2853724! is SiSsStere es WANE ha SPAREN? rea i 4 Breas ze Fe ee zi RS “te nase 4 “tf, Aaa Sie, a Yeas 14923 hy ¥. aiff ve 54> os ffizs3 sega? aft erg yiREE yh i oe - “ ’ ely eS senammerne yy, ese is 3 Hf i si] eal OES Bareee a r4; o: Se es, , Hise Fe Eety 4 62554. PISaNis2 if 2 Mh SGUAS CANA TAG TTEINT Sg OTA LEN TADA Se Te Ss BPE STS: lad Mt: pe eR SPE ae Paces hey eee Lege SO tae, eee pot wa ove sine os wean os pone ome [vcr wid aS Ae Sho BA gd aeleg dees A owene ys dS end tue * one oe hd ‘ rein toes; CP Adan A, wot} ae spon ESE OPO ILI OTT EOS RI ET TH HN Se = Sree Ps a 1 Tair = AIM we EPG TENTS ES LORE E TIP SR ese or eee gas IPE POLE TN LI OIL EIDE FL COIR S FS il pn SAAN sieing gg VIM cd ftemne feats Ge, vty : Serrsuitcen thet es pimaeng eee . fortad 7 78.) ay fm tet by Fs iy TL adl Fetes ¢ paresear tain ; iS eposde : pussf{asegs 3 u . ee Seri. | | AN o " | aye> iy, | fe PRINCETON, N. J. gt the Gheologicas S, 6/12/78. breed ee ok Bvace2s 267.2 | Turner, Samuel Hulbeart, | 1790-1861. Loe Essay on Our Lord's ae discourse at Capernaum | : ———_— —-~ —-—- Ee Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/essayonourlordsd0Oturn [o,f DISCOURSE AT CAPERNAUM, RECORDED IN THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. WITH STRICTURES ON CARDINAL WISEMAN’S LECTURES ON THE REAL PRESENCE, AND NOTICES OF SOME OF HIS ERRORS, BOTH OF FACT AND REASONING. RY SAMUEL H. TURNER, D.D., PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LEARNING AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH; AND OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW YORK. Ohird dition. NEW-YORK: ANSON PD. F. RANDOLPH, 683 BROADWAY. 1860. Entered, according to Act ot ‘ongress, in the year 1845, by Harper & SROTHERS, In the Clerk’s Office of the Southern District of New-York THE REV. BIRD WILSON, D.D., PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC DIVINITY IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH ; THE BENEFIT OF WHOSE EXTENSIVE LEARNING AND SOUND JUDGMENT, CONSTANTLY SHOWN IN HIS VALUABLE INSTRUC- TIONS, THE INSTITUTION HAS LONG ENJOYED; AND WHOSE UNIFORM KINDNESS AND FRIENDSHIP WILL ALWAYS BE GRATEFULLY REMEMBERED BY THE WRITER; THIS ESSAY, IN THE HOPE THAT THE GENERAL VIEW TAKEN OF THE SUBJECT WILL MEET WITH HIS APPROVAL, IS MOST RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, BY HIB AFFECTIONATE FRIEND AND BROTHER, THE AUTHOR. ebook rf aii “% et he BO ax Yom Tan de sa ; ie hea = ris vines, Barents tx irae 2 nati. ai hob Hy +s id atect | ness Hae io) at «+ ie ¥ ees Ba EIN nye ; aprpeddeds os!t 80. QieTy he rae > ‘2 a eae ro m Gane A hee ) aap een c re j re ay : a ae t va 4 = ebtgoad iuiw.. =a daiidsie os Eons phat egw set ae gH bas Bi ayitest Sinmn * a uick ooh adi: tates Tihany had ot io - it ] 5 5 Ee . ‘ » . 2 tog ‘ ‘ é if re nis pearl ae a a ee ee PREFACE, As the publication of an Essay on our Lord’s discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John may seem to be unnecessary, I think proper to state to the reader some of the reasons which led me to prepare the following treatise. In lecturing on this Gospel to the theological students under my care, my attention was di- rected, more than a year ago, by one of them to the Lectures on the Real Presence by Nicuonas Wiseman, D.D., the first four professing to prove that doctrine, as it is maintained by the Church of Rome, by an appeal to this chapter. These Lec- tures, as the preface informs us, were “ several times delivered in the English College at Rome, as a portion of the theological course” of instruc- tion there given. On returning to England, the author was induced to publish them, with the in- tention of doing “ ample justice to the line of argu- ment which he had pursued in” certain other lec- tures, and in order “more fully to develop and justify by proofs the Catholic arguments for the Real Presence.” Their repeated delivery at Vill PREFACE. Rome, and their publication in England, with such views and expectations, sanctioned the presump- tion that the greatest care had been taken to se- cure soundness in reasoning and minute correct- ness in statements. What farther tended to con- firm in me this supposition, was information com- municated by the same individual, that Dr. Wise- man’s book had made a strong impression on the minds of a few most estimable persons well known to him. I was thus led to read the work in ques- tion, and its perusal determined me to write the following pages, which will put the reader in pos- session of some reasons for the opinion which I was compelled to form of the book. I was sur- prised that any intelligent scholar of respectable acquirements in theology should attach much im- portance to it as a work of reasoning, and also that a person so distinguished by his own Church should have made such palpably erroneous state- ments as the Lectures furnish. Ihave pointed out some which had escaped the notice of Dr. Tur- ToNn,* one of the author’s English opponents. I * His book bears the following title: The Roman Catholic Doc- trine of the Eucharist considered, in reply to Dr. Wiseman’s Argu- ment from Scripture. By Tuomas Turton, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough, Cambridge, 1837, 8vo. To this work and some smaller treatises, Dr. Wiseman published a reply, dated London, 1839, 8vo. PREFACE. ix had no knowledge of this gentleman’s publication in reply to the Lectures until I had nearly com- pleted my Essay; and a subsequent examination of it, and also of Dr. Wiseman’s answer, and of a still later production by the venerable Fanzr,* suggested no sufficient reason to induce me to al- ter the plan of my treatise, or to modify my views either of the Lectures themselves, or of the dis- course of our Lord which they profess to explain. An examination of the four Lectures on this discourse very naturally strengthened an inclina- tion which IJ had for a considerable time enter- tained, of writing an exposition of the discourse it- self. To exhibit what I conceive to be its true sense and object, is the main design of the Essay, which is intended to be exegetical ; and in contro- verting some views of Dr. Wiseman, my design is chiefly to prepare the way for a proper devel- opment of our Lord’s meaning. The result is now presented to the reader in this little volume, with the earnest wish and prayer, that a feeble effort to advance the glory of God by an attempt to show the true meaning of a part of his most Holy Word may be accompanied by his blessing. * Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum fatal to the Doctrine of Tran- substantiation, &c. By Grorce STan.ey Fazer, B.D., Master of Sherburn Hospital, and Prebendary of Salisbury, 8vo, London, 1840, x PREFACE. The errors of Dr. Wiseman, referred to in the title of this edition, are noted in pages 11, 12, 25— 27, 41, 42, 67, 68, 88-91. It is amazing that he should have committed blunders and made state- ments alike irreconcilable with that ordinary at- tention which every writer is expected to pay to his subject, and that honesty of purpose which marks the candid man. He misrepresents Tho- luck. This may be unintentional. Respecting the use of the word Devil in the Syriac New Testament, he makes a false statement, which a little attention would have enabled him to avoid. He represents a publication of Tittmann with a two-fold title, as if it were two distinct works, when he must have known better, as he actually quotes from the same book. He confounds two different facts in our Lord’s life, and this in a course of Lectures repeatedly delivered, thus showing a most extraordinary inattention. He makes an unfounded assertion respecting the time of the institution of baptism, without even an at- tempt to sustain it by any evidence. And, what is passing strange, he seems to identify the gloss of a late Jewish commentator with the original, which is hundreds of years older. Most, if not all of these errors, are passed over without notice by the English authors who have replied to his PREFACE. x) book. The position which, as a cardinal in En- gland, Dr. Wiseman now occupies, makes it more proper than ever to guard his readers against implicitly trusting a writer who has thus laid himself open to animadversion. thi) a 2 mee PThEATHOD re: "tite iG ets ae ras TSS ae a of % a * ‘ v . . a aut Caan “4 iy semaine Wet ; ; * oe ‘ ¢ ae - . ; “A , ° 2 a fae mee), dL PRAT | ot eee i 4 ie oes - fl ’ rs a ea 2 Cae RE ak iu * weruceonit cul: ye hcieetia tacd pee; meet, . - meee a) Meme a : ue 2 Zell TA; a: wot we. it ott i tira : tr? ? . ’ l Le tt. i . y , BOL ry [i - ar ~,! i 7 oe %. rae a! sa CONTENTS. PART § Examination of Dr. Wiseman’s View. . Se eae ee PART II. Analysis and Exposition of the Discourse . . . «-« « 48 PART III. View of the Early Fathers, and of some Modern Divines . _ . 103 | i . > My a ‘sual 2% 4x31 Farms wu atin ery ee: the * Site c te fre et) - { . rte gre} st ri ‘ ' reba | et TR Fe aa ciate Pi . emaitoT 39 sd ¥ LS a Paid .m. = 4) jis = yo i v7 Trois be o ry" ty Ph ae it bh de ee 4 7 a , - a ie s ) a oa s i. « Ro Anh enhaloreinloe 16 Bo ae, Seed, ath Sao yy wae 73 le 74 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF sented as the procuring cause ofthe blessing. And, lastly, when the apostle contrasts outward cir- cumcision in the flesh with that not made with hands, it is evident that with the external sign he conjoins the thing signified, “the putting off the body of flesh, the being buried along with Christ, and being raised with him to a new and holy life.” To suppose, therefore, that such “ exceeding great and precious promises” as those before us are an- nexed to the sacramental feeding, however explic- able such a representation might be with the ne- cessary condition implied, is not in harmony with the usage of the New Testament Scriptures. What, then, it may be asked, is the meaning of the words in question? I answer, the same as had already been conveyed by the phrases before employed ; namely, the duty and rewards of a living faith in the Redeemer, with the fuller and more distinct development, however, than had been before made of the atoning sacrifice which was to be effected by his death, and the necessity of this faith acting on it, in order to secure the pardon of sin, the mystical union of the believer with his Lord, and, by consequence, his attain- ment of present spiritual life, of future resurrec- tion, and of eternal happiness. The exercise of such a faith is what is meant by “eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man,” by whatever means of grace it may act, whether they were in existence and operation at the time when the discourse was uttered, or were subse- quently developed or established. THE DISCOURSE. 75 This view of our Lord’s meaning is drawn from the occasion and whole tenor of the discourse as already presented. He begins by urging faith; he replies to the querulous objections of his oppo- nents by inculcating faith; he proceeds by repeat- edly stating the necessity of the Father’s influ- ence to produce faith ; and, after he has finished his discourse, and corrected the gross error of some of his hearers, he introduces the same fun- damental principle of faith, as effected by the Fa- ther’s influence. “There are some of you that believe not; for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not; and he said, therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto me of my Fa- ther,” verses 64, 65. And, moreover, to the question, “ Will ye also go away?” the honest, the truly “ardent and enthusiastic” Peter responds in his master’s own strain, “ We believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” verse 69. The verbal difficulties which can set aside such an interpretation, sustained by the facts that gave occasion to the discourse, by its whole train and tenor, and by the leading idea pervading the mind of both teacher and disciple after it had been delivered, ought to be not only weighty, but overwhelming. The profound and universally-acknowledged “judicious” Hooker lays down a principle of in- terpretation, the truth of which is founded in the nature of the mind and the purpose of language: 76 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF “T hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construc- tion will stand, the farthest from the letter is com- monly the worst.”* Nothing can be more true. But let us not lose sight of the condition : “ where a literal construction will stand ;” that is, where it not only makes a good sense, but the sense best adapted to the scope of the author, most in harmony with his ordinary manner and the gen- eral object which he has in view. Now I deny that this is the case in the present instance. It is of little consequence to say that the sac- ramental exposition gives the plain and literal sense of the word. This does not prove it to be true: it only imposes on those who object to it the obligation of showing that the literal sense cannot be the correct one; which I conceive has often been done. The literal exposition through- out necessarily results in the doctrine of a real corporeal presence. If the flesh and the blood are both to be understood literally of the Sav- iour’s bodily substance, which is to be incorpora- ted with the body of the worshipper, his bodily substance must be present whether by con- or tran-substantiation. But it may not be amiss to remind the advocates of the most literal sense, that if they will be true to their principle, they must allow that the words cannot prove the real presence of anything else than the bodily sub- stance. I do not deny that where Christ’s body * Eccles. Polity, book v , 6 59 THE DISCOURSE. Ti is, there also is his soul, and there his divinity in an especial manner; but this might be denied by one who, at the same time, justly claimed to be a most rigid adherent of the literal sense. Figure of some sort, and in some degree, must be admit- ted by all. Either the phrase “flesh and blood” is a synecdoche, a part for the whole; or itis a metaphor, the thing signified for the sign; or the whole clause, which speaks of eating the one and drinking the other, is tropical. It is idle to object to the view before given because it is figurative. No interpretation can be entirely literal. Sherlock objects, that if the expressions are to be explained “ of feeding on Christ by faith or be- lieving, his disciples could understand this no bet- ter than that which expounds it of the Lord’s Sup- per. It is plain they did not, and I know not how they could.. For to call bare believing in Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is so remote from all propriety of speaking, and so unknown in all languages, that to this day those who under- stand nothing more by it but believing in Christ are able to give no tolerable account of the reason of the expression.”* Dr. Wiseman asserts, that even if the phrase “to eat the Messiah” could mean “ to receive and embrace him, the expression to eat the flesh of the Messiah is totally different, and that the least de- parture from established phraseclogy plunges us in obscurity and nonsense.” = Paces ia.) * ¢ Page °C 78 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF In reply to the last-mentioned writer, it is suffi- cient to say, that words and phrases often take their determinate meaning from the particular oc- casion and circumstances which give rise to their use, by which, also, their meaning is often modi- fied; so that all “obscurity” is thereby removed. Our author does himself recognise the principle here stated, and I am happy to confirm its correct- ness by his authority.“ Philology is not conduct- ed” merely “by taking the abstract meaning of words and applying them to any passage, but by studying them as used in peculiar circumstances.” —P. 127. The case before us proves the truth of this; for it is undeniable that some of the best critics and commentators, both of ancient and modern times, have agreed in giving to “the ex- pressions, to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Messiah,” a meaning which Dr. Wiseman says implies a “departure from established phraseolo- gy,” without either “obscurity” or “nonsense.” There is, in truth, neither nonsense in the meaning, nor necessary obscurity in the language which conveys it. The bread to be eaten is expressly declared by our Saviour, in verse 51, to be his flesh. It is evident, therefore, that eating the bread, in verses 48, 50, 51, is identical with eating the flesh. Whatever the one means the other must also mean. The language, “Except ye eat,” &c., in verses 53-56, is suggested by that in which the objection is couched, in verse 52, “ How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” to which the THE DISCOURSE. 