:

“St. John, Christ spake not of the Sacrament of his flesh, but “of his very flesh. And that as wel for that the Sacrament was "not then instituted, as also because Christ said not in the future "tense, the bread which I will give shall be my flesh, but in the "present tense, the bread which I will give is my flesh which "sacramental bread was neither then his flesh, nor was then "instituted for a sacrament, nor was after given for the life of "the world.-When he said, the bread which I wil give is my "flesh, &c. he meant nether of the materiall bread, nether of "the accidents of bread, but of his own flesh which although of "itself it availeth nothinge, yet being in unity of Person joyned "unto his Divinity, it is the same heavenly bread that he gave "to death upon the crosse for the life of the world y."

Thus far that excellent person has shewn, by convincing reasons drawn from the chapter itself, that John vi. ought not to be interpreted of the Eucharist. Nevertheless, he very well knew, and did not forget to observe, that it may properly be applied or accommodated to the Eucharist, and is of great weight and force for that very purpose.

"As the bread is outwardlie eaten indeede in the Lordes Supper, so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten "indede of all them that come thereto in such sorte as thei ought "to doe; which eating nourysheth them unto everlasting lyfe. "And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himselfe in the "vi. of John, where Christ saith, He that eateth my flesh, and "drincketh my bloud, hath lyfe everlasting. You be the first “that ever excluded the wordes of Christe from his Supper. And St. Augustine mente, as well at the Supper, as at all other "tymes, that the eating of Christes flesh is not to be under"standed carnally with our teeth, &c. a "

The sum then of Archbishop Cranmer's doctrine on this head is; 1. That John vi. is not to be interpreted of oral manducation in the Sacrament, nor of spiritual manducation as confined to the Eucharist, but of spiritual manducation at large, in that or any other sacrament, or out of the Sacraments. 2. That spiritual manducation, in that chapter, means the feeding upon Christ's death and passion, as the price of our redemption and salvation. 3. That in so feeding we have a spiritual or mystical union with his human nature, and by that with his Godhead, to which his

y Cranmer, p. 450. Compare Bishop Jewel, Defence of Apology, p. 306, &c. Answer to Harding, p. 78, 239,

240. Fryth, Answer to More, p. 21, 27.

z Cranmer, p. 11.

"Ibid. p. 35.

humanity is joined in an unity of Person. 4. That such spiritual manducation is a privilege belonging to the Eucharist, and therefore John vi. is not foreign to the Eucharist, but has such relation to it as the inward thing signified bears to the outward signs.

To Archbishop Cranmer I may subjoin Peter Martyr, who about ten years after engaged in the same cause, in a large Latin treatise printed A.D. 1562. No man has more clearly shewn, in few words, how far John vi. belongs not to the Eucharist, and how far it does. He considers the general principles there taught as being preparatory to the institution of the Eucharist, which was to come after. Our Lord in that chapter gave intimation of spiritual food, with the use and necessity of it afterwards, in the institution, he added external symbols, for the notifying one particular act or instance of spiritual manducation, to make it the more solemn and the more affecting. Therefore John vi. though not directly spoken of the Eucharist, yet is by no means foreign, but rather looks forward towards it, bears a tacit allusion to it, and serves to reflect light upon it: for which reason the ancient Fathers are to be commended for connecting the account of inward grace with the outward symbols, the thing signified with the signs afterwards added, and so applying the discourse of that chapter to the case of the Eucharist b.

From what has been observed of these two eminent Reformers, we may judge how John vi. was understood at that time: not of doctrines, nor of sacramental feeding, but of spiritual feeding at large, feeding upon the death and passion of Christ our Lord. This, I think, has been the prevailing construction of our own Divines all along: and though it has been much obscured of late

b De sexto capite Johannis, an ad Eucharistiam pertineat, nos ita respondemus. Sermonem ibi de Sacramento cœnæ non institui; ibi enim cœna cum symbolis non ordinatur. Nam nec panis, nec calicis, nec gratiarum actionis, nec fractionis, nec distributionis, nec testamenti, nec memoriæ, nec annuntiationis mortis Christi mentio ulla eo loco instituitur. Huc spectabant illi, qui dixerunt illud caput ad Eucharistiam non pertinere, &c.

