with the men of Capernaum, and is only finer dressed: but I find that Bellarmine owns it, even in them, in their rude circumstances: for he affirms that "Christ corrected them not for supposing so, but reproved them for not believing it to be so." [Lib. 1. Euchar cap. 6. sect. 2. ex Dubitatione.] And indeed himself says as much: "Corpus Christi vere ac proprie manducari etiam corpore in eucharistia:" "The body of Christ is truly and properly manducated or chewed with the body in the eucharist:"--and to take off the foulness of the expression by avoiding a worse, he is pleased to speak nonsense. "Narn ad rationem manducationis non est mera attritio, sed satis est sumptio et transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumenta humana:" "A thing may be manducated or chewed, though it be not attrite or broken:" [Ibid. cap. 11. Resp. ad 5. arg.] if he had said, it might be swallowed and not chewed, he had said true; but to say, it may be chewed without chewing or breaking, is a riddle fit to spring from the miraculous doctrine of transubstantiation: and indeed it is a pretty device, that we take the flesh, and swallow down flesh, and yet manducate or chew no flesh, and yet we swallow down only what we manducate; "Accipite, manducate," were the words in the institution. And indeed, according to this device there were no difference between eating and drinking: and the whale might have been said to have eaten Jonas, when she swallowed him without manducation or breaking him, and yet no man does speak so: but in the description of that accident reckon the whale to be fasting for all that morsel: "Invasusque cibus jejuna, vixit in alvo," said Alcimus Avitus: "Jejuni, plenique tamen vato intemerato," said Sidonius Apollinaris; "Vivente jejunus cibo," so Paulinus: 'The fish was full and fasting,' that is, she swallowed Jonas, but eat nothing. As a man does not eat bullets or quicksilver against the iliack passion, but swallows them, and we do not eat our pills: the Greek physicians therefore call a pill katapotio, 'a thing to be swallowed:' and that this is distinct from eating, Aristotle tells us, speaking of the elephant, "he eats the earth, but swallows the stones." And Hesychius determined this thing, "non comedet ex eo quisquam, i. e., non dividetur, quia dentium est dividere, et parti ri cibos, cum aliter mandi non possint." [In Levit. lib. 2. c. 1.] To chew is but a circumstance of nourishment, but the essence of manducation. But Bellarmine adds, that if you will not allow him to say so, then he grants it in plain terms, that Christ's body is chewed, is attrite or broken with the teeth,--and that not tropically but properly,--which is the crass doctrine, which Christ reproved in the men of Capernaum. To lessen and sweeten this expression he tells us, it is indeed broken; but how? under the species of bread and invisibly; well, so it is, though we see it not: and it matters not under what; if it be broken, and we bound to believe it, then we cannot avoid the being that, which they so detested, 'devourers of man's flesh.' See Theophylact in numb. 51. of this section.

