The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 38 · Subpart 8
That in the sixt chapter of Saint Iohn there is nothing that maketh for Transsubstantiation, and that there is not any thing at all spoken of eating the flesh of Iesus Christ with the mouth.
Sect. 31 The Capernaitan Iewes followed Iesus Christ into the desert, not to heare his words, but to be fed with bread. But Iesus Christ making their gluttony a meanes to instruct them, from thence tooke occasion to speake vntounto them of another kind of food, and of celestiall bread, whereof whosoeuer eateth, liueth eternally, and that bread is himselfe. And it is to be noted, that then the holy Supper was not instituted, nor in two yeares after.
The difference betweene vsus & our aduersaries consisteth in this eating. We say, that in this Chapter he speaketh onelyonly of a spirituall eating which is done by faith in the same manner, as in the fourth Chapter Iesus Christ speaketh to the Samaritane woman, of a water, whereof whosoeuer shall drinke, shall neuer thirst: where he speaketh not of a materiall water but of a spirituall grace. But our aduersaries say, that in this Chapter he speaketh of two sorts of eating, the one spirituall by faith, which is continued from the 32. to the 50. verse: the other corporall, which is done by the mouth of the body, by the which Iesus Christ is really eaten with the mouth in the Eucharist: whereof they say Iesus Christ speaketh in the rest of the Chapter.
But if we examine the whole tenour of Christs speech, we shall not finde any one clause therein, which is not contrary to this kind of eating of Iesus Christ with the mouth.
1. In the 32. and 50. verses he saith, that he is the bread that came downe from heauen, shewing, that that bread is not onelyonly the flesh of Iesus Christ, (for that descended not from heauen) but also his Diuinitie. Then if that bread which descended from heauen should be eaten with the mouth, we must also eate the Diuinitie.
2. In the 35 verse he saith, I am the bread of life: words which serue for the vnderstanding of these words, This is my bodie. For if by these words, This is my body, we must vnderstand, This is transsubstantiated into my body; we must also by these words, I am the bread, vnderstand that Iesus Christ is transsubstantiated into bread.
3. Iesus Christ addeth, He that beleeueth in me, shall neuer thirst. Where plainly he putteth, to beleeue, in stead of, to drinke; seeing he saith, that by beleeuing our thirst shall be quenched. The coherence of his discourse,Bellar. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 7. Verba quae citantur non pertinent ad Sacramentum propriè, sed ad fidem incarnationis. and the naturall consequence, requireth that he should hauehave said, He that drinketh shall neuer thirst: but he said, He that beleeueth, in stead of, He that drinketh; to teach vsus, that he speaketh of a drinke which is taken by faith. Bellarmine acknowledgeth the same, and confesseth that in that place there is nothing spoken of the Sacrament, but of faith in the incarnation.
4. The 47 verse is likewise plaine, where the Lord saith, He that beleeueth in me hath life eternall: I am that bread of life. There he sheweth, that this bread is taken by faith. For, seeing that he which beleeueth in him hath life euerlasting, from thence he inferreth, that he is the bread of life.
5. In the 50 verse he addeth, If any man eateth of this bread he shall not die: and in the 54 verse, He that eateth my flesh, hath life euerlasting. Then wicked persons eate not the flesh of our Lord, because they hauehave not life eternall. For it is certaine that Iesus Christ speaketh not of eating with the mouth, nor of the Eucharist: for many eate thereof, which hauehave not life eternall; as Iudas, and an infinite number of hypocrites. Our aduersaries to excuse themselues, adde somewhat hereunto, which is fetcht out of their own braines, and not to be found in the word of God: for they say, that Iesus Christ vnderstood, that he that eateth his flesh worthily, hath life eternall. But this word worthily, is vnworthily added by them, and cleane contrary to the truth, seeing that thereby they suppose that a man may eate the flesh of our Lord vnworthily. For seeing that to eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, is to trust in his death, as we hauehave proued (and our aduersaries confesse it,) it is manifest, that no man can vnworthily beleeue in Iesus Christ, seeing that all our worthinesse consisteth in beleeuing in Iesus Christ. Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11. speaketh of eating the bread vnworthily, but not of eating the Lords body vnworthily. A man may take the signe, but not the truth vnworthily. Therefore, as to excuse themselues touching the place in Saint Iohn, they adde their owne imagination to the word of God; so to defend themselues against this place of Saint Paul, they make a figure thereof. And this word worthily being by them added, yet that place is still contrary to the Church of Rome, which beleeueth, that many which hauehave taken the host worthily, are damned.
