Conference Held About Religion at London, Addendum to report
The Addition which N. N. desired might be subjoined to the Relation of the Conference if it were published, but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the Conference.
THe substance of what N. N. desired me to take notice of, was, That our eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life, as Almsgiving, or any other good Works gives it, where the bare external Action, if separated from a good Intention and Principle, is not acceptable to God. So that we must necessarily understand these words of our Saviour with this Addition of Worthily, that whoso eats his flesh and drinks his blood in the Sacrament Worthily, hath everlasting life; for, he said, he did not deny but the believing the Death of Christ was necessary in communicating, but it is not by Faith only we receive his body and blood. For as by Faith we are the sons of God, yet it is not only by Faith, but also by Baptism, that we become the sons of God; so also Christ saith, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; yet this doth not exclude Repentance and amendment of Life from being necessary to Salvation: therefore the universality of the Expression, whoso eats, does not exclude the necessity of eating worthily that we may have everlasting life by it. And so did conclude, that since we believe we have all our Faith in the Holy Scriptures, we must prove from some clear Scriptures, by Arguments that consist of a Major and Minor, that are either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them, that Christ was no otherwise present in the Sacrament, than spiritually, as he is received by Faith. And added, That it was impertinent to bring Impossibilities either from sense or reason against this, if we brought no clear Scriptures against it.
To this he also added, That when D. S. asked him by which of his senses he received Christ in the Sacrament, he answered, That he might really receive Christ's body at his mouth, though none of his senses could perceive him, as a Bole or Pill is taken in a Syrup or any other Liquor; so that I really swallow it over though my senses do not taste it: in like manner, Christ is received under the accidents of Bread and Wine, so that though our senses do not perceive it, yet he is really taken in at our Mouth, and goes down into our Stomach.
ANSWER.
HAving now set down the strength of N. N. his Plea upon second Thoughts, I shall next examine it. The stress of all lies in this, Whether we must necessarily supply the Words of Christ with the addition of worthily: he affirms it, I deny it, for these Reasons.
Christ in this Discourse was to shew how much more excellent his Doctrine was than was Moses's Law, and that Moses gave Manna from Heaven to nourish their Bodies, notwithstanding which they died in the Wilderness: but Christ was to give them Food to their Souls; which if they did eat they should never die, for it should give them life: where it is apparent, the bread and nourishment must be such, as the life was, which being internal and spiritual, the other must be such also: and vers. 47. he clearly explains how that Food was received, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Now having said before that this bread gives life, and here saying that believing gives everlasting life, it very reasonably follows, that believing was the receiving this Food; which is yet clearer from verse 34. where the Iews having desired him evermore to give them that bread, he answers, verse 35. I am the bread of Life, be that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. Which no man, that is not strangely prepossessed, can consider, but he must see it is an Answer to their Question, and so in it he tells them, that their coming to him, and believing, was the mean of receiving that Bread.
And here it must be considered, that Christ calls himself Bread, and says, that a Man must eat thereof, which must be understood figuratively; and if Figures be admitted in some parts of that discourse, it is unjust to reject the applying the same Figures to other parts of it. In fine, Christ tells them this Bread was his Flesh which he was to give for the Life of the World, which can be applied to nothing but the offering up himself on the Cross. This did, as it was no wonder, startle the Jews, so they murmured, and said, How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat? To which Christs Answer is so clear, that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it. He first tells them, except they eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man, they had no Life in them. Where on the way mark, that drinking the Blood is as necessary as eating the Flesh; and these words being expounded of the Sacrament, cannot but discover them extreamly guilty who do not drink the Blood. For suppose the Doctrine of the Blood's concomitating the Flesh were true; yet even in that case they only eat the Blood, but cannot be said to drink the Blood. But from these words it is apparent Christ must be speaking chiefly, if not only of the spiritual Communicating: for otherwise no man can be saved, that hath not received the Sacrament. The words are formal and positive, and Christ having made this a necessary Condition of Life, I see not how we dare promise Life to any that hath never received it.