6. Concerning the 'bread' or the 'meat indeed,' of which Christ speaks, he also affirms that "whosoever eats it, hath life abiding in him?:" but this is not true of the sacrament; for the wicked eating it, receive to themselves damnation. It cannot therefore be understood of oral manducation, but of spiritual, and of eating Christ by faith: that is, receiving him by an instrument or action evangelical. For receiving Christ by faith includes any way of communicating with his body: by baptism, by holy desires, by obedience, by love, by worthy receiving of the holy sacrament; and it signifies no otherwise, but as if Christ had said, 'To all, that believe in me and obey, I will become the author of life and salvation:' now because this is not done by all that receive the sacrament, not by unworthy communicants, who yet eat the symbols (according to us), and eat Christ's body (according to their doctrine), it is unanswerably certain, that Christ here spake of spiritual manducation, not of sacramental. Bellarmine (he that answers all things whether he can or no) says that words of this nature are conditional; meaning, that he who eats Christ's flesh worthily, shall live for ever: and therefore this effects nothing upon vicious persons, yet it may be meant of the sacrament, because without his proper condition, it is not prevalent. I reply, that it is true it is not, it cannot: and that this condition is spiritual manducation: but then without this condition the man doth not eat Christ's flesh, that which himself calls the true bread, for he that eats this, ecei, he 'hath' life in him, that is, he is united to me, he is in the state of grace at present. For it ought to be observed, that although promises 'de futuro possibili' are to be understood with a condition appendant: yet propositions, affirmative at present, are declarations of a thing in being, and suppose it actually existent: and the different parts of this observation are observable in the several parts of the fifty-fourth verse. "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;"--that is an affirmation of a thing in being, and therefore implies no other condition but the connexion of the predicate with the subject; 'He that eats hath life.'--But it follows, "and I will raise him up at the last day,"--that is 'de futuro possibili:' and therefore implies a condition besides the affirmation of the antecedent, viz., 'si permanserit,' 'if he remain' in this condition, and does not unravel his first interest and forfeit his life. And so the argument remains unharmed, and is no other than what I learned from St. Austin, "Hujus rei sacramentum," &c. "De mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium: res vero ipsa cujus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit." [Tract. 26. in Johan.] And it is remarkable that the context and design of this place take off this evasion from the adversary: for here Christ opposes this eating of his flesh, to the Israelites' eating of manna, and prefers it infinitely; because they who did eat manna, might die, viz., spiritually and eternally: but they that eat his flesh, shall never die, meaning, they shall not die eternally: and therefore this eating cannot be a thing, which can possibly be done unworthily. For if manna, as it was sacramental, had been eaten worthily, they had not died, who ate it; and what privilege then is in this above manna, save only that the eating of this, supposes the man to do it worthily, and to be a worthy person, which the other did not? Upon which consideration Cajetan says, that this eating is not common to worthily and unworthily, and that it is not spoken of eating the sacrament, but of eating and drinking, that is, communicating with the death of Jesus. [In John, vi.] The argument therefore lies thus. There is something, which Christ hath promised us, which whosover receives, he receives life and not death; but this is not the sacrament: for of them that communicate, some receive to life, and some to death, saith St. Austin,-- and a greater than St. Austin, St. Paul": and yet this, which is life to all that receive it, is Christ's flesh, said Christ himself; therefore Christ's flesh here spoken of, is not sacramental.

7. To warrant the spiritual sense of these words against the natural, it were easy to bring down a traditive interpretation of them by the fathers; at least a great consent. Tertullian1 hath these words: "Etsi camera ait nihil prodesse, materia, dicti dirigendus est sensus. Nam quia durum et intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus, quasi vere camera suam illis edendum determinasset, ut in spiritu disponeret statum salutis, proemisit, 'Spiritus est qui vivificat;' atque ita subjunxit, 'Caro nihil prodest,' ad vivificandum scil:" "Because they thought his saying hard and intolerable, as if he had determined his flesh to be eaten by them, that he might dispose the state of salvation in the Spirit, he premised, 'It is the Spirit that giveth life:' and then subjoins, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,' meaning, nothing to the giving of life."'--So that here we have, besides his authority, an excellent argument for us: Christ said, He that eateth my flesh hath life; but the flesh, that is, the fleshly sense of it, profits nothing to life; but the Spirit, that is, the spiritual sense, does; therefore these words are to be understood in a spiritual sense. [Tertul. de Resur. Carn. c. 37.]

8. And because it is here opportune by occasion of this discourse, let me observe this, that the doctrine of transubstantiation is infinitely useless and to no purpose; for by the words of our blessed Lord, by the doctrine of St. Paul, and the sense of the church, and the confession of all sides, the natural eating of Christ's flesh,--if it were there, or could so be eaten, alone, or of itself,--does no good, does not give life; but the spiritual eating of him is the instrument of life to us; and this may be done without the transubstantiated flesh; it may be done in baptism, by faith and charity, by hearing and understanding, and therefore it may also in the blessed eucharist, although there also, according to our doctrine, he be eaten only sacramentally and spiritually. And hence it is, that, in the mass-book, anciently it is prayed after consecration, "Quoesumus, Omnipotens Deus, ut, de pereeptis muneribus gratias exhibentes, beneficia potiora sumamus;" [Ser. 6. 4. temp. Septembr. post Consecrat.] "We beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, giving thanks for these gifts received, may receive greater gifts:" which besides that it concludes against the natural presence of Christ's body, (for what greater thing can we receive, if we receive that?) it also declares, that the grace and effect of the sacramental communion are the thing designed beyond all corporal sumption: and as it is more fully expressed in another collect; "ut terrenis affectibus expiatiad superni plenitudinem sacramenti, cujus libavimus sancta, tendamus;" "that being redeemed from all earthly affections we may tend to the fulness of the heavenly sacrament, the holy things of which we have now began to taste." [In Miss. vol. pro quacunque Necessitate.]--And therefore, to multiply so many miracles and contradictions and impossibilities to no purpose, is an insuperable prejudice against any pretence, less than a plain declaration from God.