Quoniam res ipsa (id est, corporis et sanguinis Christi spiritualis manducatio et potus) ibi luculenter traditur, ad quam postea Evangelistæ, ad finem historiæ suæ, declarant Chris

tum adjunxisse symbola externa panis et vini, idcirco nos caput illud a Sacramento Eucharistiæ non putamus esse alienum.-Imo Patres illos libenter recipimus, qui illa verba ad hoc negotium transtulerunt. Quid enim aliud sibi volunt panis et vinum, quæ postea addita sunt in cœna, nisi ut magis excitemur ad manducationem illam corporis et sanguinis Domini, quæ multis verbis diligentissime tractata fuerat in sexto Johannis. Satis ergo apparet quemadmodum nos ista conjungimus. Petr. Mart. p. 114, 115. Conf. Chamier, de Eucharist. lib. xi. c. 3, &c.

(for half a century, perhaps, or more) by one or other hypothesis, yet has it never been lost, neither, I suppose, ever will be. A late very judicious Prelate of our Church, in a sermon on John vi. 53, has well expressed the sense of our Church in this matter, in the words here following: "The body and blood of "Christ are to be understood in such a sense as a soul can be "supposed to feed upon a body, or to receive strength and "nourishment by feeding upon it. But now the body of Christ " can be no otherwise as food for the strengthening and refresh“ing our souls, than only as the spiritual benefits of that body "and blood, that is to say, the virtue and effects of Christ's "sacrifice upon the cross, are communicated to it; nor is the "soul capable of receiving those benefits otherwise than by "faith. So that the body and blood of Christ, in the sense of our Church, are only the benefits of Christ's passion; that is to "say, the pardon of sin, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and a "nearer union with Christ: and our eating and drinking of that "body and blood, is our being partakers of those benefits; and "the mouth whereby we thus eat and drink, that is, the means "whereby we are made partakers of those benefits, is our true "and lively faith d." This account is formed upon our Catechism, and upon the old principles of our first Reformers, and the next succeeding Divines, before any refined speculations came in to obscure or perplex a plain notion, and a very important truth. All I have to observe further upon it, by way of explanation, is as follows: 1. When the learned author says, that the soul is not capable of receiving those benefits other"wise than by faith," I understand it of adult Christians, and of what they are ordinarily capable of: God may extraordinarily apply the benefits of Christ's passion wherever there is no moral obstacle, as he pleases. And it should be noted, that, properly speaking, we do not apply those benefits to ourselves, we only receive, or (by the help of God's grace) qualify ourselves for receiving: it is God that applies, as it is also God that justifies ;

66

e Dean Fogg, in his excellent Compendium of Divinity, published A. D. 1712, has fully and distinctly expressed the sense of John vi. in two lines:

Christus ibi loquitur, non de manducatione sacramentali, sed spirituali, et de pane significato, non significante. Fogg. Theolog. Specul. Schema, p. 309. Dr. Wall says; The words of our Saviour to the Jews, John vi. 53, do

no way appear to belong to the sacramental eating, which was not then instituted. Wall, Inf. Bapt. part ii. c. 9. p. 448. third edit.

d Archbishop Sharp, vol. vii. serm. xv. p. 366.

e Fides magis proprie dicitur accipere et apprehendere, quam vel polliceri, vel præstare. Sed verbum Dei et promissio cui fides innititur, non vero fides hoininum, præsentia reddit

and he does it ordinarily in and by the sacraments to persons fitly prepared. 2. When it is said, that the body and blood of Christ, in the sense of our Church, are only the benefits of Christ's passion, I so understand it, as not to exclude all reference to our Lord's glorified body now in heaven, with which we maintain a mystical union, and which is itself one of the benefits consequent upon our partaking of Christ's passion; as seems to be intimated by the author himself, where he reckons a nearer union with Christ among the benefits. 3. The judicious author rightly makes faith to be the mouth only, by which we receive, not the meat or drink which we do receive; the means only of spiritual nutriment, not the nutriment itself: for the nutriment itself is pardon and grace coming down from above, flowing from the spiritual and gracious presence of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whose temple we are, while we are living members of Christ.