And indeed it was no wonder that those Fathers who understood these words of the Sacrament, appointed it to be given to Infants immediately after they were baptized▪ for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our Saviours words. And yet the Church of Rome will not deny, but if any die before he is adult, or if a Person converted be in such Circumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and so dies without it, he may have everlasting Life: therefore they must conclude, that Christs Flesh may be eaten by Faith even without the Sacrament.
Again in the next verse he says, Whoso eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath eternal Life. These words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse, they being indeed the reverse of it. Therefore since there is no addition of worthily necessary to the fence of the former Verse, neither is it necessary in this. But it must be concluded Christ is here speaking of a thing without which none can have Life: and by which all have Life: therefore when ever Christs Flesh is eaten, and his Blood is drunk, which is most signally done in the Sacrament, there eternal Life must accompany it; and so these words must be understood, even in relation to the Sacrament, only of the spiritual Communicating by Faith.
As when it is said, a man is a reasonable Creature: though this is said of the whole man, Body and Soul; yet when we see that upon the Dissolution of Soul and Body no Reason or Life remains in the Body, we from thence positively conclude the Reason is seated only in the Soul; though the Body has Organs that are necessary for its Operations: So when it is said we eat Christs Flesh, and drink his Blood in the Sacrament, which gives eternal Life; there being two things in it, the bodily eating and the spiritual communicating; though the eating of Christs Flesh is said to be done in the worthy receiving, which consists of these two, yet since we may clearly see the bodily receiving may be without any such Effects, we must conclude that the eating of Christs Flesh is only done by the inward Communicating; though the other, that is the bodily part, be a divine Organ, and conveyance of it. And as Reason is seated only in the Soul, so the eating of Christs Flesh must be only inward and spiritual, and so the mean by which we receive Christ in the Supper is Faith.
All this is made much clearer by the words that follow, my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Now Christs Flesh is so eaten, as it is meat; which I suppose none will question, it being a prosecution of the same discourse. Now it is not meat as taken by the Body, for they cannot be so gross as to say, Christs Flesh is the Meat of our Body; therefore since his Flesh is only the Meat of the Soul and spiritual Nourishment, it is only eaten by the Soul, and so received by Faith.
Christ also says, He that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him. This is the definition of that eating and drinking he had been speaking of; so that such as is the dwelling in him, such also must be the eating of him: the one therefore being spiritual, inward, and by faith, the other must be such also. And thus it is as plain as can be, from the words of Christ, that he spake not of a carnal or corporal, but of a spiritual eating of his Flesh by Faith. All this is more confirmed by the Key our Saviour gives of his whole Discourse, when the Iews were offended for the hardness of his sayings, It is the Spirit that quickneth (or giveth the Life he had been speaking of) the flesh profiteth nothing, the words I speak unto you are spirit, and they are Life. From which it is plain he tells them to understand his words of a spiritual Life, and in a spiritual manner.
But now I shall examine N. N. his Reasons to the contrary.
His chief Argument is, that when eternal Life is promised upon the giving of Alms, or other good Works, we must necessarily understand it with this Proviso, that they were given with a good intention, and from a good Principle: therefore we must understand these words of our Saviour to have some such Proviso in them.
