The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 3
CHAP. 3. Of the ſenſe of John 6. and of the Spiritual manducation of the body Of Chriſt, and how many abſurdities and inconveniencies follow the oral manducation of Chriſts fleſh taught in the Roman Church.
OUr Adverſaries being caſt by the words of the inſtitution, and convinced to have altogether corrupted it, think to find a refuge in John. 6. where Chriſt many times calls himſelf the bread of life, and ſaith that his fleſh is meat indeed, of which whoſoever eateth ſhall live for ever.
I can hardly perſwade my ſelf, that when they uſe that text to prove Tranſubſtantiation they ſpeak in good earneſt 1. Whereas it is clear, & many of our Adverſaries acknowledge it, that Chriſt ſpeaks not there of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which was not yet inſtituted when Chriſt ſaid theſe things, but of the ſpiritual manducation by faith in the death of Chriſt, which is the true food of our ſouls. How could the Apoſtles have underſtood that the Lord ſpake to them of the Lords ſupper, which was not yet, & of which he had never ſpoken one word to them? 2. Wherefore alſo in the whole chapter there is no mention of table, or cup, or ſupper, or commemoration of his death. 3. As many lines as treat of that matter in that chapter, ſo many lies do they aſcribe unto Chriſt, when they will have him to ſpeak there of the Lords ſupper. For Chriſt promiſeth there to the Capernaits to give them his fleſh to eat; Now he never adminiſtred the Lords ſupper unto them. 4. Note alſo that when Chriſt ſpake theſe words he was already the bread of life, although the Euchariſt was not yet inſtituted, for he ſpeaks in the preſent tenſe, ſaying, I am the bread of life, and I am the bread which came down from heaven. He was then the bread of life, as ſoon as he came down from heaven. 5. It is evident that he ſpeaks there of a manducation without which no man can be ſaved, when he ſaith in verſe 53. Except ye eat the fleſh of the Son of man, you have no life in you; Now many are ſaved that never received the Lords ſupper. 6. It is evident alſo that he ſpeaks of a manducation without which none can be ſaved, when he ſaith in verſe 54. Whoſo eateth my fleſh, hath eternal life. He ſpeaks not then of the manducation of the Sacrament, which is eaten by many wicked and reprobate. One may indeed eat the bread unworthily, as the Apoſtle ſaith,1 Cor. 11. Whoſoever eateth this bread unworthily; But one cannot eate the fleſh of Chriſt unworthily, ſince that manducation is done by faith, and eating is believing. For one cannot believe in Chriſt unworthily, ſeeing that in that faith our worthineſs conſiſteth. 7. For that by eating and drinking, we muſt underſtand believing, Chriſt ſhews it in verſe 35. I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me ſhall never hunger, and he that believeth on me ſhall never thirſt. There manifeſtly drinking is put for believing, ſince that he ſaith that by believing thirſt is quenched. And verſe 47. He that believeth in me hath everlaſting life, I am that bread of life. Where he ſheweth that this bread is taken by believing. For becauſe he that believeth on him hath everlaſting life, he gathereth thence that he is the bread of life. 8. Wherefore alſo he giveth warning that his words are ſpirit and life, that is, they are ſpiritual and quickening, and that they quicken not unleſs they be taken in a ſpiritual ſenſe. 9. If theſe words of Chriſt, I am the bread of life, are preſt literaly and taken as our Adverſaries will have theſe words taken, This is my body, it will follow that as, this is my body, ſignifieth, This is tranſubſtantiated into my body, alſo I am the bread ſignifieth, I am tranſubſtantiated into bread. 10. Alſo theſe words of verſe 56. He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, are very conſiderable. For many eate the Sacrament, yet Chriſt dwells not in them, nor they in Chriſt. 