79 words “ drink the blood” are added simply to par- ticularize, so as to denote a thorough partaking, and the whole is an amplification of the thought before expressed, in verses 50, 51, namely, the “eating of the bread that cometh down from heav- en.” And in verses 56, 57, 58, the phrases, “ eat- eth my flesh and drinketh my blood—eateth me— eateth of this bread,” are manifestly identical in meaning. The amplification may be illustrated by Ephes., v., 30, where the apostle, after stating of true Christians, that they “are members of Christ’s body,” immediately adds, in order to show more particularly the intimacy of the union intend- ed, “ of his flesh and of his bones.” (Compare the language of the Israelites to David: “We are thy bone and thy flesh.”*) To suppose that he intends to denote a personal identity thereby would be a monstrous extravagance, unsupported by Scrip- ture, and directly tending to a species of Pantheism; and, moreover, contrary to the comparison taken from the marriage relation which gives occasion to the language. It is quite superfluous to show, not only that our Lord frequently draws his figures from what has just occurred or is passing at the time, but, also, that he often clothes his thoughts in language taken from the lips of his hearers, employing their very words in a sense different from that intended by them. See John, ix., 40,41. Matt., xii., 48, 49; ¥xill., 31, 32; and compare Ezek., xvi., 45. In + 2 Sam, ‘vi, i 80 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF fact, such a modification of the meaning of words is common with all speakers, and particularly in colloquial and popular discourse; and it rarely gives any difficulty to the honest, candid hearer. I am not aware that an instance of the word 7jpépa, in the metonymical sense of judgment in which it is used in 1 Cor.,iv., 3, has ever been adduced from any Greek writer; and yet no one is in danger of mistaking the sense, which is necessarily suggested by the context. It is neither a Cilicism nor a He- braism, but an elliptical manner of employing a word expressive of time to designate the action then to be done, the nature of the action having been already sufficiently brought before the read- er. On the same principle, we have in our Lord’s discourse an amplification of the idea which he had already plainly and repeatedly stated. If some of his hearers misunderstood him, the fault lay with themselves, and is not attributable to any neces- sary obscurity in the language. With regard to Dean Sherlock’s objection, which is represented as “certainly satisfactory,” the first remark to be made relates to a part of the language chosen to convey it. He speaks of “bare believing, nothing more than believing.” Whatever may have been his design in selecting these expressions, it is impossible to mistake their tendency. This, evidently, is to fill the reader’s raind with the impression that the sense objected to is inadequate to the dignity of the subject, too low and feeble for the solemnity of the manner and THE DISCOURSE. 81 the force of the language. But if, more in accord- ance with the general representations of Scripture, we consider the faith thus enjoined, not as “ bare believing,” but as “believing with the heart unto righteousness,”* as the faith “ which worketh by love,’+ which “is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen,’ } as that which, by its living and active energy, unites to the true and life-giving head, producing a spiritual union and blessed incorporation with him as members of his mystical body, and, consequently, bringing along with it the participation of Christ here and the full enjoyment of him hereafter; then it can- not be questioned, that we have a sense sufficient- ly elevated for any occasion and any allowable warmth of language. He says, moreover, that the expressions could have been understood of faith in Christ no better than of the Lord’s Supper. This is mere asser- tion. And it can by no means be admitted, as faith is the leading thought which pervades the whole previous part of the discourse, whereas not a syllable had been said of the Lord’s Supper. The former idea might and ought to have been the prominent one in their minds; the latter could not by any possibility have been conceived. We must not take up the expressions of eating and drinking as if they were isolated. We are com- pelled to examine them in connexion with and by * Rom., x., 10. + Gal., v., 6. t Heb., xi., 1. 82 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF the aid of the context, and are therefore compelled to acknowledge, that while the idea of faith nat- urally suggests itself, that of sacramental eating in the Lord’s Supper must have been derived from subsequent instruction. But the advocates of the theory which interprets our Lord’s language of faith rather than of the Lord’s Supper, “are able to give no tolerable ac- count of the reason of the expression.” It is granted that the expressions are unusually strong, and that the figure is developed with ex- traordinary boldness. Atthe same time, it is con- tended that it is the same sort of figure as had all along been employed, and to which the occasion gave rise. The words imbodying the one thought are varied ; and this, as has already been said, be- cause our Lord adopts the very terms of his op- ponents, and because the general figure having been already repeatedly employed, these terms are an amplification well fitted to express the closeness of the union intended. The increased strength and boldness of the terms will appear natural to all who patiently attend to the circum- stances. They are also in analogy with other Scriptural representations, of which | shall adduce a single instance. St. Paul, delineating the in- ward working of the natural mind, when reason is acting on the subject of religious obligation, and the conscience is in some measure alive to a re- gard to it, while, at the same time, the grace of the Gospel is wanting, uses the language, “ I consent THE DISCOURSE. S3 unto the law that it is good.”* This simply express- es acquiescence Inits excellence. But afterward, becoming more warmed with the subject, and de- siring to state as fully as possible the complete- ness of this acquiescence of reason and conscience, he employs a stronger term, “ovv7jdoua, I delight i, or, am pleased with, the law of God, after the inner man.”t The expressions, “eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man,” when consid- ered in relation to the language “ eat me,” are sim- ilar to the latter word of St. Paul in relation to the former. In each case, both expressions designate the same thing, the one being only more fervid and energetic than the other. It is hardly necessary to remark, that words denoting food and beverage, and freely partaking thereof, have in all ages and nations been employ- ed to signify an ardent attention to learning, a re- ception of doctrine, particularly when it engages the whole mind, and interests the affections. This is admitted on all hands, and Dr. Wiseman, among other writers, has given some very apposite quo- tations to this effect.{[ The reason of the figure is evident. As the food is taken into the sys- tem, combines with the substance, nourishes and strengthens it, and thus becomes a natural cause of its continued vitality ; so does the learning or the doctrine embraced influence the intellectual or moral character of the recipient. Hence he is commonly said to imbibe its excellence, to taste * Rom., vii., 16. + Verse 22 t Pages 60-63. &4 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF and enjoy its sweetness, to devour the truth with greediness, or to swallow error withavidity. Per- haps no people were more accustomed to an ex- treme use of this figure than the Hebrews. It occurs very often in the New Testament, and abounds inthe Old. Illustration may be unneces- sary, yet I willcite a few passages. “If any man hear my voice, I will sup with him and he with me:* [have fed you with milk, and not with meat :7 I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey: I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved: the Lord of Hosts shall make a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees; of fat things full of mar- row.”’§ The same class of expressions is used to convey the idea of enjoying and delighting in any- thing. Thus, for instance, “Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart.”|| Also, for a hearty reception in contradistinction to an un- willingness to see and admit the truth : “Thou son of man, be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house ; open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee. Fat that thou findest, ead this roll. So lopened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll; and he said unto me, son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; andit was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.” Here the figure of eating is carriea * Rev., iii., 30 +4 Cor., i., 2. t Sol. Song, v., 1. § Isa., xxv., 6. | Jer., xv., 16. g Ezek., ii, 8; ii, 1-% THE DISCOURSE. 85 out; the food is to be taken freely, so as to per- vade the whole system; it also communicates pleasure to the prophet who obeys the command. Wisdom personified employs similar language: “They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty,”* that is, shall be desirous of more. Attention to these particu- lars may assist in showing the connexion between certain Hebrew words expressive of feeding and satisfaction, as NYY and 7¥}, and may also explain the fact that the former is used to denote assocta- tion and union. The same figure is employed by later Jewish writers. Thus the Rabbis say, that “every eat- ing and drinking mentioned in the book of Eccle- siastes refers to the law and to good works ;”} and Maimonipes employs similar language when he speaks of “ filling the stomach with bread and meat,” while he means to express the idea of “knowing what is lawful or unlawful.”[ Passa- ges have also been cited from the Talmud, in il- lustration of our Lord’s language, and to them I must now request the reader’s attention, and the more particularly, as they are commented on by Dr. Wiseman, who quotes them from Lightfoot. As the portion of the Talmud in connexion with which the passages occur is curious, and may * Ecclus., xxiv., 21. + This is a quotation from the Midrash Koheleth, and has been repeatedly cited by the commentators. t Jad Hazakah, Grounds of the Law, chap. iv., ad fin., fol. 7, vol. i., Amsterdam edition. H 86 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF serve to illustrate opinions of the ancient Jews in reference to certain prophecies respecting the Messiah, which their descendants of the Middle Ages and since have generally applied to some other object, and chiefly to the body of the nation personified, I shall not hesitate to make a larger quotation than is absolutely necessary merely to throw light on the phraseology in St. John. I shall give as literal a translation as the idioms of the two languages will allow, inserting the original words no farther than is required, in order to show the allusions of the Talmudist, and what may be called his play upon the words cited from Scrip- ture. He has just given certain comments of the Rabbis on Jer., xxx., 6, a small part of which is here introduced, simply because it serves to illus- trate the language every family, Taoa Tatpia, in Eph., iii, 15. “And what (means) all faces are turned into paleness? Rabbi Johanan says, the family which is above and the family which is below (RUD Sw Ona) noyn Ow NoDD), in the time when the holy one, blessed be he, will say, these are the work of my hands, and these are the work of my hands: how shall I destroy the one before the other?” The Jewish comment, printed in the margin, explains, “the family which is above and the family which is below,” of “the angels and Israel.” The Talmudical writer proceeds as fol- lows: “ Rab says Israel are about to eat the years of the Messiah. Says Rabbi Joseph, true, but who eats of him? .Do Hillek and Billek eat of THE DISCOURSE. 87 him ?* in opposition to the words of Hillel, who said, there is no Messiah for Israel, for a long time ago they ate him, in the days of Hezekiah. Says Ray, he did not create the world except for David ; and Samuel says, for Moses; and Rabbi Johanan says, for Messiah. Whatis hisname? They of the house of Rabbi Shiloh say, that Shiloh is his name, as it is said, until Shiloh come.—Gen., xlix., 10. They of the house of Yenoi say, that Yenon is his name, as it is said, his name shall live for- ever, with the sun his name shall be perpetuated (12°, yenon, Ps. Ixxii., 17). He who is of the house of Rabbi Chaninah says, Chaninah is his name, as it is said, because he will not show you mercy (AyIn, chaninah, Jer., xvi., 13). And some say that Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, is his name, as it is said, for the comforter (Oni, mena- chem) who should restore my soul is far from me —Lam.,i.,16. And our Rabbis say, leprous of the house of the Rabbi is his name, as it is said, but he bore our sickness, and our sorrows he sus- tained them, and we regarded him smitten (3113, the original for smitten, is sometimes’ used of lep- rosy), stricken by God and afflicted.”—Isa., liii., 4. Basytonian Taumup, treatise Sanneprim, fol. 98, 2, towards the bottom. Then, after a very pre- posterous application of several other texts to the Messiah, the writer remarks: “ Rabbi Hillel says, * Hillek and Billek are the names of certain judges in Sodom, ac- cording to Rabbi Sotomon Jarcut, followed by Licutroot, Works, vol. ii., p. 554, fol., London, 1684. Buxtorr considers them as fic titious persons.—Lex. Talmud., p. 777. 88 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF not for them, for Israel is Messiah, for a long time ago they ate him, in the days of Hezekiah.” He proceeds, then, to introduce Rabbi Joseph, re- futing Hillel by saying, that Hezekiah died under the first temple, and that under the second Zecha- riah prophesies of the Messiah, and says, “ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem, behold, thy king cometh unto thee,” ~ Goede 9). Now let us examine Dr. Wiseman’s criticism on the words of Hillel, as explained by some Protest- ant divines. ‘These words,” says he, “ Light- foot quotes in a tone of triumph. ‘ Behold, eating the Messiah, and yet no complaints upon the phraseology. Hillel is, indeed, blamed for saying that the Messiah was so eaten that he will no longer be for Israel; but on the form of speech not the slightest scruple is expressed. For they clearly understood what was meant by the eating of the Messiah ; that is, that in the days of Eze- chias they became partakers of the Messiah, re- eived him with avidity, embraced him joyfully, nd, as it were, absorbed him; whence he was not to be expected at any future period.”’* The author's first remark, that “the phrase of Hillel is so obscure as to be unintelligible,” contains an ad- mission of what is certainly very true, namely, that he did not understand it. But, with singular * The author refers to Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraice, Oper., tom. ii., Rotterdam, 1686, p. 626. In the London edition of his works in English, 1684, the passage occurs with some unimportant difference in the language in, vol. ii.,.p. 554. THE DISCOURSE. 89 inconsistency, he immediately tells us that the meaning is, “ Messiah was destroyed or consumed in the days of Ezechiah,” thus giving a very clear sense to what he had just said is so dark “ that it cannot be understood.” His next remark, that Lightfoot’s meaning cannot be the true one, be- cause “it would be absurd to reason that the Mes- siah, promised solemnly by God, was to be with held because persons loved, embraced, and ab- sorbed him spiritually before his coming,” is suf- ficiently answered by a single line from that au- thor himself, which occurs immediately after the quotation just made from him. “Gloss upon the place. Messiah will come no more to Israel, for Hezekiah was the Messiah.”* The cardinal proceeds: “The Jewish doctors themselves did not understand the words of Hillel in Lightfoot’s sense. These are the words of the Talmud: ‘Rab said, Israel will eat the years of the Messiah. (The gloss explains this by “the abundance of the times of the Messiah will belong to Israel] !”) Rab Joseph said truly, but who will eatofir? (the abundance). Will Chillek and Bil- lek eat of rr? This was said to meet the saying of Hillel, &c. “ The Rabbins, therefore, understood the words of this doctor, not as applying to the Messiah, but to the abundance of his times ; and then the figure * It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that the absurdity of some notions of the Rabbis does not affect their relevancy to philo- logical inquiries. H2 90 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF is not in the eating, but inthe word Messiah. Did they understand him rightly? Then Lightfoot’s interpretation is totally wrong, and no parallelism exists between these words and those of our Sav- iour ; for he certainly did not mean to inculcate the necessity of eating the abundance of his times. Did they misunderstand Hillel, and was it only Dr. Lightfoot who first arrived at his meaning ? Then it follows that Hillel, in these phrases, de- parted from the intelligible use of language, and consequently ceases to be a criterion for explain- ing it.” The reader cannot fail to observe, that Dr. Wiseman’s exposition relates to one only of the places alleged from the Talmud. The saying of Hillel, which is twice stated in the quotation as above given, still remains to be explained: “ Not for Israel is Messiah, for a long time ago they ate him in the days of Hezekiah.” It is also to be noted, that he introduces the gloss on the Talmud in immediate connexion with the text of it. Light- foot does the same thing, merely to give in passing the Jewish comment. But our learned author, not content with this legitimate use of the gloss, adapts the words of it to his own purpose, as if they were a continuous portion of the Talmudical text. The pronoun rr, by which he translates the origi- nal suffixes 10 and 4, is printed in capitals, and made to relate to its supposed antecedent abun- dance. The author could hardly have failed to perceive, that the singular pronoun could not refer THE DISCOURSE. 