All this concludes nothing. It is indeed certain when any promise is past upon an external Action, such a reserve must be understood. And so St. Paul tells us, if he bestowed all his goods to feed the Poor, and had no Charity, it profited him nothing. And if it were clear our Saviour were here speaking of an external action, I should acknowledge such a proviso must be understood; but that is the thing in question; and I hope I have made it appear Our Saviour is speaking of an internal action, and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed. For he is speaking of that eating of his Flesh, which must necessarily and certainly be worthily done, and so that objection is of no force. He must therefore prove, that the eating his Flesh is primarily and simply meant of the bodily eating in the Sacrament; and not only by a denomination, from a Relation to it: as the whole man is called reasonable, though the reason is seated in the Soul only
What he says to shew that by Faith only we are not the Sons of God, since by Baptism also we are the Sons of God, is not to the purpose: for the design of the Argument, was to prove that by Faith only we are the Sons of God, so as to be the Heirs of eternal Life. Now the Baptism of the adult (for our debate runs upon those of ripe years and understanding) makes them only externally, and Sacramentally the Sons of God: for the inward and vital Sonship follows only upon Faith. And this Faith must be understood of such a lively and operative Faith, as includes both repentance and amendment of Life. So that when our Saviour says, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, that believing is a complex of all evangelical Graces; from which it appears, that none of his Reasons are of force enough to conclude that the universality of these words of Christ ought to be so limited and restricted.
For what remains of that which he desired might be taken notice of, that we ought to prove that Christs Body and Blood was present in the Sacrament only spiritually and not corporally by express Scriptures, or by Arguments whereof the Major and Minor were either express words of Scripture, or equivalent to them: it has no force at all in it.
I have in a full discourse examined all that is in the Plea concerning the express words of Scripture; and therefore shall say nothing upon that head, referring the Reader to what he will meet with on that Subject afterwards. But here I only desire the Reader may consider, our Contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our Saviours words, This is my body, in which it is very absurd to ask for express words of Scripture, to prove that meaning by. For if that be setled on, as a necessary method of proof, then when other Scriptures are brought to prove that to be the meaning of these words; it may be asked how can we prove the true meaning of that place we bring to prove the meaning of this by? and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every Place. Therefore when we enquire into the sense of any controverted place; we must judge of it by the rules of common Sense and Reason, of Religion and Piety, and if a meaning be affixed to any Place contrary to these, we have good reason to reject it. For we, knowing all external things only by our Senses, by which only the Miracles and Resurrection of Christ could be proved, which are the means God has given us to converse with, and enjoy his whole Creation; and evidence our senses give being such, as naturally determines our Perswasions, so that after them we cannot doubt: if then a sense be offered to any place of Scripture that does overthrow all this, we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it. If also any meaning be fastened on a place of Scripture that destroys all our Conceptions of things, is contrary to the most universally receiv'd Maxims, subverts the Notions of matter and accidents, and in a word, confounds all our clearest Apprehensions; we must also reject every such gloss, since it contradicts the evidence of that which is God's Image in us.
If also a sense of any place of Scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious Exaltation of the humane Nature of our blessed Saviour, we have very just reasons to reject it, even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of Scripture: therefore this Dispute being chiefly about the meaning of Christ's Words, he that shews best Reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to Truth, does all that is necessary in this case.
But after all this, we decline not to shew clear Scriptures for the meaning our Church puts on these words of Christ. It was Bread that Christ took, blessed, brake, and gave his Disciples. Now the Scripture calling it formally bread, destroys Transubstantiation. Christ said, This is my Body, which are declarative, and not imperative words, such as, Let there be light, or, Be thou whole. Now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true, as is most clear; therefore Christ pronounces what the Bread was become by his former blessing, which did sanctifie the Elements: and yet after that blessing it was still bread. Again, the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it; so that Christ's words, Do this in remembrance of me, shew us, that his Body is here only in a vital and living Commemoration and Communication of his Body and Blood. Farther, Christ telling us, it was his Body that was given for us, and his Blood shed for us, which we there receive; it is apparent, he is to be understood present in the Sacrament; not as he is now exalted in Glory, but as he was on the Cross when his Blood was shed for us.