6. The 53. verse is of no lesse force, where Iesus Christ saith, Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, ye hauehave no life in you. There it is plaine, that he speaketh not of eating the Sacrament with the mouth: for he speaketh of an eating necessary to saluation, without the which man cannot hauehave eternall life. Now many attaine to eternall life, which neuer participated in that Sacrament, as Saint Iohn Baptist, the theefe crucified with Iesus Christ, and many faithfull persons that died before they were partakers of the same. If we do not eate the flesh of the Lord but in the Sacrament, what shall become of so many faithfull persons which did not participate in the same? Then here againe they adde another peece vntounto the word of God: for they say, that Iesus Christ would hauehave said, If you eate not the flesh of the Sonne of man while you hauehave meanes to do it, you shall not hauehave life eternall. There is no expresse sentence in the Scripture, which may not be peruerted, by thrusting in of words, and adding somewhat of our owne imaginations. And yet this being added, this place condemneth the Church of Rome, which beleeueth not, that all those that receiue not the hoast at Easter, when they hauehave meanes to do it, are therefore damned. The Church of Rome neuer giueth the consecrated host to men that are condemned to die, yet our aduersaries do not beleeue that they are damned.
7. In the 56 verse the Lord addeth, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. This concerneth not eating with the mouth, either in regard of hypocrites, or in regard of the faithfull. For if an hypocrite hath receiued the Sacrament, that makes him not to dwell in Iesus Christ: and if a faithfull person hath receiued it, the Church of Rome doth not beleeue that Iesus Christ dwelleth in him: for she saith, that as soone as the species are digested in the stomacke, the body of Iesus Christ is no more there.
8. Lastly, Iesus Christ, to aduertise his disciples that his words ought not to be taken in a carnall and grosse sence, but to shew them that they are quickning and spirituall, saith vntounto them, These words are spirit and life. But they giuegive not life, if they be not taken spiritually.
9. You must also note, that in all this discourse, wherein he promiseth to giuegive his flesh to be eaten, he spake to the Capernaitan Iewes, to whom he neuer administred the Eucharist, and which continued obstinately in their Iewish opinions. It is certaine that Iesus Christ is no lyer. If he had promised to administer the Sacrament to the Capernaitans, he wold hauehave kept his promise. And the vnworthinesse of the Capernaitans could not hauehave kept the Lord from offering the Sacrament vntounto them according to his promise, which neuerthelesse he did not. By this meanes our aduersaries, as much as in them lyeth, make Iesus Christ a lyer.
10. We must likewise remember, that the Eucharist was not as then instituted, till two yeares after; and yet at that time Iesus Christ was the true bread of life. For in the 35 verse he saith, I am the bread of life: and in the 50 verse, This is the bread, &c. and in the 54 verse, He that eateth my flesh, &c. From that time therefore this bread was eaten by the faithfull, although the Eucharist was not then instituted.
We must not thinke it strange, if sometimes he speaketh in the future tense, saying, This bread which I will giuegive you, &c. for he had a respect to his death, wherein he was to giuegive himselfe for the life of the world.
We must not likewise wonder when the Lord saith, that his flesh is meate indeed: for this word indeed, doth not hinder but that the word flesh may be taken figuratiuely, no more then when Iesus Christ in the 15.1. of S. Iohn saith, I am the true vine; where the word true excludeth not the figure. Figuratiue words ceasse not to be true: seeing that the flesh of Iesus Christ crucified is the true food of our soules. The soule hath two principall faculties, the vnderstanding and the will: the vnderstanding is nourished by instruction, the wil by consolation. The flesh of Iesus Christ crucified furnisheth these two nourishments. For by the death of Iesus Christ we are certified and instructed of and in the meanes that God hath ordained to reconcile himselfe vntounto vsus; and that onelyonly is our soueraigne consolation, for without it our soules languish and wither in despaire, like a member fallen into a consumption, or like a body destitute of nourishment.
We must not thinke it strange, that our Sauiour Iesus Christ vsed this allegory, seeing that not long before he vsed the like allegory, speakng to the Samaritan woman, of a water whereof whosoeuer shall drinke,Ioh. 4. shall neuer thirst. And that it is an ordinary thing in the Scripture, to call the word of God and his graces, sometimes bread, sometimes milke, and sometimes strong meate. Besides that, Iesus Christ had particular reasons to moue him to speake in that manner to the Capernaitans, that had as it were forcibly constrained him to vse that allegory, importunately asking him, if he could do as Moses did, that gaue them bread from heauen. As also that they were incredulous, to whom he vsed to speake by figures and parables, as Saint Matthew 13.34. saith, And without a parable spake he not vntounto them.
