A paraphrase with notes upon the sixth chapter of St. John with a discourse on humanity and charity / by W. Claget.

The PREFACE.

SIR,

YOU are desired to read the 6th Chap∣ter of St. John's Gospel every day; and this I doubt not, for the sake of that part of it between V. 51, and V. 61; which seems to require eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of Christ in the proper sense. And here I make no question your Thoughts were closely engaged. But perhaps you have not applied that attention to the rest of the Chap∣ter, which you gave to that part where the difficulty lies, and then no wonder that the difficulty still remains. For I beg leave to put you in mind, once more, that the true Sense of those difficult Passages, as you count them, is to be gained by observing their con∣nexion with all the rest. And therefore to that Request, that you would often read the 6th Chapter of St. John, which I acknowledge to be a reasonable Request, I must add ano∣ther as reasonable as that, which is, that you would not only often read, but likewise of∣ten consider the whole Chapter, and mind our Saviour's Design in it: That you would there∣fore observe what sort of People he had to do with, and what was the occasion of this Conversation between him and them: What

was the Fundamental Cause of their Preju∣dices against him; and with what Arguments and Applications he laboured to remove those Prejudices.

For you will then find, that they were Men whose Belly was their God, and who mind∣ed earthly things; that they followed Christ for the Loaves; that he disappointed their Hopes; that they were angry at it, and al∣tered their Opinion of him upon it; that their earthly-mindedness was the Reason why they now liked him not, but set themselves to cavil at all his Sayings; that to take them off from the Cares and Pleasures of this pre∣sent Life, he laid before them better and greater Things, the Means and Hopes of ever∣lasting Life: Finally, that he calls the Means and Causes of bettering our Minds, and bring∣ing us to everlasting Life, Meat and Drink; and our believing and obeying his Doctrine, eating and drinking. And then, if I am not deceived, you will easily acknowledge, that in particular, he calls the Belief of his Death and Passion for the Sins of the World, and the saving Fruits of that Faith, eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood: And that there is no more reason to imagine that his Flesh should be eaten, and his Blood drank, in the proper and corporeal sense, than that he should make himself Bread to be eaten by us, as we use to eat Bread: But that there is good reason to understand throughout, by that eating and

drinking which he required, spiritual Actions only, which the whole strain of his Discourse shews, that he opposed to that corporeal feed∣ing which they were so inordinately sollici∣tous for.

I must for the same Reason desire you to mind those plain Intimations scattered here and there in our Lord's Discourse; by which it is evident, what he meant by eating and drinking. He saith, V. 29. This is the(a) Work of God, that ye BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent; which is an Interpretation of V. 27.(b) Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but, &c. Again, V. 35. He that BELIEVETH on me, shall never thirst. And again, V. 47. He that BELIE∣VETH on me, hath everlasting Life. So likewise V. 36. and V. 40. This, I say, is fit to be minded. For when not only the oc∣casion he had to use these Terms of eating and drinking, (which was their following him for their Bellies) shews these Terms to be allusive; but (as if that were not enough) he likewise added, now and then, the plain and proper meaning of those Allusions; it must, I think, be a wilful Mistake in him that attends to this, to interpret those Ex∣pressions as if they were not allusive.

Nor is this all; for you may please to con∣sider also, that when our Saviour found some of his Disciples to understand him as the Car∣nal Jews did, he thought fit, for more abun∣dant satisfaction, to explain his meaning once for all, V. 62, 63. as you will find by the en∣suing Paraphrase and Notes.