91 to a plural antecedent years, and therefore he in- troduces the gloss, in which the word abundance occurs, and translates the suffix by the word it, although it can refer to no other word than Mes- siah, which immediately precedes it, and ought to be rendered him. And farther, what must the reader think when he is informed that this sup- posed antecedent is no part of the Talmud, but occurs ina Jewish commentary written hundreds of years after the sayings of Rab and Rabbi Hil- lel had been published in that body of Hebrew law! The gloss on this most ancient work was written by Rassr Sotomon Jarcut, commonly called Rasue, who flourished in the eleventh cen- tury. What would be thought of an expositor of Homer who should find an antecedent to one of the great poet’s pronouns in the gloss of his commentator Eustathius? and particularly when the antecedent had been just before expressed by the bard himself? The only apology for Dr. Wiseman is, that he does not understand what he has undertaken to explain; and notwithstanding his confident censure of Dr. Lightfoot, to whom he seems to be indebted for what he does know on this point of Rabbinical learning, he might prof- itably sit at the feet of that great master of Israel- itish literature.* * The high authority of Lightfoot is conceded by Dr. Wiseman, accompanied by a remark which will suggest to the reader a well- known proverb: ‘‘ Let Dr. Turton listen to a commentator of his own Charch, compared to whom all its modern ones are pigmies.” This introduces a quotation from Lightfoot’s Hore, Reply, &c., p. 177. 92 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF But we must not yet part with Rashe’s gloss. It contains satisfactory evidence that the inter- pretation which our author dismisses in such a summary way is the only true one; for it explains the clause, “Israel are about to eat the years of the Messiah,” by the language, “the abundance which shall be in those days shall be for Israel,” which evidently denotes enjoyment and satiety, and not “destruction.” And this is farther evident from what he afterward remarks on the words of Hillel. “Not Messiah for Israel: because Hez- ekiah was Messiah, and of him are said all the prophecies; (as), I will cause the horn of the house of Israel to bud; and he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord.”* The reader may now judge whether Dr. Lightfoot, and other eminent divines Jearned in Rabbinical lore, who have ex- plained the words of the Talmud the same way with himself, are less entitled to consideration in a question of this sort than Dr. Wiseman. Since now the Jews were accustomed to the use of such figures in order to express a reception of truth in the mind and heart, and since it is ad- mitted that the figure, as employed in the former portion of our Lord’s discourse, was so understood by them, what should have hindered them from ap- plying the same figure, amplified and fully devel- oped, to the same great truth? Certainly, as Pau- Lus says, “the discourse of Jesus would not have been unintelligible to the Jews, if they had wished ¥ Ezek.,'xxix., a1. -Miec., v.,.4 THE DISCOURSE. 93 to understand him.”* We are compelled, how- ever reluctantly, to apply his own language on another occasion: “Why do ye not understand my speech? because ye cannot hear my word.” + Your ignorance, prejudice, passion, whole internal character, form the great insurmountable barrier, which prevents your seeing and embracing the truth. It will most probably be urged, that the figure of eating and drinking does not fully come up to the strong expressions, “eat the flesh and drink the lood.” And it is certainly true, as Trrrmann has remarked, that not a single example of such a use of these phrases can be alleged, and that the forms of expression are peculiar to our Lord alone.{ It is true, also, as he moreover says, that “the Jews could not at that time have understood the force of the language ;” but not for the reason which Wiseman’s representation of this writer would naturally suggest, because “the sense put on the words by Protestants is contrary to usage ;” but because “the preconceived opinions which had taken possession of their minds obliged our Lord to avoid the use of proper§ and perspicuous terms, and to express himself in tropical diction.” || But he goes on to observe (what has already * Commentar tiber das Evangelium des Johannes, Leipsic, 1812, p. 255- Tt John, viii., 43. t See Wiseman, page 87. § He employs the word propriis in a technical sense, in contra- distinction te figurative. || Tittmanni Meletemata Sacra sive Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis, Lips., 1816, p. 272 94 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF been stated in this Essay), that “the Jews them- selves gave occasion to the language,” and that “throughout the place is figurative.”* The Sav- iour does but take up and draw out the object- or’s language; the germ of the expressions is contained in the preceding part of the discourse. The rule laid down by Dr. Wiseman, that, in conducting philological investigations, we must “study words as they are used in peculiar cir- cumstances,” a rule which is founded in com- mon sense, and applied in the daily intercourse of men, satisfactorily accounts for the use of the terms. As I have already stated and illustrated this judicious principle, it is sufficient, in this con- nexion, simply to recall it to the reader’s atten- tion. Should it, after all, be objected, that if we sup- pose such a faith as has been described to be what is meant, the language is obscure, and the sentiment not conveyed with that clearness which might ordinarily be expected; it may be replied with force, and agreeably to Scripture analogy, that to such hearers our Lord was in no respects bound to convey his doctrines in the clearest and most intelligible terms. They were not men of honest and simple minds, disposed to receive the Gospel, but captious opponents of the truth, in whom the understanding was darkened by the per- version and prejudice of the heart. It is a serious consideration, which ought to be deeply impressed * Pages 275, 276. THE DISCOURSE. 95 on the mind of every one who proposes to search after religious truth, that the arrangement of di- vine Providence makes the acquisition dependant, in no slight degree, on the moral character of the seeker. The humble, docile, candid, and diligent inquirer is the one most likely to be successful ; while the conceited and prejudiced, who does not fee] an interest in the subject strong enough to impel him to careful and habitual attention, is al- lowed to persist in that very ignorance which, by a fatuity not at all uncommon, he mistakes for a more than ordinary degree of wisdom. It is as much the appointment of God as it is the decision of Christ, that “if any man will do his will, he shall know whether the doctrine be of God”* or man. And in harmony with the same fundament- al axiom, divine wisdom declares, that “the words of her mouth are all plain to him that understand- eth,” that is, who sincerely loves the truth, and properly attends to instruction.t From what has been said, I conclude that this part of our Lord’s discourse, like the preceding, urges the necessity of a living faith in Christ, act- ing on the atonement which he was about to offer, and expresses the union with himself which such a faith produces, and the blessed consequences resulting. While the words fitly denote the ac- tion of such faith on its divine object during the * Jonn, vii., 17, + Prov., viii., 8,9. Thisis implied in the word 72), and is given by the Chaldee and Syriac versions. $6 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF various occasions of a religious life, they are par- ticularly appropriate to that action in the Sacra- ment of the Lord’s Supper, which our Church, in the spirit of Scripture and the language of anti- quity, most properly enjoins on the communicant in the terms: “ Feed on him in thy heart by rarra.” In the same truly Christian spirit does she com- fort the dying believer, who is prevented by uncontrollable circumstances from commemora- ting his Master’s death in the eucharist, by assu- ring him “that, if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remember- ing the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the bedy and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.”* In the words of St. Augustin, “ Believe, and thou hast eaten.” + The remainder of the chapter does not requre very particular examination. It relates the fact, which need not be surprising to any, that the doc- trine was objected to as harsh, and became an oc- casion of the apostacy of many who had before professed attachment to the teacher, while the true disciples persevered in their faith and love, verses 60, 61, 66-71. It contains, also, our Lord’s own correction of the erroneous and literal sense * Third Rubric in the Office for the Communion of the Sick. + In Johan. Evang., cap. 6, Tract. xxv., 9 12, tom. ii., par. il., p. 354 THE DISCOURSE. 97 of his words, verses 62, 63, and his reference to the leading cause of the error, want of faith pro- duced by the Father’s influence, verses 64,65. I shall conclude this part of the discussion by exam- ining the great Master’s correction. “Does this offend you?” throw an obstacle in the way of your faith and perseverance, and in- cline you to reject my doctrine? “If, then, you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” These words may be intended to convey the thought, that the harshness of his sup- posed meaning would necessarily be increased after his ascension, when: his flesh and blood should be removed, and his bodily presence no more be continued ; and thus they would amplify the supposed ground of stumbling. As if he had said: “If this doctrine is now so distasteful to you, how abhorrent to your feelings and partial reason- ings will it appear after I shall have resumed my former condition in heaven!” According to this view, the verse, instead of containing anything like a solution of the difficulty, only draws it out with the more particularity. The solution, if there be one, begins with the next words. If, however, the verse be regarded as the commencement of the solution, it unquestionably implies this most important point, namely, that the literal exposition is a palpable absurdity and contradiction, which a sane mind, not under some undue extraneous in- fluence, could hardly be thought capable of enter- tain.ng. Then it will be as if Christ had said: I 98 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF “Does my language present an impediment to your faith? You have grossly misunderstood me; and my ascension to heaven will prove to you that the literal sense in which you have taken my words cannot possibly be the true one.” Which- ever of these views may be thought preferable, the meaning of the next verse will not be mate- rially affected. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you are spirit and are life.” It is necessary to give the general sense of these words. If the literal meaning be adhered to, “ the flesh” must be explained of Christ’s body, and then the assertion will be, that his body, even if it were to be eaten and incorporated with the substance of the recipient, would not benefit him. Neither Scripture nor reason affords any ground for deny- ing the truth of this assertion. And this sense is given to the word flesh in this verse by several distinguished divines. Thus Cranmer, for exam- ple, after quoting our Saviour’s language, remarks: “ These words our Saviour Christ spake, to lift up their minds from earth to heaven, and from carnal to spiritual eating, that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eat him present here on earth; for his flesh, so eaten, saith he, should nothing profit them. And yet so they should not eat him; for he would take his body away from them and ascend with it into heaven, and then by faith, and not with teeth, they should spiritually eat him, sitting at the right hand of the THE DISCOURSE. 99 Father. And, therefore, saith he, the words which I do speak be spirit and life; that is to say, are not to be understood that we shall eat Christ with our teeth grossly and carnally, but that we shall spiritually and ghostly with our faith eat him, be- ing carnally absent from us in heaven, and in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eat him many years before he was incarnated and born.”* Faser, who cites the passage, agrees with the archbishop. ‘“ When we take in the en- tire context of the whole discourse, which teaches us both that no man can be saved without eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood, and that every man who does thus eat and who does thus drink will infallibly obtain eternal salvation; and when we farther note the necessary tenour of the argu- ment from the Lord’s previous descent to his then future ascent, I really think that words can scarce- ly be plainer than those wherein Christ avowedly contrasts the spirit of his discourse with the letter. My flesh, we may view him as saying, if it were possible for the infinite millions of mankind all grossly to eat of it, would, under that aspect, profit them nothing to eternal salvation. The whole context of the discourse shows, that by the flesh we must understand our Lord’s own flesh which he had declared he would give his people to eat; and by the spirit, a spiritual manducation as op- * Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament, &c. Remains of THomas Cranmer, D.D., Oxford, 1833, vol. ii, Pp. 378. 100 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF posed to a gross carnal manducation. Under this aspect, the following will be the sense of the pas- sage: ‘The flesh of which I speak, namely, my own material flesh, would profit you nothing in the way of obtaining everlasting life, even were it possible for you to eat it bodily with your teeth when I shall have ascended up to heaven.”* Ham- MOND seeins to have taken the same view, and Wurrsy explains the term of the body of Christ. Stil, a figurative meaning of the word, in this place, may consistently be maintained, on account of the antithesis with spirit, and the ordinary usage of Scripture in such cases. The term flesh is so often employed in a tropical sense, that fig- ure of some sort may well be admitted in this in- stance, although it is not easy to say very defi- nitely within what limits, and by what literal ex- pressions, the thought is to be confined. The terms flesh and carnal are used, and most natural- ly, for the external, in contradistinction to the in- ward, and hence to designate man as what he ap- pears to be: as,“ All flesh is grass; the Word was made flesh ;”> for the merely outward, superficial, imperfect, in which sense they are applied to the rites of the law, as when St. Paul asks the Gala- tians, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh ?” and speaks of Christ as a priest, “not after the power * Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum, &c., chap. iv., p. 92, 93, 95. London, 1840. + Isa, xl. 5. -Sohny1:, 14. THE DISCOURSE. 101 of a carnal commandment,” and of the legal servi- ces as “carnal ordinances ;”* for what either is, or is considered as inadequate, low, and comparative- ly contemptible, as where it is said, “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” And again: “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty,” &c. ;t and, lastly, for what is vile, cor- rupt, sinful, as in the texts, “I am carnal, sold un- der sin ;” “ Who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit,” and others to the same effect.[ And, on the other hand, the words spirit and spiritual are often employed to denote the inward, excel- lent, perfect, holy, and divine. This is evident from the following passages: “ What man know- eth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him?” They “did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink.” ‘He that was born after the flesh per- secuted him that was born after the spirit.")