And in fine, if we consider that those to whom Christ spake were Jews, all this will be more easily understood: for it was ordinary for them to call the Symbol by the Name of the Original it represented. So they called the Cloud between the Cherubims, God and Iehovah, according to these words, O thou that dwellest between the Cherubims: and all the symbolical Apparitions of God to the Patriarchs and the Prophets, were said to be the Lord appearing to them. But that which is more to this purpose, is, that the Lamb that was the symbol and memorial of their Deliverance out of Egypt, was called the Lord's Passover. Now though the Passover then was only a Type of our Deliverance by the Death of Christ, yet the Lamb was in proportion to the Passover in Egypt, as really a Representation of it, as the Sacrament is of the Death of Christ. And it is no more to be wondered that Christ called the Elements his Body and Blood, though they were not so corporally, but only mystically, and sacramentally; than that Moses called the Lamb the Lord's Passover. So that it is apparent it was common among the Jews to call the Symbol and Type by the Name of the Substance and Original. Therefore our Saviour's Words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake, it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful Expression, to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech in that Age, People, and Place, in which such Phrases were used.
This is signally confirmed by the Account which Maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the Scriptures. First, he says, it More Nevochim Par. 1. c. 30.stands in its natural signification, for receiving bodily Food: Then because there are two things done in eating, the first is the destruction of that which is eaten, so that it loseth its first form; the other is the increase and nourishment of the substance of the Person that eats: therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the Language of the Scriptures: the one is destruction and desolation; so the Sword is said to eat, or as we render it, to devour; so a Land is said to eat its Inhabitants, and so Fire is said to eat or consume: The other sense it is taken in does relate to Wisdom, Learning, and all Intellectual Apprehensions, by which the form (or soul) of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them, as the body is preserved by food. For proof of this, he cites divers places out of the Old Testament, as Isa. 55. 2. come buy and eat, and Prov. 25. 27. and Prov. 24. 13. he also adds, that their Rabbins commonly call Wisdom, eating; and cites some of their Sayings, as, come and eat flesh in which there is much fat, and that whenever eating and drinking is in the Book of the Proverbs, it is nothing else but Wisdom or the Law. So also Wisdom is often called Water, Isa. 55. 1. and he concludes, that because this sense of eating occurs so often, and is so manifest and evident, as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the Word, therefore Hunger and Thirst do also stand for a privation of Wisdom and Understanding, as Amos. 8. 21. To this he also refers that of thirsting, Psal. 42. 3. and Isa. 12. 3. and Ionathan paraphrasing these Words, Ye shall draw water out of the Wells of Salvation, renders it. Ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from the select ones among the Iust, which is farther confirmed from the words of our Saviour, Iohn 7. 37.
And from these Observations of the Learnedest and most Judicious among all the Rabbins, we see that the Iews understood the Phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this spiritual and figurative sense of receiving VVisdom and Instruction. So that this being an usual form of Speech among them, it is no strange thing to imagine how our Saviour, being a Iew according to the Flesh, and conversing with Iews, did use these Terms and Phrases in a sense that was common to that Nation.
And from all these set together, we are confident we have a great deal of Reason, and strong and convincing Authorities from the Scriptures, to prove Christ's words, This is my Body, are to be understood spiritually, mystically, and sacramentally.
There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what N. N. says. He answered to D. S. That Christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them, as a bole is swallowed over, though our taste does not relish or perceive it. That Great Man is so very well furnished with Reason and Learning to justifie all he says, that no other body needs interpose on his account. But he being now busie, it was not worth the giving him the trouble, to ask how he would reply upon so weak an Answer, since its shallowness appears at the first view: for is there any comparison to be made between an Object that all my senses may perceive, if I have a mind to it, that I see with mine eyes, and touch, and feel in my mouth, and if it be too big, and my Throat too narrow, I will feel stick there; but only to guard against its offensive taste, I so wrap or convey it, that I relish nothing ungrateful in it: and the receiving Christ with my senses, when yet none of them either do, or can, though applied with all possible care, discern him? So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say, it seemed indeed strange to him, to say, that Christ was received by our senses, and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him: and this Answer to it is but mere trifling.