9. Add to this, that this bodily presence of Christ's body, 1. is either for corporal nourishment, or for spiritual: not for corporal; for natural food is more proper for it; and to work a miracle to do that, for which so many natural means are already appointed, is to no purpose, and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by God; neither is it done for spiritual nourishment: because to the spiritual nourishment, virtues and graces, the word and the efficacious signs, faith and the inward actions, and all the emanations of the Spirit, are as proportioned, as meat and drink are to natural nourishment; and therefore there can be no need of a corporal presence.

2. Corporal manducation of Christ's body is apparently inconsistent with the nature and condition of a body. 1. Because that, which is after the manner of a spirit, and not of a body, cannot be eaten and drunk after the manner of a body, but of a spirit; as no man can eat a cherub with his mouth, if he were made apt to nourish the soul: but, by the confession of the Roman doctors, Christ's body is present in the eucharist after the manner of a spirit, therefore, without proportions to our body, or bodily actions. 2. That which neither can feel or be felt, see or be seen, move or be moved, change or be changed, neither do or suffer corporally, cannot certainly be eaten corporally; but so they affirm concerning the body of our blessed Lord; it cannot do or suffer corporally in the sacrament, therefore, it cannot be eaten corporally, anymore than a man can chew a spirit, or eat a meditation, or swallow a syllogism into his belly. This would be so far from being credible, that God should work so many miracles in placing Christ's natural body for spiritual nourishment, that in case it were revealed, to be placed there to that purpose, itself must need one great miracle more to verify it, and reduce it to act; and it would still be as difficult to explain, as it is to tell how the material fire of hell should torment spirits and souls. And Socrates in Plato's banquet said well, "Wisdom is not a thing that can be communicated by local or corporal contiguity." 3. That the corporal presence does not nourish spiritually, appears; because some are nourished spiritually, who do not receive the sacrament at all, and some that do receive, yet fall short of being spiritually nourished, and so do all unworthy communicants. This therefore is to no purpose, and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by the wise God of all the world, especially with so great a pomp of miracles. 3. Cardinal Perron affirms, that the real natural presence of Christ in the sacrament is to greatest purpose, because the residence of Christ's natural body in our bodies does really and substantially join us unto God, establishing a true and real unity between God and men. [De l'Euchar. p. 105. Gallic.] And Bellarmine speaks something like this 'de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 9.' But concerning this, besides that every faithful soul is actually united to Christ without the actual residence of Christ's body in our bodies, since every one that is regenerated and born anew of water and of the Spirit, is sumfutoV, 'the same plant with Christ,' as St. Paul calls him, Rom. vi. 5.--He hath put on Christ, he is bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, Gal. iii. 27. Ephes. v. 30.; and all this by faith, by baptism, by regeneration of the Spirit; besides this, I say, this corporal union of our bodies to the body of God incarnate, which these great and witty dreamers dream of, would make man to be God. For that which hath a real and substantial unity with God, is consubstantial with the true God, that is, he is really, substantially, and truly God; which to affirm were highest blasphemy. 5. One device more there is to pretend a usefulness of the doctrine of Christ's natural presence: viz., that, by his contact and conjunction, it becomes the cause and the seed of the resurrection. But besides that this is condemned by Vasquez [Tom. 3. in 3. disp. 201. n. 3] as groundless, and by Suarez [Ibid. disp. 64. sect. 1] as improbable and a novel temerity; it is highly confuted by their own doctrine; for how can the contact or touch of Christ's body have that or any effect on ours, when it can neither be touched, nor seen, nor understood, but by faith? which Bellarmine expressly affirms. But to return from whence I am digressed. [Lib. 3. de Euchar. c.9.]