_ ‘T'o this view of the usage of Scripture it may be ada- ed, that the previous use of the word flesh would naturally have led our Lord to adopt it in a mod- ified sense; as is the case with other words else- where. Of this we have instances in St. Paul’s writings. Thus, he employs the word s/eep in different modifications of meaning even in the * Gal., iii., 3. Heb., vii., 16; ix., 10. face ie, bie 2: Cor.) X.5'4: ~ Rom., vii., 14; viii, 4-9. John, il, 6. § 1Cor., ii, 11; x.,3,4. Gal., iv., 29. To these might be added ' Car. =v:,45. ‘Kom., 1, 4. John, 1v., 24. 2 102 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION, ETC. same connexion, and also present and absent. And in the epistle to the Hebrews, the word camp is used in a figurative sense, although it had just before been employed in its literal meaning.* In accordance, therefore, with these facts, and in perfect harmony with the common meaning of these terms, flesh and spirit, is the view which expounds the verse thus: ‘ That apprehension of my language which is limited to the outward and superficial, which accords with the secular and degrading, which is compatible with the vile and sinful, the corrupt and corrupting naturalness of the heart, is not only useless, but positively inju- rious.t| The deeper meaning brings happiness and joy. The ‘more excellent way’ which it opens, the practical, soul-stirring principle which it develops, the heavenly and divine life which, when rightly received, it causes to germinate and flourish—these constitute its vitality and real worth.’ It is unnecessary to say that this closing declaration of our Lord is in most perfect keeping with the view given of his discourse in the pre- ceding analysis. *.) ‘Thess, v., 0, 1, 10; .2 Cor,-v.; 6, 8,9, THeb.; xi, Ts, 27. t+ This verbal addition is implied, though not expressed, and is in accordance with numerous other instances in Scripture where less is said than is evidently intended. Illustration seems unnecessary ; yet the )eader is referred to Matt., xii., 20, and to Rom., i., 16, compared with Gal., vi., 14. Palka TLE VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. I proceep now to present to the reader’s atten- tion some quotations from the more prominent of the early fathers, in reference to the view enter- tained by them of the nature and design of our Lord’s discourse. Lest he should find these less clear and luminous than he may have expected such a representation to be, it may not be amiss to remind him that most of these good men were chiefly interested in spreading a knowledge of the Gospel, and in cultivating its practical influence on their own characters. Formal and critical in- terpretation will be looked for in vain in the wri- ters of the first three centuries. Their exposi- tions of Scripture must be sought in various trea- tises on topics of philosophy and theology, in de- fences of the Christian faith, in epistolary writings, and in works composed in opposition to prevalent errors. Commentary, in the later sense of the word, was hardly known. Modern theologians have differed in their views of the exposition given by these fathers of the chapter under con- sideration; some contending that they understood it directly of the eucharist, while others maintain that they only apply part of its language to this 104 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, sacrament. ‘This fact is itself sufficient evidence that the exposition of these fathers is not so def- inite and perspicuous as some persons, unac- quainted with their works, may suppose. Mr. Jounson maintains that they interpret it prima- rily and properly of the eucharist, and only re- motely of receiving Christ’s doctrine or precepts. “T conceive that the fathers never doubted but that this mystical or spiritual sense was that which our Saviour primarily intended.” He uses the words “mystical” and “spiritual” in the sense of original, and in contradistinction to applicable : “ Besides the primary and direct sense of the text, the ancients commonly supposed that there was a reductive or anagogical meaning in which it might be taken.” “They might be fully persuaded that John, vi., was first and most properly to be under- stood of the eucharist; and yet, at the same time, be of opinion that it might likewise, in a more re- mote way, be applied to receiving of Christ’s doc- trine or precepts. And, so far as I am able to pen- etrate into the judgment of the ancients in this par- ticular, [ can see no reason to believe that they did ever understand John, vi., of believing Christ’s doctrine or receiving his word by faith, extra cenam, to be meant by our Saviour otherwise than in this anagogical way of interpretation.”* On the other hand, Dr. Warerztanp advocates * The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar, unveiled and supported. By Joun Jounson, M.A., Vicar of Cranbrook, London, 1724 part i, chap. ii., sec. v., p. 358, 359. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 105 che opinion that the early fathers do not interpret this chapter directly of the eucharist, but only ap- ply it to that sacrament. “ They who judge that the fathers in general, or almost universally, do in- terpret John, vi., of the eucharist, appear not to distinguish between interpreting and applying. It was right to apply the general doctrine of John, vi., to the particular case of the eucharist consid- ered as worthily received ; because the spiritual feeding there mentioned is the thing signified in the eucharist, yea, and performed likewise. After we have sufficiently proved from other Scriptures that in and by the eucharist ordinarily such spir- itual food is conveyed, it is then right to apply all that our Lord, by St. John, says in the general to that particular case. And _ this, indeed, the fa- thers commonly did. But such application does not amount to interpreting that chapter of the eucharist. For example, the words, ‘except ye eat the flesh of Christ, &c., you have no life in you, do not mean directly, that you have no life without the eucharist, but that you have no life without participating in our Lord’s passion. Nev- ertheless, since the eucharist is one way of partici- pating of the passion, and a very considerable one, it was very pertinent and proper to urge the doc- trine of that chapter, both for the clearer under- standing the beneficial nature of the eucharist, and for the exciting Christians to a frequent and de- vout reception of it. Such was the use which some early fathers made of John, vi., as our Church 106 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, also does at this day, and that very justly, though I will not say that some of the later fathers did not extend it farther.”* I have particularly mentioned these two learn- ed divines, because, although both are distinguish- ed by profound and extensive acquaintance with ancient writers, they cannot agree in determining the sense which the early fathers intended to give of this chapter. And this fact is sufficient to show that the obscurity in the inspired page itself is not always removed by the expositions even of the best of these writers. The interpretation may chance to be no clearer than the text, and equally to require philological investigation and antiqua- rian research. The view of Dr. Waterland does appear to me the most probable. Although, after the fourth century, the discourse was often ex- plained directly in reference to the eucharist; and so much were the fathers generally in the habit of associating in their minds the thing signified with its sign, or, to approach nearer to their own language, the substance with the sacrament, that, in explaining the discourse of spiritual eating and drinking, several of them connect with it a refer- * A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as Jaid down in Scripture and Antiquity. By Danrex Warer.anp, D.D., Cam- bridge, 1737, chap. vi., p. 149, 150. Or the seventh volume of his works, published at Oxford in 1823. The reader who undertakes to peruse Mr. Johnson’s work would do well to read and meditate on the brief but masterly notice of it in Waterland’s appendix to a charge, entitled, ‘‘ The Christian Sacrifice explained,” in the eighth volume of his works, p. 180-223. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 107 ence to sacramental. That some of the fathers either are not or do not appear to be always con- sistent with themselves in explaining parts of this discourse, is attributed by Lampe to the fact, that in the sacrament of the eucharist they admitted not an oral, but a spiritual manducation, by faith, of Christ’s body and blood.* I submit the following quotations from the ear- ly fathers, with such comment merely as seems necessary. They are the most important pas- sages bearing on our Lord’s discourse which their works contain. I have endeavoured to give their true meaning, but the accompanying originals will enable the competent reader to form his own judg- ment. To have quoted everything on the subject in these writings, adding such remarks as a criti- cal investigation of their purport and application might require, would have swelled this Essay into a large volume, without in any great degree in- creasing its usefulness. ? Ienatius is the earliest writer who seems to al- lude to this chapter of St.John. In his epistle to the Romans, after speaking of his desire to die, and of a living principle within him, “ which says, come to the Father,” he remarks, “I delight not in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life; I wish for the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ of the race of David, and the * Hec inconstantia Patrum proculdubio inde orta est, quod in Sa- cramento Eucharistie non oralem, sed spiritualem fidei manducatio- nem admitterent. Commentarius Evang. secundum Johannem, Amst., 1727, 4to, tom. il., p. 257. 108 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, drink I wish for is his blood, which is incorrupti- ble love. No longer do I wish to live according to men.”’* It is particularly worthy of notice, that the au- thor does not formally quote any text, but merely alludes to the 33d, 51st, and 55th verses, as if the general subject of the discourse were in his mind. This peculiarity characterizes the quotations and references to Scripture in the smaller epistles of Ignatius, while the larger generally contain the texts full and accurate; a fact which goes far to settle the authority of the one, as it harmonizes with the condition and circumstances of the wri- ter, and also to show that the others are the pro- duction of a Jater age, and were written under different circumstances. Mr. Johnson gives another exposition of the words rendered “incorruptible love,” by adding to this evidently correct translation the clause, “or an incorruptible love feast!’ And he en- deavours to show that the holy martyr, harassed by the fatigues of his journey, and by the confine- ment to which he was subjected by his guards, his “leopards,” as he elsewhere calls them, here expresses his wish to partake of the Lord’s Sup- per! “I own he was just before speaking of go- ing to the Father, and in the following words he * Ovy 7douat tp0dH P0opdc, otdé HOovaic Tod Biov TovTOV~ ap- tov Tov Seod édu, 6 éott caps Ijood Xpiorod rov éx yévouc Aa- 6id - Kat réua SéAw 76 aiva adbtod, 6 éortiv &yann apbapToc.— Epist. to the Romans, chap. vii. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 109 declares that he desires not human life; but I cannot think it any incoherence, when he was speaking of going to the Father and not desiring to live here, to express his holy hunger and thirst after that which has always been thought the most proper viaticum, the Holy Eucharist. ’Tis probable he had not been permitted, while under the custody of his inhuman keepers, in his voyage, to celebrate the eucharist, or that he durst not do it for fear of having the mysteries profaned by them ; but he hoped when he came to Rome to have an opportunity of refreshing himself with that divine repast; and I suppose he expresses these hopes and desires in the words now cited. And I am pretty sure that there is no incongruity in this supposition; whereas eating of Christ’s flesh in another world is a way of expression somewhat unaccountable.”* To endeavour to disprove such a supposition appears to me wholly unnecessary. It is evident that Ignatius alludes to our Lord’s discourse at Capernaum; and it is equally evident from his language itself, from the connexion in which it stands, and from the circumstances under which the epistle was writ- ten, that the holy man has in mind, not a partici- pation of the eucharist, but a spiritual enjoyment of Christ, and that principally after his martyr- dom. This is to me the undoubted meaning of the spiritually-minded bishop, and, to employ the language of Mr. Johnson, “St. Ignatius, after all, * Unbloody Sacrifice, part i., chap. ii., sec. v., p. 394. K 110 VIEW OF THE EAKLY FATHERS, is instead of a thousand witnesses.”* “'T'o me,” says Dr. Waterland, “it appears a clear point that he thought not of communicating, but of dying. I see no impropriety in his feeding on the flesh and blood of Christ in a state of glory. Our en- joyment in a world to come is entirely founded in the merits of Christ’s passion, and our Lord’s intercession for us stands on the same bottom. Our spiritual food, both above and below, is the enjoyment of the same Christ, the Lamb slain. The future feast upon the fruits of his atonement is but the continuation and completion of the present.” The phrase “ bread of God,” which occurs in this passage, is employed also by Ignatius in his epistle to the Ephesians. “Let no one deceive himself. Unless any one be within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God.”{ It is assumed by Johnson as undeniable that he uses it of the Lord’s Supper. “ By calling the eucharist the bread of God he clearly refers to John, vi., 33 ;” “itis certain that by that phrase he means the eu- charist.”§ But so far is this from being certain, that it does not appear to be even probable. The language is used in the same sense in which it is employed in the verse referred to, that is to say, of Christ himself, who came from God to be the author and sustainer of our spiritual life. This * Unbloody Sacrifice, part i., chap. il., sec. v., p. 392. + P..153, 154. t Mydeic rAavdcbw* éav ph Tig 7 1 Td¢ TOD GvoracTnpicv, Vo- reogiTal TOD apTov Tov eod.—- Chap. v. § P. 346, 394. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 111 alone would be sufficient reason for applying to him such figurative language; but inasmuch as the phrase is frequently used of sacrifices under the law,* it doubtless is chosen with the intention of representing him as also the great sacrifice whereby alone God is propitiated. In John, vi., 33, our Saviour calls himself, and afterward Ig- natius calls him, “the bread of God, as he was a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and mysterious- ly to be eaten as such.” This is almost self-evi- dent as regards the first passage in Ignatius. In the other the word “altar” will doubtless be thought by many to favour Johnson’s opinion. But it is a mistake to suppose that Ignatius intends by this word to designate the Lord’s Table. That author understands it of the “ altar-room,” by be- ing called up into which, and there “eating the sacrifice,” he says, that “ Christian people are dig- nified beyond the old peculium” (the Jews), and “within which all communicants did unquestion- ably, in St. Ignatius’s time, go, in order to receive the eucharist,” although afterward “they were prohibited from entering into the altar-room.”} He avoids the absurdity of the literal meaning of persons being within an altar, by giving a sense to the word which is wholly unfounded, and by adhering to a literal meaning of the whole clause, alike unworthy of the martyr and his subject, and * ‘Levit. xx1, 6, 8; 1722 3ixxit; 25. + I willingly adopt the language of the learned writer referred to. See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i., p. 425. t Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 347. 