11. And if to make Chriſt to dwell in us, we muſt ſwallow him down with our mouth, and throat, by the ſame reaſon Chriſt muſt ſwallow us down, that we may dwell in him. 12. And when Chriſt ſaith, verſe 63. The fleſh profiteth nothing, the words that I ſpeak unto you, they are ſpirit, and they are life, if by the word fleſh, he underſtands carnal ſenſe and humane reaſon, thereby he takes off our ſpirits from all carnal and groſs ſenſe, and will have his words taken in a ſpiritual ſenſe But if by the word fleſh, the Lord underſtands his own fleſh, as(a)Thom. Lect. 8. in Joh. 6. Caro non prodeſtq…icquam, intelligitur de carne Chriſti. Aquinas and many after him take it, he declareth to us that his fleſh eaten with the mouth (as the Capernaites did imagine) would not conduce at all for their ſalvation. As alſo our Adverſaries acknowledge that many that take the Sacrament, are damned nevertheleſs. But as for the manducation mentioned in this chapter, Chriſt declareth in verſe 54. that whoſoever eateth his fleſh hath eternal life. 13. If in theſe words of verſe 53. Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you, the Lord ſpeaks of communicating in the Sacrament, it is certain that the Roman Church depriveth the people of life by denying them the cup. For he ſaith, Except you drink my blood, you have no life in you. To ſay that the people take the blood in the hoſt, is no anſwer, for taking the blood thus is not drinking; Now Chriſt ſaith Except you drink. If eating the hoſt be drinking, then the Prieſt drinks twice in the Maſs. 14. The Lord addeth in verſe 56. He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. Can they ſay that the profane receiving the Sacrament dwell in Chriſt? 15. In vain do they preſs theſe words of verſe 56. My fleſh is meat indeed, to exclude all figures, for figurative words may be true. Chriſt ſaith, I am the true vine, Joh. 15.1. And God is the true ſpring of life, Pſal. 36. which yet are figurative expreſſions. And when Auſtin in the third book of the Chriſtian doctrine, ch. 16. ſaith that eating the fleſh of Chriſt is a figurative expreſſion, our Adverſaries to elude that teſtimony ſay, that in theſe words of Chriſt, beſides the figure there is truth alſo.
That Chriſt uſed that expreſſion muſt not be found ſtrange; For when the Jews of Capernaum asked of him bread from heaven like unto manna, he takes thence occaſion to ſpeak to them of another bread from Heaven, and of better meat. In the ſame manner as two chapters before from the water of the well (where he met the Samaritan woman) he takes occaſion of ſpeaking to her of another water which he gave, and which whoſoever drinketh ſhall never thirſt. To this join that of the unbelieving Jews, he uſeth to ſpeak in parables and ſimile's as St. Matthew ſaith ch. 13. v. 34. Without a parable ſpake he not unto them.
This is ſo evident that many of our Adverſaries as(b)Gabriel Biel Sect. 84. in Can. Miſſae. Cuſan.. Epiſt. 7. ad Bohemos. Cajetan in part. 3. qu. 80. Art. ult. Tapper. in explic. art. 15. Lovanienſium. Heſſelius de Commun. ſub utraque ſpecie. Janſen. cap. 59. Concordiae. Ferus in Joh. 6. Gabriel Biel, Cuſanus, Cajetan, Tapperus, Heſſelius, Janſenius and Ferus, take our part, and hold, that in this ch. it is not ſpoken of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, but of the ſpiritual manducation by faith. Pope Innocent the III. is of the ſame opinion, for theſe are his words in book. 4. ch. 14. of the Myſteries of the Maſs.(c)De ſpirituali comeſtitione Dominus ait, Niſi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis &c. Hoc modo curpus Chriſti ſoli boni comedunt. The Lord ſpeaks of the ſpiritual manducation ſaying, Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. In this manner the godly alone eat the body of Chriſt.
Thomas the Angelical Doctor in the ſeventh Leſſon upon John 6. expounding theſe words of the Lord, Except you eat my fleſh, you have no life in you. (d)Notandum, quod haec ſententia poteſt referri vel ad ſpiritualem manducationem: vel ad Sacram…ntalem. Sed ſi refertur ad ſpiritualem, …ull…m dubitationem habet ſ…ntentia, &c. …i vero ad ſacramentalem dubium habet quod dicitur.If (ſaith he) this relates to the ſpiritual manducation, this ſentence is without any doubt. For that man ſpiritually eateth the fleſh of Chriſt and drinketh his blood, who is partaker of the unity of the Church, which is done by Charity, &c. He that eateth not, hath not life, &c. But if that relates to the Sacramental manducation, there is a doubt in that which is ſaid, Except you eat my fleſh, you have no life in you. He finds the firſt expoſition clear and true; In the ſecond he finds doubt and difficulty.