10. Tertullian adds in the same place; "Quia et sermo caro erat factus, proinde in causam vitae appetendus, et devorandus auditu, et ruminandus intellectu, et fide digerendus. Nam et paulo ante, carnem suam panem quoque ccelestem pronunciarat, urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum memoriam patrum, qui panes et carnes Egyptiorum praeverterant divinae vocationi:" "Because the Word was made flesh, therefore he was desired for life, to be devoured by hearing, to be ruminated or chewed by the understanding, to be digested by faith. For a little before, he called his flesh also celestial bread, still, or all the way, urging, by an allegory of necessary food, the memory of their fathers, who preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt before the divine calling."

11. St. Athanasius, or who is the author of the tractate upon the words, "Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis," in his works, saith, "The things which he speaks, are not carnal but spiritual: for to how many might his body suffice for meat, that it should become the nourishment of the whole world? But for this it was, that he put them in mind of the ascension of the Son of man into heaven, that he might draw them off from carnal and corporal senses, and that they might learn that his flesh, which he called meat, was from above, heavenly and spiritual nourishment. For, saith he, the things that I have spoken, they are spirit and they are life."

12. But Origen is yet more decretory in this affair. "Est et in Novo Testamento litera, quae occidit eum, qui non spiritualiter ea quae dicuntur, adverterit; si enim secundum literum sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, 'Nisi manducaveritis carnam meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum,' occidit haec litera:" "If ye understand these words of Christ, 'Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood,' literally, this letter kills. For there is in the New Testament a letter that kills him, who does not spiritually understand those things which are spoken." [Origen. in Lect. c. 10. hom. 7.]

13. St. Ambrose not only expounds it in a spiritual sense; but plainly denies the proper and natural: "Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit;" "That is not the bread of life which goes into the body, but that which supports the substance of the soul;" [De Sacrament, lib. 5. c. 4.] and, "Fide tangitur, fide videtur, non tangitur corpore, non oculis comprehenditur:" "This bread is touched by faith, it is seen by faith:" [In Lucam, lib, 6. c, 8.] and without all peradventure that it is to be understood of eating and drinking Christ by faith, is apparent from Christ's own words, verse 35: "I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me, shall not hunger; and he that believeth on me, shall not thirst:" 'coming' to Christ is eating him; 'believing him' is drinking his blood. It is not touched by the body, it is not seen with the eyes. St. Chrysostom, in his forty-seventh homily upon this chapter of St. John, expounds these words in a spiritual sense; "for these things," saith he, "are ouden sarkikon exonta oude akolouqian fusikhn, such as have in them nothing carnal, nor any carnal consequence."

14. St. Austin gave the same exposition: "Ut, quid paras dentes et ventrem? crede et manducasti:" and again: "Credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit in eum, manducat." [Tract. 25. in Job, Tract. 26.]

15. Theophylact makes the spiritual sense to be the only answer in behalf of our not being cannibals, or devourers of man's flesh, as the men of Capernaum began to dream, and the men of Rome, though in better circumstances, to this day dream on. "Putabant isti quod Deus cogeret sarkofagouV: quia enim nos hoc spiritualiter intelligimus, neque carnium voratores sumus, imo sanctificatur per talem cibum, non sumus carnis voratores:" "The men of Capernaum thought Christ would compel them to devour man's flesh. But because we understand this spiritually, therefore we are not devourers of man's flesh, but are sanctified by this meat." [In John, vi.] Perfectly to the same sense, and almost in the very words, Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea, is quoted in the Greek Catena upon John.

16. It were easy to add, that Eusebius [Lib. 3. Eccles. Theol. contra Marcel. Ancyran. M.S.] calls the 'words' of Christ 'his flesh and blood,': that so also does St. Jerome, saying, that, although it may be understood in mystery, "tamen verius corpus Christi et sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est;" [S. Hieron. Psal. cxlvii.] that so does Clemens Alexandrinus [Clem. Alex. lib. 1. paedag. c. 6.]; that St. Basil says, [St. Basil. in Psal. xxxiii.] that his doctrine and his mystical coming are his flesh and blood; that St. Bernard says, to imitate his life and communicate with his passion is to eat his flesh: but I decline, for the present, to insist upon these, because all of them, excepting St. Jerome only, may be supposed to be mystical expositions, which may be true, and yet another exposition may be true too. It may suffice that it is the direct sense of Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Austin, and Theophylact, that these words of Christ, in John, vi., are not to be understood in the natural or proper, but in the spiritual' sense. The spiritual they declare not to be the mystical, but the literal sense; and, therefore, their testimonies cannot be eluded by any such pretence.