As for our Saviour's repeating those Ex∣pressions at which the Jews had already ta∣ken offence; you may consider, that V. 51. he added that Expression of drinking his Blood, to that of eating his Flesh; which was a more plain Intimation of that violent Death which he was to suffer for us, than that former Say∣ing, of giving his Flesh for the Life of the World. And so, tho' he kept still to the Al∣lusion, yet he represented what kind of Death he was to suffer, more fully than he had done before. But perhaps you are at a loss why he continued to speak allusively at all, when he found that he was so grosly mistunderstood. And then I answer, as I have done in the Notes upon that place, that I am not obliged to say precisely what our Saviour's reason was for that. But, besides what you will find there, it may be said, that sometimes it well becomes a Man of Wisdom and Authority, when he finds his Words perverted by cavil∣ing People, to repeat them again, and there∣by to speak his own Assurance, that they did not drop unadvisedly from him, and that 'tis not his own but his Hearers Fault, that he is

misunderstood. And this is the more reason∣able 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 'tis probably they did; and that be∣cause 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 Dis∣courses and Exhortations had but hardened them in a Spirit of Contradiction, did not think himself bound to use presently the ut∣most plainness of Words for the sake of Men, to whom he had spoken plainly enough al∣ready, if any good were to be done upon them. But for further satisfaction in this matter, I refer you once more to the Para∣phrase 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 suspe∣cting 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 Sacra∣ment.

It seems I told you, that these Passages were not to be understood of the Sacrament; I should have added, that because they signi∣fy those things which are signify'd in the Sa∣crament, that they may be very aptly ap∣plied to the Sacrament, especially in Exhorta∣tions

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 al∣ways held the contrary. No Man, I believe, has a greater regard to the constant and uni∣versal Tradition of the Church than my self. But then I do not think my self bound to be∣lieve 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, 'tis as easie to say, Thus saith the Church, as to say, Thus saith the Scripture. I remem∣ber indeed, that our Country-man Nicholas Sanders tells us, That(c) to deny these words to be under∣stood of the Eucharist, is con∣trary to the Instruction and Authority of all An∣tiquity. And Maldonate says, That(d) all the ancient Fa∣thers 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) 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 occa∣sion, 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) 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 quick∣ning. 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 Eter∣nal Life, and shall not come into Condemna∣tion, 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 ƲNDERSTANDING, 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 Eucha∣rist, that I am in some doubt whether he un∣derstood them with any special reference to the Death of Christ.

Origen also interprets Flesh and Blood in like manner: For, says he,(g) By the Flesh and the Blood of his WORD, as with pure Meat and Drink he refresheth all Mankind.

And† elsewhere he speak∣eth 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 Sa∣viour, hath these words,(i) For how could his Body suffice for so many to eat of, that it should become nourish∣ment for the whole World? It is, says he, for this rea∣son that he mentioned the Son of Man's ascending into Hea∣ven, that he might draw them off from the Cor∣poreal Notion. Which Testimony, as it ma∣nifestly shewed his Judgment to be, that our Saviour did not require the proper eating of his Natural Body; so it contains a very pro∣bable Argument, that he did not understand those Words of eating his Sacramental Body. For if he had so understood them, it had been very accountable that the Body of Christ, i. e. his Sacramental Body, was sufficient for the nourishment of the whole World. And by removing all Corporeal Notions of eating and drinking, he seem'd to establish only a Spiritual Notion.

But St. Hierom is plain and full to this pur∣pose, beyond all contradiction, as I am per∣swaded.

For thus he speaks,(k) When Jesus saith, He that eateth not my Flesh, and drinketh not my Blood, although it may be understood in a Mystery, (i. e. as I think, of the Eucharist) yet the truer sence is, that the Body of Christ, and his Blood, is the Word of the Scriptures, is Di∣vine Doctrine. — And therefore he continues not long after in this manner; If when we hear the Word of God; the Word of God, and the Flesh of Christ, and his Blood, is poured into our Ears, and we think of something else, into how great a danger do we run? Afterwards comparing it to Manna, which was said to give that Taste to every Man which he liked best. So, saith he, in the Flesh of Christ; which is the Word of Do∣ctrine, that is, the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; as we would have it, so we receive Food. If thou art holy, here thou findest Com∣fort, St. Hierom could not have been more ex∣press, if he had been to maintain this Inter∣pretation against an Adversary.