CHAP. VII.

Concerning Sacramental or Symbolical Feeding in the EUCHARIST. AFTER considering spiritual manducation by itself, independent of any particular modes, forms, or circumstances, it will next be proper to take a view of it, as set forth in a sensible way, with the additional garniture of signs and symbols. Under the Old Testament, besides the ordinary sacrifices, the manna and the waters of the rock were signs and symbols of spiritual manducation, according to St. Paul's doctrine, where he teaches, that the ancient Israelites" did all eat the same spiritual meat, “and did all drink the same spiritual drink f" which Christians do; the same with ours as to the spiritual signification of it: so I understand the place, with many judicious interpreters, both ancients and moderns. As the heavenly meat and drink of the true Israelites was Christ, according to the Apostle, and Christ also is ours, the Apostle must be understood to teach, that they fed upon the same heavenly food that we do; only by different symbols, and in a fainter light. The symbols are there called spiritual meat and drink, that is, mystical; for they signified the quæ promittit; quemadmodum inter reformatos et pontificios aliquot consensum est in Collatione Sangermani habita 1561. Male enim a multis Romanensibus nobis objicitur, quasi crederemus hanc Christi præsentiam et communicationem in sacramento, per nudam fidem tantum effici. Cosin. Histor. Transubst. c. ii. sect. 8. p. 17, 18.

f

I Cor. x. 3, 4.

g Austin, Bede, Bertram, and others.

Besides commentators, see Archbishop Cranmer on the Sacrament, p. 86, &c. Bishop Jewel, Treatise on the Sacrament; Mede, Discourse xliii. p. 325, &c. Bishop Moreton on the Sacrament, book v. c. 2. sect. 3

P. 314.

true food, which none but the true Israelites were fed with, while all received the signs. In the New Testament, the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the appointed symbols of the spiritual blessings, but under clearer and brighter manifestations. For proof hereof we must look back to the original institution of the Sacrament, and particularly to the words, "This is my body," &c. and "This is my blood," &c. To undertake the exposition of them is entering into the most perplexed and intricate part of the whole subject; made so by an odd series of incidents, in a long tract of time, and remaining as a standing monument of human infirmities: in consideration whereof, moderns, of all parties, may perhaps see reason not to bear themselves high above the ancients, in point of wisdom or sagacity. The plain obvious notion, which nobody almost could miss of for six or seven centuries, came at length to be obscured in dark ages, and by degrees to be almost totally lost. It was no very easy matter to recover it afterwards, or to clear off the mists at once. Contentions arose, even among the elucidators: and what was worst of all, after that in every scheme proposed, at the Reformation, some difficulties remained, which could not of a sudden be perfectly adjusted, there appeared at length some enterprising persons, who, either for shortening disputes, or for other causes, laboured to depreciate the Sacraments themselves, as if they were scarce worth the contending for: which was pushing matters to the most dangerous and pernicious extreme that could be invented. But I pass on.

For the clearer apprehending what that plain and easy notion was, which I just now spake of, I choose to begin with a famous passage of St. Bernard, often quoted in this subject, and very useful to give the readers a good general idea of the symbolical nature of the Sacraments. He compares them with instruments of investiture, (into lands, honours, dignities,) which are significant and emblematical of what they belong to, and are at the same time means of conveyance. A book, a ring, a crosier, and the like, have often been made use of as instruments for such purpose. They are not without their significancy in the way of instructive emblem: but what is most considerable, they are instruments to convey those rights, privileges, honours, offices, possessions, which in silent language they point to. Those small i Variæ sunt investituræ secundum ea quibus investimur: verbi gratia, investitur canonicus per librum, abbas per baculum et annulum simul: sicut,

inquam, in ejusmodi rebus est, sic et divisiones gratiarum diversis sunt traditæ sacramentis. Bernard. de Can. Domini, serm. i. p. 145.