17. And yet after all this, suppose that Christ, in these words, did speak of the sacramental manducation. and affirmed that the bread, which he would give, should be his flesh;--what is this to transubstantiation? That Christ did speak of the sacrament as well as of any other mystery, of this amongst others; that is, of all the ways of taking him, is to me highly probable; Christ is the food of our souls; this food we receive in at our ears, mouth, our hearts; and the allusion is plainer in the sacrament than in any other external rite, because of the similitude of bread, and eating, which Christ used upon occasion of the miracle of the loaves, which introduced all that discourse. But then this comes in only as it is an act of faith; for the meat, which Christ gives, is to be taken by faith, himself being the expounder1'. Now the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, being acts and symbols and consignations of faith, and effects of believing, that is, of the first and principal receiving him by faith in his words, and submission to his doctrine, may well be meant here, not by virtue of the words; for the whole form of expression is metaphorical, not at all proper; but by the proportion of reason and nature of his effect, it is an act or manner of receiving Christ, and an issue of faith, and therefore is included in the mystery. The food that Christ said he would give, is "his flesh, which he would give for the life of the world," viz., to be crucified and killed. And from that verse forward he doth more particularly refer to his death; for he speaks of 'bread' only before, or 'meat,' artoV h brwsiV,--but now he speaks of flesh and blood, artoV kai posiV; 'bread and drink;' and therefore, by analogy, he may allude to the sacrament, which is his similitude and representation; but this is but the meaning of the second or third remove; if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse, it can primarily relate to nothing but his death upon the cross; at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world; and so giving it, it became meat; the receiving this gift was a receiving of life, for it was given for the life of the world. The manner of receiving it is by faith, and hearing the word of God, submitting our understanding; the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ, conforming to his doctrine and example; and as the sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation, so they come under this discourse, and no otherwise.

18. But to return: this very allegory of the word of God to be called 'meat,' and particularly 'manna,' which in this chapter, Christ particularly alludes to,--is not unusual in the Old Testament. "Moses said unto them," saith Philo, [In Allegoriis.] "'This is the Word which the Lord hath given us to eat, This is the Word which the Lord hath ordained;' you see what is the food of the soul, even the eternal Word of God," &c. "The Word of God, the most honourable and eldest of things, is called manna;" [In libro, Pejorem insidiari meliori] and "The soul is nourished by the Word," [Allegoriis]

---------qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum.

19. And, therefore, now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus, of Eusebius, St. Basil, St. Jerome, and St. Bernard, which I waved before, all agreeing upon this exposition, that "the word of God, Christ's doctrine, is the flesh" he speaks of, and the receiving it and practising it, is the eating his flesh; for this sense is the literal and proper: and St. Jerome is express to affirm, that the other exposition is mystical, and that this is the more true and proper: and therefore, the saying of Bellarmine, [De Euchar. lib. 1. c, 7. et ad alios patres] that they only give the mystical sense, is one of his confident sayings without reason, or pretence of proof: and whereas he adds, that they do not deny, that these words are also understood, literally, of the sacrament; I answer, it is sufficient that they agree in this sense: and the other fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sense of eating Christ in the sacrament; particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and St. Ambrose above quoted: to which I add the words of Eusebius in the third book of his 'Theologia Ecclesiastica,' expounding the sixty-third verse of the sixth of St. John; he brings in Christ speaking thus; "Think not, that I speak of this flesh, which I bear; and do not imagine, that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood: but know ye, that the words which I have spoken, are spirit and life."--Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation, and to affirm ours: though to do so be not usual, unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary; and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men, that when they speak against Titius, they shall be concluded not to speak against Caius, if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative, though Titius and Caius be against one another in the cause,--is a device to escape rather than to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men. I conclude, it is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place: "Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrina coelesti: sic enim dicit panem suum, ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum:" "The ancient fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine: so he calls the bread 'his own,' as he said often 'the word' to be 'his.'"-- And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, St. Basil, Athanasius, Eusebius, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Austin, Theophylact, and St. Bernard, are a good security for the sense of a place of Scripture, we have read their evidence, and may proceed to sentence.