Nor does the Paraphrase of Eusebius come much behind St. Hierom's Interpretation. For he makes our Saviour's Explication, V. 63. to

run as if he had said,(l) Do not think that I speak of that Flesh which I carry about me, as if you ought to eat that, or that I command you to drink my sensible and corpo∣real Blood. You well under∣stand that the words which I speak to you, are Spirit and Life. So that, as Eusebius goes on, his Words and Do∣ctrines are Flesh and Blood, of which whoever constantly partakes, he being nourished with Heavenly Bread, as it were, shall partake of the Heavenly Life. He that says this, and knows what he says, could hardly suppose that the Eucharist was particu∣larly intended by our Saviour in these Pas∣sages.

I shall trouble you with no more Instances of this kind, these being sufficient to shew, that All the Ancients did not understand those words of the Eucharist. And now I will make no difficulty to grant that the other Opinion is not destitute of all Authority, but has the Countenance of some Fathers to sup∣port it. For we do not pretend to any such priviledge of speaking, as to say, we have All the Fathers, in a Case where we have not every One.

But this I must needs say, That those Fa∣thers who, as far as I have yet discovered, seem to speak most expresly in favour of the Sacramental Sense, do not come up to the pe∣remptoriness and clearness of those who are for the Spiritual Sense.

(m)St. Cyprian under∣standing the daily Bread which we pray for, not on∣ly of common Food, but of the Eucharist, ap∣plies those Words to it; If any man eateth of this Bread, he shall live for ever. And, says he, as 'tis manifest, that they who belong to his Body, [or Family] and having a right thereunto, communicate in the Eucharist, do live; so it is to be feared, and we are to pray, lest any of us being excommunicated and separated from the Body of Christ, should be far removed from Salvation, since himself uttered this threatning, Except ye eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood, &c.

Now I desire not to make less of these words than they imply. But yet I must say, that St. Cyprian seems, in these and in the fore∣going Words, which are to the same purpose, to interpret that Bread, which he that eateth of, shall live for ever; and the Flesh and the Blood of Christ, not only of the Eucharist, but of all the Means of Grace that are af∣forded to his Members in the Communion of his Body; whereof, as he had reason, he

thought the Eucharist to be the principal, to which no excommunicated Person had right. Not to say that the Eucharist might be here particularly mentioned, because those words, Except ye eat &c. have a more clear allusion to the Eucharist, than to any other Means. Nor am I alone in this Interpretation of St. Cy∣prian;† For thus saith Pri∣orius, The Explication of this place is taken from Tertul∣lian, Cap. 6. de Orat. Therefore by desiring daily Bread, we pray for a perpetual continuance in Christ, and to remain undivided from his Body. Thus also Rigaltius upon the place; The words of God the Father, which Christ in the Flesh brought for our Salvation, are here to be understood. Therefore all that time in which Christ lived amongst us in the Body, his Preaching, his Gospel, is the Body and Flesh of Christ. It is the Cross of Christ, 'tis the Blood of Christ. With this Meat and Drink we Chri∣stians are nourish'd to eternal Life. By which 'tis manifest, that Rigaltius did not under∣stand St. Cyprian in that manner, as to abate at all of his Judgment, that the spiritual sense of eating and drinking, is to be un∣derstood throughout in the 6th of St. John.

(n)St. Basil is another who applies these Words to the Sacrament; not where he undertakes to give their proper meaning,

but in his moral Collections, under the Head of receiving the Eucharist; which I do not see but he might do, and yet believe that the Spiritual Sense of eating and drinking Christ was directly intended. For, as I have already told you, the Eucharist represents the Death of Christ, and our Spiritual feeding thereup∣on; and these words in St. John signifie what the Eucharist represents. No wonder therefore if Christian Writers, in speaking of the Eu∣charist, 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 signi∣fie the Eucharist, because they signifie some of the same things which the Eucharist signi∣fies.

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 noto∣riously 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 enga∣ged 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) Therefore by this Meat and Drink, he would have us to understand the Society of his Body and Members, that is, the Holy Church, consist∣ing of his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glo∣rified Saints and Faithful. And presently after; The Sacrament of this thing, that is, of the Ʋnity of the Bo∣dy and Blood of Christ, is in some places every day, in o∣ther 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, who∣soever 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 'tis 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,† 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; Let him come and believe, and be incorpo∣rated, that he may be quick∣ned.

