Seeing that the flesh of Christ is corporall, is not the eating of it in the Supper also corporall?
Truely the flesh of Christ is corporall, in respect that it is a bodie, but it is not corporall by speaking properly, in respect that it is meat, for as much as, our bodie is nourished, neither with his flesh nor bloud, as if it were foode for this corporall, tempo∣rall, and brittle life: for this would bring in a Capernaiticall eating of his flesh,
But it is spirituall, not in respect of essence, but in the manner of receiuing, and by the spirituall strength and efficacie of our no∣rishing by it, because the spirit or minde of man doth receiue it by faith alone, and really and truely (for there is also in spirituall acti∣ons their realitie) is nourished by the vertue of the holy Ghost, and is fed vnto spirituall and eternall life. And truely the benefit of spirituall life doth redounde also to the bodie it selfe, foras∣much as from thence it is regenerated, it is sanctified, and at length shall be partaker of the blessed Resurrection, but neuerthe∣lesse, that meat is not to be called corporal but spiritual because it giueth onely spiritual nourishment. Therefore although there is an eating of the bodie, in which respect, that is to say, in respect of the terme or obiect it might be called corporall, notwithstanding in respect of the manner it is not a corporal eating. Therefore see∣ing that the flesh of Christ is only spirituall meate, and in like manner the bloud of Christ spirituall drinke: it followeh that the flesh of Christ is eaten onely spiritually, and also that his bloud is drunke spiritually, that is, with the mouth of the spirit or soule, namely by faith, which the holy Ghost himselfe doth ingender in our minds. Ioh. 6.51.