20. But it was impossible, but these words, falling upon the allegory of bread and drink, and signifying the receiving Christ crucified, and communicating with his passion in all the ways of faith and sacrament,--should also meet with as allegorical expounders, and for the likeness of expression be referred to sacramental manducation: and yet, I said, this cannot at all infer transubstantiation, though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended. For if it had been spoken of the sacrament, the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it; for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the sacrament, so is he also in the sacrament: as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy hearer, so is he to the worthy communicant: as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him, so to all that obediently remember him; so Christ's flesh is meat indeed, however it be taken, if it be taken spiritually, but not however it be taken, if it be taken carnally: he is nutritive in all the ways of spiritual manducation, but not in all the ways of natural eating, by their own confession, nor in any, by ours. And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion, if they should gain one of the premises; but the truth is this: it is neither properly spoken of the sacrament; neither, if it were, would prove any thing of transubstantiation.

21. I will not be alone in my assertion, though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out: St. Austin saith the same; "Spiritualiter intelligite, quod loquutus sum vobis: non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis: sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos:" "That which I have spoken, is to be understood spiritually: ye are not to eat that body, which ye see: I have commended a sacrament to you, which, being understood spiritually, will give you life;" [Aug. in Psal. xcviii.]--where, besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf, he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one. And again: "Ut quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus, similitudinem quoque sanguinis et carnis sumamus, ita ut et veritas non desit in sacramento, et ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis, quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus:" "That as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism, so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and blood, so that neither truth be wanting in the sacrament, nor the Pagans ridiculously affirm, that we should drink the blood of the crucified man." [Gratianus ex Augustino de Consecrat. dist. 2. sect, utrum. Lugduni 1541.]--Nothing could be spoken more plain in this question; "We receive Christ's body in the eucharist, as we are baptized into his death; that is, by figure and likeness. In the sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body: and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh, so as the heathen may calumniate us by saying, we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught them they should."--So that though these words were spoken of sacramental manducation (as sometimes it is expounded), yet there is reality enough in the spiritual sumption to verify these words of Christ, without a thought of any bodily eating his flesh. And that we may not think this doctrine dropped from St. Austin by chance, he again affirms dogmatically, "Qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem ejus manducat, nee sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat:" "He that disagrees from Christ (that is, disobeys him), neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, although, to his condemnation, he every day receives the sacrament of so great a thing." [Prosper Sent. 339. sed verba sunt St. Augustini.]--The consequent of which words is plainly this, that there is no eating of Christ's flesh or drinking his blood, but by a moral instrument, faith and subordination to Christ; the sacramental external eating alone being no eating of Christ's flesh, but the symbols and sacrament of it.

22. Lastly: Suppose these words of Christ, "The bread which I shall give, is my flesh," were spoken literally of the sacrament; what he promised he would give, he performed, and what was here expressed in the future tense, was, in his time, true in the present tense; and, therefore, is always presently true after consecration; it follows, that in the sacrament this is true; "Panis est corpus Christi," "The bread is the body of Christ."--Now I demand whether this proposition will be owned. It follows inevitably from this doctrine, if these words be spoken of the sacrament. But it is disavowed by the princes of the party against us. "Hoc tamen est impossible, quod panis sit corpus Christi;" "It is impossible that the bread should be Christ's body," saith the gloss of Gratian; and Bellarmine says it cannot be a true proposition, "in qua subiectum supponit pro pane, praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi: panis enim et corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt." [De Euchar. lib. 3. c. 19.]--The thing that these men dread, is, lest it be called 'bread' and 'Christ's body' too, as we affirm it unanimously to be; and as this argument, upon their own grounds, evinces it. Now then, how they can serve both ends, I cannot understand. If they will have the bread or the meat which Christ promised to give, to be his flesh, then so it came to pass; and then it is bread and flesh too. If it did not so come to pass, and that it is impossible that bread should be Christ's flesh; then, when Christ said the bread which he would give, should be his flesh,--he was not to be understood properly of the sacrament; but either figuratively in the sacrament, or in the sacrament not at all; either of which will serve the end of truth in this question. But of this hereafter.

By this time I hope I may conclude, that transubstantiation is not taught by our blessed Lord in the sixth chapter of St. John. "Johannes de tertia et eucharistica coena nihil quidem scribit, eo quod caeteri tres evangelistae ante illum eam plene descripsissent."--They are the words of Stapleton, and are good evidence against them. [Pompt. Cathol. ser. 3. Heb. Sanct.]

Project Canterbury