Which Words of his are the more remark∣able, 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) 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 dwel∣leth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, undoubtedly doth not spiritu∣ally 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 Sa∣crament of so great a thing to his Condemnation; because being impure, he hath pre∣sumed to come to Christ's Sacraments, which none worthily receives who is not pure; of which 'tis said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Whence it is manifest, that in St. Au∣stin'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; be∣cause 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) For neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ, because neither are they to be account∣ed amongst his Members. For to omit other things, they can∣not 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 dwel∣leth 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 conti∣nued 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 al∣so affirm, that Christ spake of receiving his Body in Truth only, when he said, He that eateth my Flesh, &c. it seems evidently to fol∣low, that when St. Austin wrote these Pas∣sages, 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 Spiri∣tually, 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 Pas∣sages 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 con∣cerning 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 Opini∣on;

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 them∣selves, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, &c. though spoken of the Sacrament, were not properly but figuratively to be un∣derstood? 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 un∣derstood the Eucharist to be directly intended by our Saviour in the mentioned Passages, is lost as to any Advantage that Transubstantia∣tion can get by it.

That the Substance of Bread and Wine re∣main after Consecration, is manifest from(r) St. Cyprian; and that Christ is fed upon by the Mind only, from(s) St Ba∣sil, to whom I refer you, that I may not be over-te∣dious; especially since for the present one Te∣stimony of St. Augustin may serve the turn. Observe therefore these words of his, con∣cerning

the Exposition of Scripture-Phrases;(t) If the Saying be precep∣tive, 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 com∣mand a villanous or wicked thing. It is therefore a FI∣GƲRE, enjoyning us to com∣municate in the Passion of our Lord, and to lay it up in dear and profita∣ble remembrance, that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes. The vast pains that have been taken to avoid this Testimo∣ny, are a convincing Argument that Preju∣dice may grow to that strength, as to be in∣vincible. You will confess, I doubt not, that this Passage so plainly shews St. Austin's per∣swasion 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 spo∣ken of the Eucharist; so I could shew, that very many Doctors of the Roman Communi∣on 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 wor∣thy 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 Sacra∣ment 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 'tis suf∣ficient to Salvation, to communicate under the Species of Bread. And tho' this Autho∣rity be sufficient to shew that the Text does not deliver a Precept of receiving the Sacra∣ment in both kinds, and consequently that it

does not deliver a Precept of eating and drink∣ing 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 be∣tween eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood; but since he so accurately distinguish∣eth 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 ob∣serving 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, 'tis 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 Argu∣ment 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 'tis 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 ac∣cording to the thing it self. And if it be ur∣ged that the Flesh and the Blood are here dis∣coursed 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 him∣self before, as of one that takes away Hun∣ger, and of one that takes away Thirst; and yet 'tis 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,† which are parted at his Death, as they are to be embraced by the Mind, being the Meat and Drink of the Soul: Because un∣less 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 Spi∣rit 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, Car∣dinals, Bishops and Doctors, who (as far as I can discern) were for number, as well as qua∣lity, not inferiour to those who maintained the contrary side before the Council of Trent.

Nay, that Council it self would have bet∣ter 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 Do∣ctors of their Opinion. For the Matter, all things considered, was accommodated as well as it could be in these words;(u) 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 ac∣cording to the various Interpretations of the Holy Fathers and Doctors.

I doubt I have said more than enough up∣on 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 Au∣thority 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 Chri∣stianity, 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 be∣lieve, that not one of the various Interpreta∣tions of the Fathers and Doctors, makes a∣gainst 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 Argu∣ment for that Conclusion, when it comes to be well considered upon the Grounds of Rea∣son and Authority, does at last yield a Ter∣rible Objection against it.