Wherefore Auſtin upon Pſal. 98. perſonates Chriſt ſpeaking to his Diſciples, leſt they ſhould miſtake his words,(e)Non hoc corpus quod videtis, manducaturi eſtis, & bibituri ſanguinem, quem fuſuri ſunt, qui me crucifigunt. Sacramentum quod vobis commendavi, ſpiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. You ſhall not eat this body which you ſee, and ſhall not drink that blood which they that ſhall crucifie me will ſpill. I have recommended a Sacrament unto you, which being taken ſpiritually ſhall quicken you.
The ſame in the book of ſentences collected by Proſper in the 341. ſentence.(f)Qui diſcordat à Chriſto, nec carnem ejus manducat, nec bibit ejus ſanguinem, etiamſi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium ſuae praeſumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat. He that is in diſcord with Chriſt, eateth not his fleſh, and drinks not blood, though he take the ſacred ſign of ſo great a thing indifferently every day for the judgement [or condemnation] of his preſumption.
This good Doctor in the 25. and 26. Treatiſe upon John, expounds this ſixth chapter of that Goſpel, in which expoſition not only he ſpeaks never a word of the Tranſubſtantiation, nor of the oral eating of Chriſts body, but alſo keeps off the reader from that thought as much as he can, as I will ſhew in ch. 11. of this controverſie, where alſo we ſhall ſee that all the Fathers underſtood it ſo.
So it is underſtood in the Canon Ʋt quid in the ſecond Diſtinction of the Conſecration.(g)Ut quid paras dentem & ventrem? Crede & manducaſti. Credere enim in eum, hoc eſt panem & vinum mancare. Qui credit in eum, manducat eum. Why doſt thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? believe and thou haſt eaten, for believing on him is eating the bread▪ &c. He that believeth on him eates him. We ſhall ſee hereafter that the Fathers hold that the wicked eat not the body of Chriſt,(h)De doctrina Chriſt. l. 3. cap. 16. Auſtin ſaith that theſe words, Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of man, you have no life in you, are a figure that commands us to communicate unto the paſſion of our Lord, and to lay ſweetly and profitably in our memory that his fleſh was crucified and wounded for us. He ſaith not only that in theſe words of Chriſt there is a figure, but he expoundeth alſo how that figure ought to be underſtood, namely that eating Chriſts fleſh is meditating his death and delighting to remember that Chriſt is dead for us, an expoſition which Cardinal du Perron approveth not. Yet Cardinal Bellarmin in the firſt book of the Euchariſt, ch. 7.(i)Verba quae citantur, non pertinent ad Sacramentum proprie, ſed ad fidem Incarnationis. expounding theſe words of Joh. 6. He that cometh to me ſhall never hunger, and he that believeth on me ſhall never thirſt, ſaith, that theſe words belong not properly to the Sacrament, but to the faith of the Incarnation. Cardinal Tolet upon John 6. goeth ſo far as to ſay, that(k)Infantes in baptiſmo aliquo modo participant corpus Chriſti, nempe quantum ad rem ſignificatam, & dici poſſunt carnem Chriſti manducare & bibere ſanguinem ejus. Infants in their Baptiſm are in ſome ſort partakers of Chriſts body, that is, as for the thing ſignified, and may be ſaid to eate the fleſh of Chriſt, and to drink his blood.
Truly I never ſaw nor read any of the Romaniſt Doctors, but acknowledgeth that there is a ſpiritual manducation, which is done, not with the mouth of the body, but with faith. For Chriſt is the food, not of bodies, but of ſouls; and is received by believing, not by chewing; nor with the mouth, but with faith. To feed a body with words and ſongs, and to feed a ſoul with meats taken by the mouth, are things equal in abſurdity. Chriſt is the bread of children in which dogs have no part. Not as the bread of the Sacrament of which profane men and hypocrites participate. Chriſt is not eaten by his enemies. Chriſt is that bread which whoſoever eateth hath eternal life. That bread not only feeds the living but alſo gives life unto the dead.
If we compare theſe two ſorts of manducation, you ſhall find that the ſpiritual manducation by faith, of which our Adverſaries ſpeak with contempt, is beyond all compariſon more excellent then that which is done with the mouth. For without the oral manducation a great number of perſons are ſaved, but without manducation by faith none can be ſaved. And with the oral manducation, a great number of perſons are damned, but whoſoever hath eaten the fleſh of Chriſt is ſaved. He that believeth on him hath eternal life.