112 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, inconsistent with the peculiar circumstances un- der which he wrote. There is hardly any reason to doubt that here, and in the three other places in which the term occurs, Ignatius uses the word in a figurative sense, for the Church, or for Christ himself, in connexion with whom, as around an altar or in a temple, all spiritual blessings do, as it were, cluster. That, in the place just cited, he means the Church, is evident from the preceding context, and from that which immediately follows. The whole passage runs thus: “ How must I es- teem you happy who are so intimately united with him (the bishop), as the Church is with Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ with the Father, that all things may accord in unity! Let no one deceive himself. Unless any one be within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the pray- er of one and two have so great efficacy, how much rather will that of the bishop and the whole Church!” To the Magnesians he says: “There is one Lord Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Run together, therefore, all as to one temple, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ” (chap. vii.). To the Trallians: “ He that is within the altar is pure” (chap. vii). In both these places the meaning is also plain. In the only remaining one in which the term occurs, in the epistle to the Philadelphians, it might be un- derstood of the Lord’s Table, and has often been so explained. See Svicer’s Thesaurus, under Svotaoryploy, ii., 1, d; Parkuurst’s Greek Lexi- Ne AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 113 con, No. II., and Tuo.tuck on Heb., xiii., 10. The words are these: “ There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for unity in his blood, one altar” (chap. iv.). Still I cannot but think that a careful attention to the context, and partic- ularly the immediately preceding chapter, will satisfy the reader that the meaning already sug- gested is preferable. The apostolic man is urging those to whom he writes to unity, and the term altar may with as much propriety be understood of the Church as of the Lord’s Table; and the probability that such is its meaning here is strengthened by the fact that such is the undoubt- ed sense of it elsewhere. The context is as fol- lows: “ As many as shall repent and come to the unity of the Church, these shall be God’s, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Be not de- ceived, my brethren. If any one follow a schis- matic, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walk after a different opinion, he is not in harmony with Christ’s passion. Be careful, therefore, to use one eucharist; for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for unity in his blood, one altar.” It is very surpri- sing that any one should wish to give to these pla- ces a meaning which refers chiefly to what is material or local.* _ * I may take this opportunity of remarking, that the best of the Greek fathers give a similar figurative meaning to the word altar in Heb., xiii., 10. Thus, THropor=t, on that epistle: “This,” says he, “is much more precious than the old, for that was a shadow of K 2 114 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, I do not find anything in Justin Marryr bear- ing on the interpretation of this chapter, and there- fore pass on to Irenaxus. There is only one pas- sage within my knowledge in the works of this father which may be thought to allude to this chapter, and even this is of doubtful application. He says that our Lord did not come to us, as he might have done, in his incorruptible glory, which we could not have borne; but “the perfect bread of the Father supplied us, as babes with milk, himself, which was his advent according to man, that we, nourished by the breast, as it were, of his flesh, and accustomed by such lactation to eat and drink the Word of God, might be able to re- tain in ourselves the bread of immortality, which this. That recéives the irrational sacrifices, but this that which is rational and divine.”—Opera, tom. ili., p. 460. And CHrysostom, Hom. xi., on Heb. (chap. vi.): “‘ For see, we have above the victim, above the priest, above the sacrifice. Let us, therefore, offer such sacrifices as can be offered on such an altar. No more sheep and oxen; no more blood and odour of burned fat. All these are abol- ished, and in their place is substituted a rational worship.”—Opera, tom. xill., Bened. edit., p. 114. He then proceeds to describe this worship as spiritual, consisting in modesty, temperance, almsgiving, and other virtues. Also, Cyriut of Alexandria: “ He, therefore, is the altar, and he the incense and high-priest.”—On Adoration, lib. ix., p 310; as quoted in Suicer, ubi sup.,ii., 1, a. THEOPHYLACT prob- auly understood it of the Lord’s Table : ‘* After remarking on the 9th verse, that meats are not to be regarded, he says” (that is, the author of the epistle) ‘that we also have what should be regarded, not, in- deed, in such meats, but in the altar of the unbloody sacrifice of the quickening body.”—Opera, vol. ii., p.758. Cryrill’s language appears to me tu contain the fullest meaning. As if the Apostie had said, all the blessings of the Gospel meet in Christ. To speak of the aitar, is to speak of the sacrifice, of the priest, of the temple, and of all con- nected with and flowing from them. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 115 is the spirit of the Father.”* If the Bishop of Ly- ons does refer to John, vi., he evidently does not consider the discourse as relating directly to the eucharist, as he is discoursing of Christ’s incarna- tion, by which the eating and drinking which he speaks of are effected. A spiritual union and in- corporation with the Word is certainly intended. TERTULLIAN comments on some passages in this chapter, if not in the most perspicuous man- ner, yet clearly enough to show that he had no idea of explaining it directly of the eucharist. He is proving that our Lord’s expression, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” does not militate against the doctrine of the resurrection. “ Although he says the flesh profiteth nothing, the meaning must be drawn from the subject of the declaration. For, because they considered his discourse as harsh and intolerable, as if he had decided that his own flesh was to be truly eaten by them, in order that he might arrange the state of salvation in (refer- ence to) the Spirit, he premised, it is the Spirit that quickeneth. And consequently he subjoined, the flesh profiteth nothing, that is, in quickening. This is followed, also, by what he intends us to understand by spirit: the words which I have * Aid TowvTO, O¢ vyTiolc, 6 dpTtog 6 TéAELOC Tod Ilatpo¢ yada Huiv éautov rapécyerv, rep Hv 7 Kat’ GvOpwrov dvTod Tapovoia, iva O¢ dro pacbod Tij¢ capKdg aGvTOd TpadgévTec, Kal dia TH¢ ToLadTHE yaraxtoupyiac éO.obévrec tpwyewv Kai rivery TOV Adyov Tod eor, Tov tH¢ abavaciag aprov, brep éoti TO mvévua Tod Ilatpéc, év nuiv avtotc xatecyeiv duvvnfiuev.—Adv. Her., lib. iv. cap. Ixxiv., p. 378, edit. Grade, Oxon., 1702. 116 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, spoken to you are spirit, and they are life. As also before: he that heareth my words and be- lieveth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into judgment, but shall pass from death to life. Constituting, therefore, the Word as the vivifier, because the Word is spirit and life, he called the same also his own flesh, because the Word was made flesh, and is therefore to be ear- nestly sought for with a view to life, is to be de- voured by hearing, ruminated on in the under- standing, and digested by faith. For a little be- fore, he had declared his own flesh to be heavenly bread, constantly impressing, by means of the al- legory of necessary food, a recollection of their fathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of the Egyptians to the divine vocation. Adverting, therefore, to their thoughts, because he had per- ceived that they were scattered, he says, the flesh profiteth nothing. What is there here to destroy - the resurrection of the flesh ?”* * Etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse, ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensus. Nam, quia durum et intolerabilem existimaverunt sermo- nem ejus, quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset ; ut in spiritum disponeret statum salutis, premisit, spiritus est qui vivificat. Atque ita subjunxit, caro nihil prodest; ad vivificandum scilicet. Exequitur etiam quia velit intelligi spiritum, verba que locutus sum vobis, spiritus sunt, vita sunt. Sicut et supra; qui audit sermones meos et credit in eum qui me misit, habet vitam eternam, et in judi- cium non veniet, sed transiet de morte ad vitam. Itaque sermonem constituens vivificatorem, quid spiritus et vita sermo, eundem etiam carnem suam dixit ; quia et sermo caro est factus, proinde in causam vite appetendas, et devorandus auditu, et ruminandus intellectu, et fide digerendus. Nam et paulo ante, carnem suam panem quoque ceelestein pronunciarat, urgens usquequaque per aliegoriam necessa- AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 117 Another passage is also worthy of note. “Give us this day our daily bread. This is rather to be understood in a spiritual sense. For Christ is our bread, because Christ is life, and bread is life; I am, says he, the bread of life: and a little before, the bread is the Word of the living God, who came down from heaven. Then, again, because his body is judged* (to be) in the bread; this is my body. Therefore, by praying for daily bread, we pray for perpetuity in Christ, and an indissolu- ble connexion with his body.”+ The application of our Lord’s words, “ this is my body,” in this latter passage, together with others of a similar sort to be found in the writings of the fathers, sufficiently justify the observation which I have already made, that they apply to sacramental manducation what they understood to be originally intended of spiritual. Cyprian, who reverenced Tertullian as his mas- riorum pabulorum, memoriam patrum, qui panes et carnes A°gyp- tiorum preverterant divine vocationi. Igitur conversus ad cogitatus illorum, quia senserat dispergendos, caro, ait, nihil prodest. Quid hoc ad destruendam carnis resurrectionem ?—Tert., de Resurrectione Carnis, cap. xxxvii., Opera, p. 347, edit. Rigalt, Paris, 1675. * The original word is censetur, the ambiguity of which I have endeavoured to,express by the word judge. Johnson does not scru- ple to render it “‘ authoritatively declared !”” chap. ii., sec. v., p. 365. + Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, spiritualiter potius intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster est ; quia vita Christus, et vita panis. Ego sum, inquit, panis vite. Et paulo supra; panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit de ccelis. Tum quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur, hoc est corpus meum. Itaque, petendo panem quoti- dianum, perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo et individuitatem a corpore ejus.— De Oratore, cap. vi., p. 131, 132. 118 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, ter, affords another illustration of this remark, by applying expressions taken from this chapter to a right participation of Christ in the eucharist. But his language by no means sanctions the conclu- sion, that he considered the discourse as original- ly and directly intended of this sacrament. In his treatise on the Lord’s Prayer, he comments on the petition, “Give us this day our daily bread,” as follows: “ This may be understood both spirit- ually and in its simple meaning; each sense, by the divine blessing, conducing to our welfare. For Christ is the bread of life, and this bread is peculiarly ours. And as we say, our Father, be- cause he is the Father of those who understand and believe, so also we call (him) our bread, be- cause Christ is the bread of us who are intimate- ly conjoined with his body. But we pray that this bread be given to us daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the eucharist daily as the food of our salvation, should be separated from Christ’s body, inasmuch as, on occasion of some more grievous fault, being debarred from commu- nicating, we are prohibited from the heavenly bread. For he himself proclaims and admonishes, ‘I, who came down from heaven, am the bread of life. If any one eat of my bread, he shall live forever. But the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ When, therefore, he says, if any one eat of this bread he shall live forever, as it is manifest that those live who be- long to his body, and receive the eucharist with a AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 119 right to communicate; so, on the other hand, it is to be feared and deprecated, lest any one, being debarred, should be separated from Christ’s body, should remain at a distance from salvation, he himself employing the threatening language, ‘ Ex- cept ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man and shall drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you.*”* The application of the prayer for daily bread to the eucharist is almost universal with the fa- thers, and yet it is hardly to be supposed that they understood this as the direct and original purport of the petition as taught by our Lord to his apos- tles during his lifetime. Being a prayer for sus- tenance of the whole man, both soul and body, they understood it to comprehend a reference to all the means by which such sustenance might be obtained. And thus Cyprian, in the above quota- tion, intending to represent Christ himself as spir- itually our food, and considering this heavenly sustenance as particularly given in the Lord’s supper, directs the attention of his hearers espe- cially to the eucharist. * “ Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Quod potest et spiritaliter et simpliciter intelligi, quia et uterque intellectus utilitate divina proficit ad salutem. Nam panis vite Christus est, et panis hic omnium non est, sed noster est. Et quomodo dicimus pater noster, quia intelligentium et credentium pater est; sic et panem nostrum vocamus, quia Christus, noster qui corpus ejus contingimus, panis est. Hunc autem panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus, ne qui in Christo sumus, et eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salutis accipimus, intereedente aliquo graviore delicto, dum abstenti et non commu- nicantes a celesti pane prohibemur, a Christi corpore separemur, ipso predicante et monente: ego sum panis vite qui de celo descendi; 81 quis ederit deo me pane, vivet in eternum ; panis autem quem ego 120 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, Ciement of Alexandria cites several passages from this chapter, and comments on them. After speaking of the difference between milk and meat as figuratively used for spiritual food, with an ev- ident reference to 1 Cor., il., 2, he proceeds to say : “The Lord in the Gospel according to John hath explained such food by symbols, saying, eat my flesh and drink my blood, expressing, under the allegory of something that might be drunk, the clearness of faith and of the promise, by which the Church, like a man, consisting of many members, is watered and increased, and most closely compacted of both, faith as the body and hope as the soul, as also the Lord, of flesh and blood.”* dedero caro mea est pro seculi vita. Quando ergo dicit, in eternum vivere si quis ederit de ejus pane, ut manifestum est eos vivere qui corpus ejus attingunt et eucharistiam jure communicationis acci- piunt, ita contra timendum est et orandum, ne dum quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute; comminante ipso et dicente, nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis et biberitis sanguinem ejus, non habebitis vitam in vobis.”—De Oratione Dominica, Opera, Oxon., 1682, p. 146, 147. * Tyv toravoe tpogyy adAdyobt dé 6 Kupioc, év TS kata lwdv- vv évayyeniv, ETépwe éjHveyKev did ovubdAwy* ddyecbe pov Ta¢ oupkag, einov, kal mieobe ov TO diya* évapyé¢ Tic mioTews Kal Tig émayyeAiag TO TéTWOY GAAnyopdy, OV Ov 7H éxxAnoia, Kad- wep UvOpwroc, ék TOAAGY ovvectynKtia peAGy, Gpderat Te Kal avé- ETAL, OvyKpoTeirat Te Kal ovurHnyvuTat, & dugowv: odpuarog per, THe TicTEwc, Puyne de, Tig ~EAmidoc* Gorep kat 6 Kvpioe, ék oap- ko¢ Kal Giuatoc.—Pedag., lib. i., cap. vi., p. 100, edit. Sylburg. Lu- tetiz (Paris), 1629. The construction and meaning of évapyéc is net clearto me. WatTERLAND translates thus: ‘“allegorically signifying the clear liquor of faith and of the promise ;” making it qualify 76 warusov, p. 158. Taser renders it adverbially : <‘he evidently is al- AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 121 In the same chapter Clement expresses himself thus: “The Word is all things to the infant, both father and mother, and preceptor and nourisher. Eat, says he, my flesh, and drink my blood. This suitable nutriment for us the Lord supplies. He reaches forth flesh and pours out blood, and no- thing is needed for the growth of the infants. O wonderful mystery! He commands us to put off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nour- ° ishment, and to partake of the other new food of Christ ; him, if possible, receiving, to lay up with- in ourselves, and to enclose the Saviour in the breast, in order to render sound the affections of our flesh.”* It can hardly be doubted that in legorizing the drinkableness of faith,” &c.—Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, 8vo, p. 113. So also Johnson, p. 360, who introduces it in the midst of a subse- quent passage of Clement, and then remarks that the author whose view he is opposing “ only produces” a part “ of this paragraph !” Wuirtsy, to whom he probably refers, quotes the passage, but gives no translation of the word: “he allegorically meant the drinking of faith and of the promises.”—On v.53, 54, 7thly. The Bishop of Lin- coln, too (Dr. Kaye), seems to take no notice of this word. Perhaps he considered it as redundant: ‘signifying allegorically by that which is drunk the faith and promise,” &c.