I have thought of all these Things, with the liberty of one that loves Truth, not with∣out 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 as∣sistance which is offered me from the Primi∣tive

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. And from the bottom of my heart I give thanks to Almighty God, that I have had my Education in the Communion of a Church, which at the same time that it pre∣scribes to me a Rule of Doctrine and Wor∣ship, does give me full liberty to enquire all manner of ways, whether she has dealt sin∣cerely with me or not. Under the Discipline of so honest a Church, I trust that I have learn'd to be an honest Man. For though I am as confident of the main Question as I desire to be, yet I have, and by the Grace of God always will have, a quiet Reserve for better Information: And I shall not count him an Enemy but a Friend, that both can and will discover my Mistakes. For which Rea∣son I have obeyed your Advice, and asked the leave of my Superiors, to let these plain Thoughts go into the World. And I let them go, much rather desiring that they may meet with Contradiction, than Approbation in any part, where they ought to be contra∣dicted.

Nay, I will not refuse to make allowance for them who cannot oppose an Adversary without Huffing and Vanity. If I can see that they offer, though but a little Reason, I will

readily acknowledge it; or if they offer none at all, let them but seem to believe what they say, and they shall not go without a Reply.

As for that Sense which I have (not with∣out good Authority) offered, of those Passa∣ges in this Chapter concerning the Father's drawing, and giving Men to Christ; if it does not equally please all Persons, I hope they who are otherwise minded will not be dis∣pleased with me, when I have declared, that I shall no longer care for it, when any Man shall lead my Understanding to a better.

Sir, I have but one thing more to say; Let you and I observe and follow the Mo∣ral Instructions of this Chapter; which if all would do, I am confident none of us should run into any dangerous Mistake about the meaning of any part of it. Our Lord hath said it: That if any man will do his Will, he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God. In paraphrasing our Saviour's Dis∣courses here, I could not but observe how apt it was to infuse a truly wise, honest and godly Temper into the Minds of his Hearers. And therefore for a Conclusion, I added to the Paraphrase what I thought was a suitable Exhortation; that whilst we may happen to dispute about the sense of some

more difficult Passages in this Chapter, we may not forget to make the great Design of it the Subject of our Practice. And so I commend you to the Grace of God, and rest,

Your most, &c.

Notes

• (a)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c)

  Nic. Sanderus de Euchar. p. 23.
• (d)

  Maldon. in Joan. 6.
• (e)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Paedag. lib. 1. c. 6. p. 105. Paris.
• (f)

  Sic etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse, ex materia dicti dirigen∣dus est sensus. Nam quia durum & intolerabilem existimaverunt sermo∣nem ejus, quasi vere Carnem suam illis eden∣dam determinasset, ut in Spiritum disponeret sta∣tum salutis, praemisit, Spiritus est qui vivificat, atque ita subjunxit, Ca∣ro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scilicet, Exequitur etiam quid ve∣lit intelligi spiritum. Verba quae locutus sum vobis Spiritus sunt, Vita sunt. Sicut & supra, qui audit Sermones meos & credit in eum qui, &c. Ita{que} Sermonem constituens vivificatorem, quia Spiritus & Vita Sermo, eundem etiam Carnem suam dixit, quia & sermo Caro erat Pactus, proinde in causam Vitae Appetendus & devorandus Au∣ditu, & ruminandus intellectu, & Fide digerendus. Nam & paulo ante Carnem suam panem quo{que} Coelestem pronunciaret; urgens us∣quequa{que} per Allegoriam, &c. Tertul. de Res••r. Carnis, c. 36, 37.
• (g)

  Carnibus enim & sanguine Verbi sui, tan∣quam mundo cibo at{que} potu reficit omne homi∣num genus. Orig. in Levit. Hom. 7.
• †

  Vide in Mat. Tract. 12.
• (i)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Athan. in il∣lud Evangelii. Quincun{que} dixerit, &c.
• (k)

  Quando dicit qui non comederit Carnem meam & biberit San∣guinem meum, licet & in Mysterio posset in∣telligi, tamen verius Corpus Christi & San∣guis ejus Sermo Scriptu∣rarum est, Doctrina Di∣vina est.—Si quan∣do audimus Sermonem Dei; Sermo Dei, & Ca∣ro Christi, & Sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, & nos aliud cogitamus in quantum periculum incurrimus? — Sic & in Car∣ne Christi, qui est Ser∣mo Doctrinae, hoc est Scripturarum Sancta∣rum Interpretatio, sicut volumus ita & cibum accipimus. Hieron. Com∣ment. in Psal. 147.
• (l)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Caesariensis con∣tra Marcel. de Eccles. Theol. lib. 3. c. 12.
• (m)