And if after you have compared them you join them together, you ſhall find that the manducation by the mouth is good and profitable only by reaſon of the ſpiritual. But if it be without the ſpiritual it is hurtful, and whoſoever takes the bread of the Sacrament unworthily takes his condemnation. If there be two things, whereof the one is hurtful without the other, it is eaſie to judge which of the two is the more excellent.
Wherefore Auſtin acknowledgeth no other manducation of the fleſh of Chriſt but the ſpiritual, for oppoſing it to the oral manducation of the Sacrament, he calls it the true manducation. As in book 21. of the City of God, ch. 25.(l)Oſtendit quid ſit non ſacramento tenus ſed re vera corpus Chriſti manducare. The Lord ſheweth what it is to eat the body of Chriſt, not in Sacrament only, but in truth. And in the ſame place, Non ſolo Sacramento ſed re ipſa manducaverunt corpus Chriſti, They have eaten the body of Chriſt, not only in Sacrament, but alſo in truth. And Thomas in the ſeventh Leſſon upon John 6. ſpeaking of him that ſpiritually eates the body of Chriſt ſaith,(m)Hic ille eſt, qui non ſacramentaliter tantum ſed re vera corpus Chriſti manducat. This is he that eates the body of Christ, not only ſacramentally, but alſo in truth. Speaking ſo, is ſaying that eating Chriſt in the Sacrament is not eating him in truth nor in effect, and that hypocrites and profane men receiving the Sacrament eate not the body of Chriſt truly or in truth.
Yea, the very Council of Trent in Seſſion 13. ch. 8. acknowledgeth that ſpiritual manducation which is done even without the Sacrament, by faith.(n)Quidam manducant hunc panem ſpiritualiter tantum & viva fide. Some (ſaith the Council) eat this bread ſpriritually only, and by a lively faith. So let no Romaniſts hereafter laugh at this ſpiritual manducation as an imaginary thing.
Rather let them conſider, how their real and oral manducation of Chriſt gives them occaſion to ſay many things of him which are unworthy of the Majeſty of the Son of God.(o)Innocent. III. Papa lib. 4. de Myſteriis Miſſae. c. 11. They diſpute what becomes of the body of Chriſt when the conſecracted hoſt is eaten by rats or other beaſts, or when the Prieſt or a ſick perſon caſts it up again. They are in great care what becomes of Chriſt carried away by mice, and why he did not hinder them to come near him. If they ſay that when the mouſe draweth near the hoſt, the ſubſtance of bread returneth, then the mouſe hath made a ſecond tranſubſtantiation.
(p)Idem cap. 16. Quod ſi ſeceſſus aut vomitus poſt ſolam Euchariſtiae perceptionem eveniat, &c.Pope Innocent the III. in the firſt book of the myſteries of the Maſs moveth this queſtion, If a man happens to have nothing in his belly but conſecrated hoſts, that is, nothing but the body and blood of Chriſt, and upon that a laske take him, what his excrements ſhall be, and what matter they ſhall be made of? And Durandus (q)Durand. Rationali lib. 4. cap. 41. Quid ſi forte ſeceſſus aut vomitus per ſolam Euchariſtiae perceptionem advenerit, ex accidentibus & humoribus generatur.If one having taken nothing but the Euchariſt, is taken with a laske or vomit, that is bred by the accidents and humors.
To which add this doctrine(r)Tolet. de inſtruc. Sacerd. lib. 2. cap. 25. Poſſet conſecrare Sscerdos multos cophinos panis, & vini dolium, ſi praeſentia iſta haberet. that a Prieſt by the words of Conſecration can tranſubſtantiate many basketfulls of, bread, and ſo undoe a baker; And that he may turn whole buts of wine into blood.