—Account of the Wri- tings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, London, 1835, 8vo, p. 386. It is not improbable that évapyé¢ may be intended to denote the life and vigour of true faith. * "O Abyog Ta TavTa TO vyTiw, Kai TaTHpP Kai uNnTHP, Kal Tal- daywyo¢ Kal Tpogevte* gdyecbé pov, dyci, THY capKa, Kal Tieobé yov 76 dua. Tatrac jyuiv oikeiac tpopac 6 Kuprog yopnyel, Kat capka Opéyet kai dima éxyéer Kai ovdév sig avggotv Tol¢ madioeg évdei & Tod mapaddsov pvotnpiov! Amodvoacbar juiv thy maAa- Liv Kal oapKiKyny éyKeredeTa GO0pay, GoreEp Kal THY Ta2aLay Tpo- ony: Kawvijg O€ GAAne Tie Xpiotév dvaitng peTadapubdvorrag, ékel- vor, el dvvatov, dvadagbavoyrac, év éavtotg arotibecbat, Kat TOs L 122 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, this passage the author had in view a spiritual eating and drinking, and not merely, if at all, a sacramental one. And this must be still farther evident to any who will take the trouble candidly to examine the whole context. The writings of this father contain other pas- sages, expressing the union of the true Christian with Christ, under the figure of drinking his blood. The reader will look in vain for any very lucid exposition of our Lord’s discourse, although he will most probably acquiesce in the correctness of Bishop Kaye’s remark, that while “Clement gives various interpretations of Christ’s expres- sions in the 6th chapter of St. John’s Gospel re- specting his flesh and blood, in no one instance does he interpret them literally” (p. 447). In the language of the pious, very learned, but mystical and allegorizing father himself, “ the Word is often employed in an allegorical sense, and so also is meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. Att (1s) True Lorp To BE ENJOYED BY US WHO BELIEVE oN HIM. ’* ‘This one remark shows conclusively that, although he may have occasionally expressed his views in an obscure and confused manner, his thoughts and affections rose above the significative symbols to the bless- ed person who was thereby signified. owtipa évotepvicacbat: iva Kataptiowuey The capkog nuwy Ta ra6n.—Ubi sup., p. 102. * TloAAakGe aAdAnyopertat 6 Adyoc, kai Bpdua, kai oaps, kai Tp0oH, Kal GpToc, Kai dia, Kal ydda* Gravta 6 Kiptog, ét¢ am6- Aavow Huw Tov ét¢ duTov wemtarevKdTav.—P. 105. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 123 That Oricen did not understand this language of our Lord’s discourse at Capernaum in its literal sense, is undeniable from his own declaration. “There is in the New Testament a letter which kills him who does not understand spiritually what is said. For if you follow what is said, ‘ Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ according to the letter, this letter killeth.”* Accordingly, he gives various expositions of the phraseology, but always figurative, and states expressly that “ we are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only in the rite of the sacraments, but also when we re- ceive his words, in which life consists, as he him- self says, ‘The words which I have spoken are spirit and life.’ He, therefore, was wounded [for our sinst], whose blood we drink, that is, receive the words of his doctrine.” { In applying the directions in Exod., xii., 8, seq., respecting the passover, to what is said of Christ in John, xix., 32-36, 1., 29, and vii., 52, seg., among other remarks, he says: “ This is observed by me because John, in his Gospel, says, ‘ And the bread * Est in Novo Testamento litera, que occidat eum qui non spirita- liter que dicuntur adverterit. Si secundum literam sequaris hoc ip- sum quod dictum est, nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hec litera.—In Levit. Hom., vii., Opera, edit. Bened., Paris, 1738, tom. ii., p. 225. + He had just before quoted Isa., liii. {¢ Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi, non solum sacramentorum ritu, sed et cum sermones ejus recipimus, in quibus vita consistit, sicut et ipse dicit, verba que locutus sum, spiritus et vita est. Est ergo ipse vulneratus, cujus nos sanguinem bibimus, id est, doctrine ejus verba suscipimus.—In Num. Hom., xvi., tom. ii., p. 334. 124 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ But now we eat the flesh of the lamb and the unleavened bread with bitter herbs, when by repenting of our sins we are afflicted with that godly sorrow which worketh in us a repentance to salvation not to be repented of.”* “If 1] suffer persecution and confess my Christ before men, I am certain that he also will confess me before his Father who is in heaven. If fam- ine come, it cannot disturb me; for | have the bread of life which comes down from heaven and refreshes hungry souls. Neither can that bread ever fail, for it is perfect and eternal.” + “'They shall not be confounded in the evil sea- son, &c. By the evil season is meant the time of judgment. And in the days of dearth they shall have enough. He calls the days of dearth those in which many of the unclean are deprived of the bread of him who said, I am the bread mt came down from heaven.” { * Tovro dé pot TeTHpHTat Od TO Kal év TH Kata lwavyny A€yecBat kal 6 aptog 0é bv éyO ddow, 7 caps pod Ectiv brép THE TOD KOcMOV Come: nTot dé da Tag éxl Toi¢ duapTHuaoly Huwy pETavoiag THY kata Seov ATHY AvrovMmEVwY, METAVOLAY EL OwWTNPiay ameTaLeAn- Tov nuiv épyalouerny, eri mixpidwy écOiowev Kpéa Tod ayvod, Kai Ta dvywa.—Comment. in Johan., tom. x.; Opera, tom. iv., p. 177. + Persecutionem si patiar et confitear Christum meum coram hom- inibus, certus sum quia et ille me confitebitur coram patre suo qui in celis est. Fames si affuerit, turbare me non potest; habeo enim panem vite qui de celo descendit et reficit animas esurientes. Nec aliquando potest panis iste deficere, est enim perfectus et eternus. —Comment. in Epist. ad Rom., lib. vii., tom. iv., p. 607. t Od katatcyvvOjoovrar év Kalp rovnp@, kai Tr. &.) Karpov rovnpov A€éyet TOV THE Kpicewe ypdvov, Kal év Huépate Aruod yop- - pa AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 125 “ Man did eat angels’ bread, &c.] The Saviour says, ‘I am the bread that came down from heav- en.’ This, bread, therefore, was formerly eaten by angels, but is now by men. To eat, in this place, signifies to know. For the mind eats what it knows, and what it doth not know it doth not eat.-* “ If we speak those things that are perfect, that are robust, that are of the stronger sort, we set before you the flesh of the Word of God to be eaten.’ On Matthew, xxvi., 19, Origen applies language in this chapter to the Lord’s Supper. Speaking of a spiritual understanding of the law, he says, that “ by a spiritual celebration we fully perform all that is therein commanded to be done bodily. For we put away the old leaven of malice and wickedness, and celebrate the passover in the un- leavened bread of sincerity and truth; Christ feasting along with us, according to the will of the Lamb, who saith, ‘Except ye shall eat my tacOjoovtat. ‘Huépag Ayod dvoudler év dig TOAAOL THv axabaprav OTEpickovTal Tov dpTov Tod éimévTOg: eye ext 6 GpToc 6 AKO TOD dv- pavov karabdc.—Selecta in Psal. (xxxvi., 19), Opera, tom. il., p. 654. * *Aprov ayyédwv Epayev GvOpwroc, Kal T. €.] ‘O ZwTnp ono: éy@ eye 6 aproc 6 éx TOD dvpavod Katabac. TodTov duv Tov apTtov joOtov piv mpdtepov ayyehot, vuvi dé kal avOpwror. TO ecbiew évtadOa 70 yivdoketv onuaiver: TovTo yap éaGier vode 6 dé ywvo- Okel, Kal TODTO OvK éoOier 6 Ov yivdoKxet.—lIbid., p. 771. Compare, also, on Isaiah, Hom. iii.,; Opera, tom. iii., p. 111. + “Si perfecta loquimur, si robusta, si fortiora, carnes vobis Verbi Dei apponimus comedendas.”"—In Num., Hom. xxiii., Opera, tom ii., p. 359. L2 126 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have life in you.’ 99% The next writer to be adduced is,Aveustin, the celebrated Bishop of Hippo. “ They said to him, ‘ What shall we do that we may work the work of God? For he had said to them, ‘Work for the food that doth not perish, but endureth to eternal life.’ ‘ What shall we do?’ say they ; ‘by observing what shall we be able fully to perform this precept?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘ This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.’ This, therefore, is to eat the meat that doth not perish, but endureth to eternal life. Why do you prepare the teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten.—No one fulfils the law but he who is aided by grace, that is, the bread which comes down from heaven. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the compendium * «Spiritaliter celebrantes implemus omnia que illic corporaliter celebranda mandantur. Expellimus enim vetus fermentum malitie et nequitiz, et in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis celebramus pascha, Christo nobiscum coepulante secundum voluntatem agni dicentis, nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis vitam manentem in vobis.”—In Matt. Comment., tom. iii., p. 896. Compare, also, p. 899, and see p. 837, where the same appli- cationis made. The passage from Origen, above given, is quoted by Aquinas in his Catena on St. Matthew. But the reader will bear in mind that, both in the original Latin of the “‘ Angelical Doctor,” and also in the translation, published at Oxford in 1842, of the “ Aurea Catena” (recommended for family use !), the clause, ‘‘ Christ feasting along with us,” is omitted. It is, however, highly important, as it bears upon Origen’s view of the meaning of John, vi., 54, and shows it to be figurative and spiritual—See Divi THom# Aqotnartis, Doct. Angel., Ordin. Predic., Opera, Venet., 1775, 4to, tom. v., p. 380. English translation, p. 887. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 127 of it, as the apostle says, ‘ Love, not of money, but of God; love, not of earth, not of heaven, but of him who made heaven and earth. Whence is this love toman? Let us hear him: The love of God, says he, is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom he hath given us. The Lord being about to give the Holy Spirit, called himself the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in him. For to believe in him, this is to eat the living bread. He who believes eats, is invisibly nourished (literally, fat- tened), because he is invisibly born again.”* After saying, that from various causes many may die, notwithstanding the use of ordinary food, he remarks: “ But it is not so in this meat and drink, that is, in the body and blood of the Lord. For he who does not take it (the food, esca, as he had before called it) has not life, and he who does take it has life, and, indeed, eternal. By this food and drink he will denote association with the body and his members, which is the holy Church in his * As it is unnecessary to quote the whole of the original Latin, lL shall limit myself to those parts which have a direct bearing on the subject. ‘‘Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quem misit ille. Hoc est ergo manducare cibum non qui perit, sed qui permanet in vi- tam eternam. Utquid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede et mandu- casti."—In Johan. Evang., cap. 6, Tract. xxv., § 12, edit. Bened., tom. iii., pars ii., Ant. 1700, p.354. ‘Nemo implet legem, nisi quem adjuverit gratia, id est panis qui de celo descendit. Daturus ergo Dominus Spiritum Sanctum, dixit se panem qui de ceelo descendit, hortans ut credamus in eum. Credere enim in eum, hoc est mandu- care panem vivum. Qui credit, manducat; invisibiliter saginatur, quia invisibiliter renascitur.”—Ibid., Trac. xxvi., § 1., p. 357, 358. 128 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, predestinated, and called, and justified, and glori- fied saints, and faithful ones—The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the union with (or unity of) the body and blood of Christ, is prepared, in some places daily, in others after intervals of some days, at the Lord’s table, and received from the Lord’s table, by some to life, by others to destruction ; but the thing itself of which it is the sacrament, to every man who partakes of it for life, to none for destruction.”* “Finally, he now explains how that may be done of which he speaks, and what it is to eat his body and drink his blood. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. To abide in Christ, and to have him abi- ding in us, is, therefore, what is meant by eating that food and drinking that drink. And, conse- qaently, he who does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, undoubtedly does not spiritually eat his flesh nor drink his blood, al- though carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood; but * ¢ In hoc vero cibo et potu, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini, non ita est. Nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet vitam; et qui eam sumit, habet vitam, et hanc utiqie eternam. MHunc itaque cibum et potum societatem vult inteiligi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod est sancta ecclesia in predestinatis, et vocatis, et justificatis, et glori- ficatis sanctis, et fidelibus ejus.—Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, uni- tatis corporis et sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis in- tervallis dierum, in Dominica mensa preparatur, et de mensa Domi- nica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium ; res vera ipsa cujus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicumque ejus particeps fuerit.”—Ibid, § 15, p. 362. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 129 rather eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation.”* On verse 63: “ They thought he was about to distribute his own body, but he said that he was about to ascend into heaven, and, indeed, entire. When you shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before, then certainly you will see that he does not distribute his own body in the way you think ; then certainly you will understand that his grace is not consumed by bites.” He concludes by urging as the all-important point, “ that we be careful not to receive (literally eat) the flesh of Christ and the blood of Christ only in the sacrament, which many even bad men do; but to eat and drink so as to partake of the Spirit, so as to abide in the Lord’s body as members, so as to grow strong by his Spirit.” * “Denique jam exponit quomodo id fiat quod loquitur, et quid sit manducare corpus ejus, et sanguinem bibere. Qui manducat, etc. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere et illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec manducat [spiritaliter] carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem [licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et san- guinis Christi]; sed majis tante rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit.”—Ibid., § 18, p. 362. The words enclosed in brackets are in the printed editions, but are not contained in any of the manuscripts used by the Benedictine editor. + “Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, ille autem dixit se adscensurum in ceelum, utique integrum. Cum videritis filium hom- inis adscendentem ubi erat prius, certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum; certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus.”—Ibid., xxvii., § 3. t “Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat, delectissimi, ut carnem Christi et sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in sacramento, ouod et multi mali; sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manduce- 130 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, In his treatise on Christian Doctrine, the same father comments on the 53d verse thus: “ Unless ye eat, &c. He seems to order a crime or wick- edness. It is, therefore, a figure, enjoining on us to communicate in the Lord’s passion, and sweet- ly and usefully to lay up in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”* These passages prove that Augustin did not re- gard the eucharist as directly and primarily in- tended by our Lord in this discourse ; but doubt- less he considered the eating and drinking there- in urged as most effectually performed by the be- liever through that sacrament. Hence he some- times employs the language of the discourse as he would have done if he had understood it to refer directly to the eucharist, and passages to this ef- fect have been adduced in support of the charge of inconsistency, while, perhaps, they merely show a want of accuracy and fulness in the ex- position of his views. One of the most remarka- ble occurs in his treatise on the desert and remis sion of sins and the baptism of infants, in which he endeavours to prove the necessity of giving the eucharist even to them. “Let us hear the Lord, I say, speaking not of the sacrament of the mus et bibamus, ut in Domini corpore tanquaam membra maneamus, ut ejus Spiritu vegetemur.”—Ibid., § 11. * « Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere: figura est ergo, precipiens passioni Dominice communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recon- dendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.’