Our aduersaries themselues acknowledge, that to the 50. verse, Iesus Christ did not speake of eating of the Sacrament with the mouth, but by faith: but in the verses following they say, that he speaketh of eating with the mouth. And yet in all that chapter there is nothing said of two kinds of eatings, nor any thing that should moue vsus to vnderstand that speech of Iesus Christ otherwise.
And I wonder how they dare in such manner contradict*De spirituali comestione Dominus ait: Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Hoc modo corpus Christi soli boni comedunt, &c. Pope Innocent 3. who in the 14. chapter and 4. booke of the Mysteries of the Masse, declareth, that in those verses which our aduersaries alledge for eating with the mouth, Christ speaketh of spirituall eating by faith, & saith, The Lord speaketh of spirituall eating, saying, If you eate not the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke not his bloud, you shall not hauehave eternall life in you. In this manner those onelyonly that are good eate the body of our Lord. And therefore he saith, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. For he that dwelleth in charitie dwelleth in God, and God in him. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? Beleeue, and thou hast eaten.
With the like obstinacie they oppose themselues against Pope Gelasius, who in his booke against Eutyches, and against Nestorius, speaketh thus of the holy Sacrament.*Certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi, diuina res est, propter quod & per eadem diuinae efficimur consortes naturae, & tamen esse non definit substantia vel natura panis & vini. Et certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Certainly the Sacraments of the body and bloud of our Lord which we receiue, are a diuine thing, and so by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature. And yet the substance or nature of bread and wine still remaine. And certainly the image and resemblance of the body and of the bloud of Christ is celebrated in this mysterie. But our aduersaries had rather disagree with their Popes, then to agree with vsus. But if that book was not made by Pope Gelasius, as the title importeth, but by Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestina, as Bellarmine suspecteth, the booke shall be the more ancient and of greater authority. Neuerthelesse, Photius speaking of Gelasius workes, maketh mention of a booke intituled, foreign, which were of the Sect of Actius, but speaketh nothing of the book against Eutyches and Nestorius.
The Decretall of the Romish Church, in the second Distinction of Consecration, is full of expresse sentences to that purpose. In the Canon**Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum, non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui: spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos. Prima quidem, Vnderstand that which I say spiritually. You shall not eate that body which you see, nor shall not drinke the bloud which those that shall crucifie me will shed. I hauehave recommended a sacred signe vntounto you, which being vnderstood spiritually, will quicken you.
And in the Canon, Ʋt quid. *Vt quid paras dentem & ventrem: crede & manducasti. Credere enim in eum hoc est panem & vinū manducare. Qui credit in eum manducat eum.Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie? Beleeue and thou hast eaten: for to beleeue in him, is to eate the bread and the wine; he that beleeueth in him eateth him.
Which contrarieth not those that by eating vnderstand something more then to beleeue, and therein also comprehend the effect of faith, which is to be nourished and quickened: which comes to one, for of necessitie the one followeth the other.
We conclude therefore, that in this chapter Iesus Christ speaketh not of eating his body with the mouth, neither vnderstandeth that he must go downe into our stomackes. For the nourishment of the soule is not receiued by the mouth of the body. To feede the body by hearing, and to feed the soule by the mouth, are two like absurdities. It is not more absurd to feede the stomacke with songs, then to cause the nourishment of the soule to passe through our teeth and our throats. Iesus Christ cannot be eaten by his enemies, much lesse by beasts. He is the bread of children, and not of strangers. This bread is giuen to the liuing, and not to the dead: to dwell in vsus, and not to passe through vsus. It is a meate necessary for saluation, and not as the Sacrament of his body, without the which many are saued, and which turnes to many mens condemnation. It is a remedy against all our sinnes, and not onelyonly against veniall sinnes, and those whereof mens consciences are already discharged,Bellarm. lib. 4. de Euchar. cap. 17. & 18. as the Church of Rome teacheth: making the Eucharist to be a plaister for a wound that is healed, and a meane to discharge mens consciences of sinnes, whereof they are already discharged. Whereby they make the Eucharist to be a thousand times of lesse efficacy then Baptisme, wherein there is no transsubstantiation made. For they say, that Baptisme is simply necessary for saluation, and that by Baptisme all precedent sinnes, as well mortall as veniall, are blotted out, both for the guilt and for the punishment.