(t)Conſ. Trid. Seſſ. 7. Can. 11.And the doctrine of the Council of Trent, that the conſecration is not done if the Prieſt hath no intention to conſecrate, which intention ſince the people muſt gheſs, and can have no aſſurance of it, but by conjecture, it followeth that they muſt believe at a venture, that the Hoſt of the Maſs is Chriſt, and beſtow a conjectural worſhip upon it, or adore it conditionally, ſaying,(u)Adrianus Quodlibet. q. 10. Suppoſ. 2. pag. 70. Concilium Conſtantienſe excuſat ſimplices adorantes hoſtiam non conſecratam, quia tacitè implicatur conditio, ſi conſecratio ſit recte facta, &c. Et Diabol… ſic transfiguratur, ut credatur Chriſtus, & jubet ſe adorari, ſi ſic adoret, Adoro te, ſi tu es Chriſtus. (as Pope Adrian the VI. teacheth) I adore thee, if the Conſecration be well made, and if thou art Chriſt. But whether it be Chriſt or no, it is left to conjecture.
I paſs by a thouſand other abſurdities and inconveniencies which attend this doctrine;(x)Innoc. III. lib. 4. de Myſter. Miſſae. Eſt enim hic color & ſapor quantitas & qualitas, cum nihil alterutro ſit coloratum, aut ſapidum, aut quantum & quale. as that in the Hoſt the accidents are without a ſubject, that is, there is length in it, but nothing that is long; whiteneſs, and nothing white; colour, and nothing coloured; and as the Doctors ſay, Quantitas ſed non quantum, & accidentia quae non accidunt, ſimitas ſine naſo, claudicatio ſine crure.
And their ſaying that the(y)Gabriel Biel ſpeaks thus in the fourth leſſon upon the Canon of the Maſs. Qui creavit me (ſifas dicere) dedit mihi creare ſe. Qui creavit me ſine me, creatur mediante me. Whence he inferreth that Prieſts are Gods. Prieſt makes God with words, and createth his Creator, and makes a body, which is before it be made. And that Chriſts body being already in heaven, the Prieſt makes him on earth; as if while Philip is ſtudying at Paris, ſome body begot him at Rome. So that Chriſt begins to have a new being beſides the natural, namely a Sacramental being, as they ſpeak, which is offered in the Maſs for a propitiatory ſacrifice. We thought that one perſon could have but one being, and that the only natural being of Chriſt, was the price of our redemption.
Alſo that doctrine makes the body of Chriſt more ſpiritual then ſpirits. For ſouls, though they fill no place, and be not circumſcriptively in a place, yet they are but in one place, and cannot be ſeparated from themſelves, nor far from themſelves. But as for Chriſts body in the Maſs, they are not contented to ſay, that he is in no place, and fills no ſpace, and hath no extent; ſo that all his parts are under one point only, and that head and feet in the Hoſt, differ not in ſituation; So far as to hold, that if any had dipt a pin in the Chalice, the Lords body ſhould be whole in the drop remaining at the pins end; And if any had dipt the hair of his upper-lip in the conſecrated Chalice, the whole body of the Lord ſhould remain hanging at the end of every hair: But to make the abſurdity moſt ſuperlative, they make Chriſts body ſeparated from himſelf, remote from himſelf, higher and lower then himſelf, being in heaven and upon Altars, not in the ſpace between. All that is covered with the Almighty power of God, without any regard to his Wiſdom, or to his Truth, or to his Word, which ſaith, that Chriſt is like unto us in all things but ſin. By theſe inventions, that good Word of God is impugned, and the glory of the Son of God expoſed to ignominy. For by that doctrine, Chriſt being faln into the mire, cannot riſe out of it, and may be ſtoln and ſtabbed, as the Jeſus of Billettes of Paris, and cannot ſave himſelf from Mice. Wherefore there was need that the Cautelae or Caveat's of the Maſs ſhould make a proviſion againſt theſe inconveniencies. All that to raiſe the dignity of Prieſts, who by that doctrine can make God, and have Chriſt in their power locked up in a box, doing things that all the Angels and Saints together cannot do, for they cannot make Chriſt, nor create a thing which is already.
Thus they have overthrown the nature and the end of this Sacrament: For Sacraments are ſigns. Having then aboliſhed the ſigns, they have aboliſhed the Sacrament. For the bread and wine being no more, nothing but accidents in the air remain, which have no relation nor conveniency with the ſubſtance of Chriſts body. They aboliſh alſo the end of this Sacrament, which is not to bring down the body of Chriſt to us, but to raiſe up our hearts to him.