.—De Doct. Christ., lib. iii., cap. xvi., § 24, Opera, tom. iii., pars 1., p. 40. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 131 laver, but of that of his holy table, unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall have no life in you.” And after quoting Titus, ii., 5, in reference to baptism, and John, vi., 51, 538, as di- rectly referable to the eucharist, he infers the ne- cessity of both these sacraments to the salvation of infants as well as adults. “ Neither salvation nor life eternal is to be expected for any one with- out baptism and the body and blood of the Lord ; in vain, without these, is it promised to infants.”* The controversial character of this work may account, in part, for such an extravagant position, although it affords no sufficient apology for it. In his sermons, also, on St. John’s Gospel, he applies language taken from the sixth chapter to the eu- charist, while, at the same time, it is evident that he considers the spiritual eating and drinking as what is chiefly intended, the eucharist being only the sacrament of this. Whether he meant to in- struct his hearers that the discourse was directly intended of the Lord’s Supper, or that indirectly it includes it as a principal means of grace, or is only applicable to it, admits of doubt. I leave the settlement of this point to those who are well versed in the voluminous writings of Augustin, * «“Dominum audiamus, inquam, non quidem hoc de sacramento lavacri dicentem, sed de sacramento sancte mense sue : nisi man- ducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum non habebi- tis vitam in vobis.—Nec salus nec vita eterna sine baptismo et cor pore et sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est, frustra sine his promittitur parvulis.” Da pec. merit. et remiss., lib. 1., Cap. Xx. xxiv., § 26, 34, Opera, tom. x., p. 10, 13. 132 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, and of the fathers in general. If I may venture to express an opinion founded on but imperfect knowledge, I should be inclined to believe that the good bishop is not very accurate in explaining his views; and that, in common with the fathers of the second, third, and fourth centuries, he often applies certain Scriptural expressions to some one definite point, while he would by no means have maintained that such point was intended by the original writer or speaker. This last remark has a bearing on the whole subject of quotations, not excepting several of those which are found in the New Testament. , “ As we have heard in the reading of the Gos- pel, the Lord Jesus Christ exhorted to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, with the promise of eternal life. Not all of you who heard this have never- theless understood its meaning. Ye who are bap- tized and faithful know what he meant.”* This is certainly intended of the eucharist, the mysteries which were concealed from catechumens and or- dinary hearers. He then proceeds to urge the exhortation of St. Paul in 1 Cor., xi., 29, and to apply the language of John, vi., 56,57. In his previous sermon, he remarks that the body and blood of Christ are life to every one, but imme- * « Sicut audivimus, cum sanctum Evangelium legeretur, Dominus Jesus Christus exhortatus est promissione vite eterne ad mandu- candam carnem suam et bibendum sanguinem suum. Qui audistis hec, nondum omnes intellexistis. Qui enim baptizati et fideles estis, quid dixerit nostis.”—Sermo exxxii., de verbis Evang. Johan. 6, Ope- ra, tom. v., p. 449, 450. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 1338 diately adds the qualification, “if what is visibly taken in the sacrament is also spiritually eaten and drunk in very truth.”* This he illustrates by quoting the 63d and 64th verses. Jerome, in his epistle to Hedibia, explaining Matt., xxvi., 29, does call “the Lord’s body” (in the eucharist) “the bread that came down from heaven.” But it must be evident to every reader that the whole tenor of the place is figurative. He does not hesitate to say, that “the patriarch Jacob desired to eat this bread when he said, ‘ If the Lord God will be with me, and give me bread to eat and raiment to put on.’ For as many of us as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ, and eat angels’ bread, and hear the Lord pro- claiming, ‘ My meat is to do the will of the Father who sent me, and to finish his work.’ Let us, therefore, do the will of him that sent us, the Fa- ther, and finish his work, and Christ will drink his own blood with us in the kingdom of the Church.” + On Isaiah, lxvi., 17: “ Tropologically we may * “Tune autem hoc erit, id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et san guis Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter bibatur.”—Ibid., Sermo. cxxxi., p. 447. + “Hune panem et Jacob patriarcha comedere cupiebat, dicens, si fuerit Dominus, &c. Quotquot enim in Christo baptizamur, Chris- tum induimus, et panem comedimus angelorum, et audimus Domi- num praedicantem, meus cibus est, etc. Faciamus igitur volunta- tem ejus qui misit nos Patris, et impleamus opus ejus ; et Christus nobiscum bibet in regno ecclesia sanguinem suum.”—Ad Hedib., Ope- ra, edit. Bened., Paris, 1706, tom. iv., pars 1, p. 172. : R/ Po 134 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, give the meaning thus: All lovers of pleasure rather than of God are sanctified in gardens and in thresholds, because the mysteries of truth can- not enter, and they eat the food of impiety while they are not holy in body and soul; neither do they eat the flesh of Jesus nor drink his blood, of which he says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ For Christ, our passover, is sacrificed; who is eaten not without, but in one house and within :’* meaning, I presume, in the Church and in the heart. “We read the Holy Scriptures. I suppose the Gospel to be the body of Jesus, the Holy Scrip- tures his doctrine. And when he says, he that doth not eat my flesh and drink my blood, al- though it may also be understood in the mystery, yet the word of the Scriptures, the divine doc- trine, is more truly the body of Christ and his blood. If, when we go to the mystery—he that is faithful understands—if one falls into sin, he is in peril. If, when we hear the word of God, and the word of God and the flesh of Christ and his blood is poured into our ears, and we are thinking of something else, how great danger do we incur !”+ * “ Secundum tropologiam possumus dicere, omnes voluptatis ma- jis amatores quam amatores Dei sanctificari in hortis et in liminibus, quia mysteria veritatis non valent introire, et comedere cibos impie- tatis, dum non sunt sancti corpore et spiritu; nec comedunt carnem Jesu, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus. De quo ipse loquitur, qui com- edit carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, habet vitam zternam. Etenim pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Qui non foris, sed in domo una et intus comeditur.”—Comment. in Isa. Proph., lib. xviii., tom. iii., p. 506. : t “ Legimus sanctas scriptures. Ego corpus Jesu Evangelium AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 1385 I conclude this representation by a quotation from one of the epistles of Basin: “ Whosoever eateth me, he says, liveth by me. For we eat his flesh and drink his blood, being made partakers, through his incarnation and natural life, of the Word and of wisdom. For his whole mystical sojourn in the flesh he calls flesh and blood, and his doctrine, consisting of practical, and natural, and theological, he manifested, by which the soul is nourished.”* From these quotations, and from many others which the writings of the fathers afford, it is evi- dent that the minds of these holy men dwelt upon a spiritual union with Christ, in which their great puto; sanctas scripturas puto doctrinam ejus. Et quando dicit, qui non comederit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem meum, licet in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen verius corpus Christi et sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est, doctrina divina est. Si quando imus ad mys- terlum—dqui fidelis est intelligit—si in maculam ceciderit, periclita- tur. Si quando audimus sermonem Dei, et sermo Dei et caro Christi et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos aliud cogitamus, in quantum periculum incurrimus!”—Breviarium in Psalt., cxlvii., 3, Opera, tom. ii., Appendix, p. 504. : * “'O tpdyuv pé, ono, Cyoetat Ou’ tué* Tp@youev yap auTov THY odpka, Kal rivowev avTod TO diya, KoLvwvod. yivduevor Ova THE evav- Oparnoewc, Kai Tie aLoOnTiC CwHe TOU Adyou Kai THe codiag’ Cap- ka yap Kal dia naoav avtod Thy prvotixny éxidnuiav dvouace * kal THY éx TMpaKTLKTC Kai gvotKi¢ Kai SeoAoytKac ovveotdoayr Ou- _dackariav édjiwoe, bv Ho TpédeTat Wuy7y.”—Epis. 141, Opera, edit. Paris, 1618, tom. ii., p. 928. I have translated duc@yrH¢ by natural. Its literal meaning is perceived by the senses. Other citations from the fathers may be found in the works already mentioned, and also in L’ARRoquUE’s History of the Eucharist, part il., chap.iv. This curious and valuable work was originally written in French, a translation of which, in one quarto volume, was publish- ed in London in 1684. 136 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, happiness consisted, and that they understood our Lord’s language to be intended of this. It is also evident that they considered this union as effect- ed and maintained, in a great degree, through the instrumentality of the sacraments which Christ had instituted, and therefore applied language ex- pressive of the spiritual union to those means of advancing it, without particularly and critically defining the meaning and appropriating the appli- cation of every phrase. They were rather intent on the thing itself, than fastidious in choosing the terms whereby to express it.—See Appendiz. I shall conclude this Essay by referring to a few of the most prominent divines, in order to show that the general views already presented coincide with those of our best standard writers. I omit the comments of Carvin, Lutruer, and Me tancruovn, illustrious names in the Church, cha- racterized respectively by far-reaching thought, by boldness in defence of truth, and by a meek- ness of wisdom and extent of learning seldom equalled. It is unnecessary to adduce their testi- mony in detail. It may be considered as com- prehended in the language of the very learned and laborious Geruarp: “ What is said in John, vi., 58, does not relate to the sacramental. but spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, which is necessary for the salva- tion ofall.”* The language of Erasmus, however, * “Dictum Joh., vi., 53, non de sacramentali sed spirituali corpo- ris et sanguinis Christi manducatione et bibitione tractat, que om AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 137 is most especially worthy of the reader’s atten- tion, as he cannot be supposed to be a prejudiced witness, and few will venture to accuse him of incompetency. His notes on this chapter are, in- deed, meager and very brief. Perhaps he did not choose to express himself fully. But he does ex- pressly say, on verse 51, “if any one eat of this bread he shall live forever, that the ancients in- terpret this passage of heavenly doctrine.”* Cam- ERON, a very learned and able commentator, ob- serves, on verse 53, that the language here and elsewhere employed denotes “ the power and effi- cacy of faith, by which we are united to Christ.” James Caret says of the same verse: “These words plainly show that it was the duty of Christ’s hearers at that time to have eaten his flesh, and therefore that this discourse is not to be restricted to a manducation in the eucharist or by the mouth, but that the body of Christ is to be eaten spirit- ually; and this is abundantly confirmed by the whole series of the discourse.” The same view is given by the most distin- guished divines of the English Church. The com- nibus ad salutem necessaria est.”—-De Sacra Cena, cap. xxi., § 230, p. 190. Loc. Theol., tom. v. Franc. et Hamb., 1657. * « Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrina celesti.”—Crit. Sac. on John, tom. vi., p. 115, edit. Amst., 1698. t+ “His locutionibus significatur fidei vis et efficacia qua unimur Christo.”—Ibid., p. 125. t “‘Hec verba perspicue docent jam tum debuisse Christi carnem ab auditoribus manducari, eoque non esse restringendam hanc orati- onem ad manducationem eucharisticam oralemve, sed spiritualiter esse manducandum Christi corpus: quod et tota series orationis abunde confirmat.”—Ibid., p. 130. M 2 138 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, mentary of Wuirsy is accessible to all, and his exposition is so well known as to make any cita- tions superfluous. His learned predecessor, Dr. Hammonp, paraphrases the 47th and 48th verses thus: “ He that embraceth my doctrine, and is sincerely my disciple, to believe and practice what I command him, shall undoubtedly live for- ever, as having fed on that enlivening bread, verse 33, receiving me his spiritual food by his faith into his soul.” On the 50th and 51st he remarks: “The bread which is now sent you down from heaven will give immortality to them that feed on it, that is, to all that truly believe in Christ, that receive his doctrine, and digest it into the food and nourishment of their souls— Whosoever feed- eth, that is, believeth on me, embraceth my doc- trine, and practiseth accordingly, shall not die; the soul whose food I am shall become immortal in bliss.” So, also, on verse 53: “ Except you thus feed on this celestial food, that is, be sincere disciples of the crucified Saviour ;” and on verse 56: “He that thus feedeth or believeth on me, that resigns himself up to be ruled by me, is so made a member of me, that, by the life which is in me, he shall also be enlivened by God, by whom I live.” On verse 63: “ It is not the gross carnal eating of his body of flesh that he could speak of, but certainly a more spiritual divine eating or feeding on him; his words (see verse 68), that is, his doctrine, being spiritually fed on by them, that is, being received into their hearts,” &c. On the AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 139 next verse, for the words, “ there are some of you that believe not,” he substitutes, “ for this spiritual feeding, sinking down this spiritual food into your hearts, there are some of you that are far enough from doing so.” He expresses himself, also, to the same effect in his note, speaking of the “ food which endureth to everlasting life,” as “that doc- trine of his which is food for their souls, and that grace which should be purchased by his death ;” of “ faith, here expressed by feeding on this spir- itual food, not only eating, but digesting and turn- ing it into the nourishment of our souls.” He does not even allude to the eucharist, and evident- ly does not consider the discourse as originally intended of it, although undoubtedly he never meant to deny that the spiritual feeding on Christ by faith in that holy ordinance is comprehended within the terms of the general command. In the same way, Bisuor Breveriper represents the general sense of our Lord’s expressions in this chapter. After quoting several verses, and closing with the 63d, he proceeds thus: “ Whereby he plainly discovered that all that he had said con- cerning eating his flesh and drinking his blood is to be understood only in a spiritual sense. Not that we could eat that very flesh which he as- sumed, and drink that very blood which was spilt upon the cross; that is so absurd and impossible, that no man in his senses can take his words in such a carnal sense as that. But his meaning is, that he, having taken our flesh upon him, and 140 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, offered it up, together with the blood thereof, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, they who believe in him do as really partake of that sacrifice, and of all the benefits of it, as if they had eaten of the very flesh that was sacrificed, as the Jews did of the paschal lamb. By which means, Almighty God, being atoned and reconciled to them, gives them that Holy Spirit which is united to, and al- ways accompanieth, the flesh of Christ, to be a standing principle of new life in them, to nourish and strengthen them with all true grace and virtue, as truly and really as our bodies are fed and sup- ported by what we eat and drink. So that the whole drift and design of this divine discourse is briefly comprehended in that short sentence wherewith he begins it, and which may serve asa key to open all that follows, saying, ‘ Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath ever- lasting life’” verse 47.