  Cypr. de Orat. Dom.
• Qui corpus ejus at∣tingunt.
• †

  Notae in Cypr. Pa∣ris.
• Observ. Galeat. in Cypr. Id.
• (n)

  Basil. Moral. Reg. 21.
• (o)

  Hunc ita{que} cibum & potum societatem vult intelligi corpo∣ris & membrorum su∣orum, quod est Sancta Ecclesia in praedestina∣tis & vocatis, & justifi∣catis, & glorificatis San∣ctis, & fidelibus ejus. —Hujus rei Sacra∣mentum, id est, unitatis Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis intervallis dierum in Dominicâ Mensâ praeparatur, & de Mensâ Dominicâ sumi∣tur quibusdam ad vi∣tam, quibusdam ad ex∣itium. Res vero ipsa cujus Sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicun∣que ejus particeps fue∣rit. Aug. Tract. 26. in Johan.
• †

  Hoc est ergo man∣ducare cibum, non qui perit, sed qui perma∣net in vitam eternam. Ut quid paras dentes & ventrem? Crede & manducasti. Id. Tract. 25.
• Accedat, credat, in∣corporetur ut vivifice∣tur. Id. Tract. 26.
• (p)

  Hoc est manducare escam illam & illum bi∣bere potum, in Christo manere, & illum ma∣nentem in me habere. Ac per hoc, qui non manet in Christo, & in quo Christus non ma∣net, proculdubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem ejus nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus Sacra∣mentum Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, sed magis tantae rei Sacra∣mentum ad judicium si∣bi manducat & bibit, quia immundus prae∣sumsit ad Christi acce∣dere Sacramenta, quae aliquis non digne su∣mit, nisi qui mundus est, &c. Tract. 26. in Joh.
• (q)

  Nec isti ergo di∣cendi sunt manducare Corpus Christi, quoni∣am nec in membris computandi sunt Chri∣sti. Ut. enim alia ta∣ceam, non possunt si∣mul esse, & Membra Christi, & Membra Me∣retricis. Denique ip∣se dicens, qui man∣ducat Carnem meam, & bibit Sanguinem me∣um in me manet, & ego in eo: ostendit quid fit non Sacramento tenus, sed reverâ Corpus Chri∣sti manducare & ejus Sanguinem bibere; hoc est enim in Christo ma∣nere, ut in illo maneat & Christus. Sic enim hoc dicit tanquam di∣ceret. Qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non maneo, non se di∣cat aut existimet man∣ducare Corpus meum, aut bibere Sanguinem meum. De Civit. Dei. lib. 21. c. 25.
• (r)

  Epist. ad Caecili∣um.
• (s)

  In Isai. cap. 3.
• (t)

  Si praeceptiva est locutio aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut be∣neficentiam jubens non est Figurata. Si autem Flagitium aut Facinus videtur juberi, aut utili∣tatem aut beneficenti∣am vetare Figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, in∣quit, carnem filii homi∣nis & sanguinem bi∣beritis, vitam in vobis non habebitis, Facinus vel Flagitium videtur Jubere, Figura ergo est praecipiens Passioni Do∣mini esse communican∣dum, & suaviter atque utiliter in memoriâ re∣condendum, quod caro ejus pro nobis crucifixa & vulnerata sit. De Doctrinâ Christianâ, lib. 3. c. 16.
• †

  Partibus mortis suae.
• (u)

  Sed neque ex Ser∣mone illo apud Jo••n∣nem sexto recte coli∣gitur utriusque spe••••i communionem à Domi∣no Praecepram esse, ••••∣cunque juxta varias sanctorum Patrum & Doctorum Interpretatio∣nes inteliigatur. Conc. Trid. Sess 21. cap. 1.