* He then goes on to re- mark, that the eating and drinking in the Lord’s Supper is to be understood in the same sense, be- ing spiritual and done by faith. I have before directed the reader’s attention to Dr. Warrruanpb, who defends the same view of our Lord’s discourse in his masterly work on the eucharist already referred to. These great di- vines of the Church of England were distinguished even among the learned for their extensive ac- quaintance with the fathers, for whose opinions, * Sermon on the Preference of Spiritual Food to Natural. Ser- mons, vol. v., p. 312, 313, Londen, 1709 AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 141 too, they entertained very high respect. And yet, with a thorough knowledge of all that antiquity contains on the subject of John, vi., they do not hesitate to express themselves as above stated. Let, then, the tyro in theology, who, by the help of the Latin column, or, it may be, of some mod- ern English translation, has succeeded in master- ing a few sentences of some Greek father, hesitate, with becoming modesty, before he decides against the learned judgment of these brightest luminaries of their age. The following extracts from the writings of the most remarkable man of the English reformation may forma suitable conclusion. The opinions of ArcuBisHop Cranmer were formed after much study and careful comparison of the Scriptures and fathers. Few divines of any age are com- parable to this great man for acquaintance with patristical and scholastic theology, and his repre- sentations of the views of the early writers of the Church merit very particular attention. I trust no apology is necessary for the copiousness of the following extracts. I give them in the order in which they occur in his printed works. Purposing to “set forth the very words that Christ himself spake both of the eating and drink- ing of his body and blood, and also of the eating and drinking of the sacrament of the same,” he quotes John, vi., of the former, and remarks thus: “ As touching this meat and drink of the body and blood of Christ, it is true, both he that eateth and 142 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, drinketh them hath everlasting life, and also he that eateth and drinketh them not hath not ever- lasting life. For to eat that meat and drink that drink, is to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwelling in him.* And therefore no man can say or thinkt that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his blood, except he dwelleth in Christ and hath Christ dwelling in him. Thus have ye heard of the eating and drinking of the very flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ.” He then proceeds to the latter point. “Now as touching the sacraments of the same, our Sav- iour Christ did institute them in bread and wine at his last supper which he had with his apostles the night before his death.” “Christ in that place in John spake not of the material and sacramental bread, nor of the sac- ramental eating (for that was spoken two or three years before the sacrament was first ordained$), but he spake of spiritual bread, many times re- peating, I am the bread of life which came from heaven, and of spiritual eating by faith, after which sort he was at the same present time eaten of as * Augustin in Joan., Tract. 26. + Aug., de Civitate, lib. 21, cap. 25. t The Remains of Tuomas Cranm_Er, D.D., Archbishop of Canter- bury, collected and arranged by the Rev. Henry Jenxyns, M.A., in four volumes. Oxford, vol. ii., p. 292,293. A Defence of the true and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, book i., chap. ii., iil. § This is a mistake, as the discourse was delivered at Capernaum about a year before the institution of the eucharist, namely, near the passover preceding the last. See John, vi., 4. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 143 many as believed on him, although the sacrament was not at that time made and instituted. And therefore he said, ‘ Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and died; but he that eateth this bread shall live forever.’ Therefore, this place of St. John can in no wise be understood of the sacra- mental bread, which neither came from heaven, neither giveth life to all that eat it. Nor of such bread could Christ have then presently said, this is my flesh; except they will say that Christ did then consecrate so many years before, the institu- tion of his Holy Supper.”* “ Wherefore, to all them that by any reasonable means will be satisfied, these things before re- hearsed are sufficient to prove that the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood is not to be understood simply and plainly as the words do properly signify, that we do eat and drink him with our mouths; but it is a figurative speech, spiritually to be understood, that we must deeply print, and fruitfully believe in our hearts, that his flesh was crucified and his blood shed for our re- demption. And this our belief in him is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, although they be not present here with us, but be ascended into heaven. As our forefathers, before Christ’s time, did likewise eat his flesh and drink his blood, which was so far from them, that he was not yet then born.” * Ibid., book ii., chap. x., p. 338, 339, + Ibid., book iii., chap. x., p. 381, 382. 144 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, In arguing against Dr. Smith, who alleged the 6th chapter of St. John in defence of transubstan- tiation, he says: “I answer by his own reason. Can this promise be verified of sacramental bread ? was that given upon the cross for the life of the world? I marvel here not a little of Mr. Smith’s either dulness or maliciousness, that cannot, or will not, see that Christ, in this chapter of St. John, spake not of sacramental bread, but of heavenly bread ; nor of his flesh only, but also of his blood and of his godhead, calling them heavenly bread that giveth everlasting life. So that he spake of himself wholly, saying, ‘I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall not thirst forever. And neither spake he of common bread, nor yet of sacramental bread; for neither of them was given ° upon the cross for the life of the world. “ And there can be nothing more manifest than that, in this sixth chapter of John, Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh, but of his very flesh. And that, as well for that the sacrament was not then instituted, as also that 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 | will give is my flesh; which sacramental bread was neither then his flesh, nor was then in- stituted for a sacrament, nor was after given to death for the life of the world. * But as Christ, when he said unto the woman of Samaria. * The water which [ will give shall spring AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 145 into everlasting life,’ he meant neither of material water nor of the accidents of water, but of the Holy Ghost, which is the heavenly fountain that springeth unto eternal life; so, likewise, when he said,‘ The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,’ he meant nei- ther of the material bread, neither of the accidents of bread, but of his own flesh; which, although of itself it availeth nothing, yet being in unity of person joined unto his divinity, it is the same heav- enly bread that he gave to death upon the cross for the life of the world.”* “The same flesh was also given to be spiritually eaten, and was eaten, indeed, before his supper, yea, and before his incarnation also. Of which eating, and not of sacramental eating, he spake in the sixth of John: ‘ My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and [ in him.’ ”+ “ But your understanding of the sixth chapter of John is such as never was uttered of any man be- fore your time, and as declareth you to be utterly ignorant of God’s mysteries. For who ever said or taught before this time, that the sacrament was the cause why Christ said, if we eat not the flesh of the Son of Man, we have no life in us? The spiritual eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood by faith, by digesting his death in our minds * Vol. ii. The Answer of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, &c, egainst the false Calumniations of Dr. Richard Smyth, p. 9, 10. + Ibid., p. 64. Answer to Gardyner, book 1. N 146 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, as our only price, ransom, and redemption from eternal damnation, is the cause wherefore Christ said, that if we eat not his flesh and drink not his blood, we have not life in us; and if we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have everlasting life. And if Christ had never ordained the sacrament, yet should we have eaten his flesh and drunken his blood, and have had thereby everlasting life, as all the faithful did before the sacrament was or- dained, and do daily when they receive not the sacrament. And so did the holy men that wan- dered in the wilderness, and in all their lifetime very seldom received the sacrament, and many holy martyrs, either exiled or kept in prison, did daily feed of the food of Christ’s body, and drank daily the blood that sprang out of his side (or else they could not have had everlasting life, as Christ himself said in the Gospel of St. John), and yet they were not suffered, with other Christian peo- ple, to have the use of the sacrament. “ And that, in the sixth of John, Christ spake nei- ther of corporeal nor sacramental eating of his flesh, the time manifestly showeth. For Christ spake of the same present time that was then, say- ing, ‘The bread which I will give is my flesh: and he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him, and hath everlasting life.” At which time the sacramental bread was not yet Christ’s flesh, for the sacrament was not then yet ordained ; and yet, at that time, all that believed in Christ did eat his flesh and drink his AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 147 blood, or else they could not have dwelled in Christ, nor Christ in them. “ Moreover, you say yourself, that in the sixth of St. John’s Gospel, when Christ said, the bread is my flesh, by the word ‘flesh’ he meant his whole humanity, as is meant in this sentence, the Word was made flesh; which he meant not of the word ‘body,’ when he said of bread, this is my body, whereby he meant not his whole hu- manity, but his flesh only, and neither his blood nor his soul. And in the sixth of John, Christ made not bread his flesh when he said, the bread is my flesh ; but he expounded in those words what bread it was that he meant of, when he promised them bread that should give them eternal life. He declared in those words, that himself was the bread that should give life, because they should not have their phantasies of any bread made of corn. And so the eating of that heavenly bread could not be understood of the sacrament, nor of corporeal eating with the mouth, but of spiritual eating by faith, as all the old authors do most clearly expound and declare.”* “When Christ said, ‘ The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper, as you say he did, then what needed he after to die that we might live, if he fulfilled his promise of life at the supper.” + “Yaithful Christian people, such as be Christ’s * Ibid, p. 65-67. + Page 81 148 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, true disciples, continually from time to time re- cord in their minds the beneficial death of our Saviour Christ, chawing it by faith in the cud of their spirit, and digesting it in their hearts, feeding and comforting themselves with that heavenly meat, although they daily receive not the sacra- ment thereof, and so they eat Christ’s body spirit- ually, although not the sacrament thereof. But when such men, for their more comfort and con- firmation of eternal life, given unto them by Christ’s death, come unto the Lord’s holy Table, then, as before they fed spiritually upon Christ, so now they feed corporally also upon the sacra- mental bread. By which sacramental feeding in Christ’s promises their former spiritual feeding is increased, and they grow and wax continually more strong in Christ, until at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. —We say, that as they eat and drink Christ in the sacrament, so do they eat, drink, and feed upon him continually, so long as they be members of his body.”* “This I say, that the fathers and prophets did eat Christ’s body and drink his blood in promise of redemption to be wrought. Although, before the crucifying of his flesh and effusion of his blood, our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not only of the Apostles at his last * Ibid., book iii., p. 130, 131. AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 149 Supper, before he suffered his passion, but also of the holy patriarchs and fathers, before his incar- nation, as well as he now is of us after his ascen- sion.” * “As concerning these words of Christ, the words which I do speak be spirit and life, I have not wrested them with mine own gloss, as you misreport, but I have cited for me the interpreta- tion of the Catholic doctors and holy fathers of the Church.” May the author and reader of this treatise prac- tically understand what the father of the English Reformation meant by spiritually eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, and may each know, by his own blessed experience, what it is to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell- ing in him! Amen! * Tbid., p. 139. t Page 187. es ae eit saune | See Loy ht Apt bonad ten tna bd desis isla is bis | chee dieses ere el mnie lool saat met Ane, oy i ’ owes Hones | a a Ta RE ae fy es idaotag gh RPA RA, } he gtligs? PRG bass ; She 4... ark deatios abit alive Sh Weare ci? giro rteertey Dae tastenlics Ge at ies BST Sag “othe eMeos baw te fh Seusttisp oh ‘bod dyhew “J Head wa Motive ox nMCaEt oi tirtpatetr tes. MS odentit wr tae; | a CEN RG Peto MN, Bey Tee aot, pt eR We tee agian <2 Serenity 99 4 We sor) Sates bila he Snel el a: Se 1s » Peary eT oighestrat ends eee, ars St Seog Ueclitss Sy eer ep he YO aay Trl eorees Vea heh + wth? teh aa iar TRAE Wheat Sapte WS Hck Van ott? ‘isi Beth RP yds “ « > a A c 7 g¢noww: 6 dptos yap, dyou, dv eyo Sdcw, 7 caps pou EoTiv, Hy eyo dHaw iTEp Tis TOU Kogpov wis Thy efovaiav Sé avTov Setxviwy, Ott OVX ws SodAos, Kai » , a . > ~ N > at % e S28 , s EAAGTTOV TOD TaTpds aV’TOD EoTavpwOn, AAA’ ExV, dyoLY, OTL Ey SHow THY capka ov Umép THs TOD Kdcpou Cwijs el yap Kai SeddaGar A€yerar WTO TOD x > . x c ‘ A , a bid erm = Lal matpos, GAA Kal éeavToy Sedwxéevat.—Llpdcxes Sé, TL O apTos Oo Ev Tots wuG- 4 c > ¢ ~ ,. s > > iA ia > ~ ~ ‘a mS > > mplots Ud" Hav écOcdpevos, ovK avTituTOy Eat THS TOV Kupiov capkos, ad’ , ars A , , > BS so e ec a te “ > ig a auTH } TOD Kupiov aodpé. Ov yap eimev, OTe O aptos Oy eyw Ewow avtituTdy éote TAS TapKos fov, GAN’ H odpé mov Earl. Merarotcirar yap amoppytois Adyots 6 apros odtos Sia THs pvaoTiKs eVAoyias, Kat EmepotTHgews TOU aytov mvevparos, eis capKa TOD Kupiov..... Aet Toivuy nas axovoavTas, O71 €av LH daywpuev Thy TépKka TOD viod, ovK Exomev CwHy, Ev Tals peTaAn Wear THY Beiwy uvoTypiov miatw éxew adioTaKToy, Kat my CnTely TO, TMS; 0 yap WuxXiKds &vOpwros, TouTécTi, & Aoyiopots avOpwrivors Kal WuxiKkois HToL Puatkois éxdpevos, od Séxerat Ta brep How Kal TrevpaTiKd. “Oarep ody Kai THY TVEU- patichy Bpoaow rhs ToD Kupiov capkos dv voet, x. T. A—Commentarius in Joannem, cap. vi. Opera; Venet., 1754, tom. i., p. 593-595. 154 APPENDIX. guickeneth. As if he had said, If ye understand a carnal recep- tion only without grace, it is of no use, but rather injurious: but the spiriteal without the carnal quickeneth thee. Of the third, which is only sacramental, the apostle speaks when he says, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink- eth judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body; that is to say, not distinguishing it from other food.””* The remarks of the celebrated Cardinal Hueco pr Sancto Caro are equally worthy of note. This very distinguished man belongs to the former half of the thirteenth century. He died in 1260.¢ I quote from his Postilla on St. John’s Gospel, printed at Basle, in connection with his other works, in five folio volumes.—Verse 50. “ That if any one eat of wt: by be- lieving and loving; or by receiving worthily his flesh and blood.” 51. “If any one eat of this bread: either, if any one worthily receive the eucharist; or, (if) any one by faith and love unite Christ to himself, and convert his words and example into his own nourishment. He shall live forever: provided he perse- vere therein.” 53. “‘ Except ye eat: by faith, as says Augustin: Believe, and thou hast eaten.” See p. 126 of the Essay. Aft- erward he proceeds to note “‘ three things in the sacrament of the eucharist: the species of bread, the true body of Christ, and Christ’s mystical body. The first is only the sign; the second, the sign and the thing signified; the third is only the thing sig- nified. The first is taken only sacramentally; the second sac- ramentally and spiritually ; the third only spiritually. The first * De prima sumptione, que est sacramentalis et spiritualis, Dominus dicit: Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in eo: et rursum, Qui manducat me, vivet propter me. (It is worthy of remark that the abbot has given the exact meaning of the original 6.4 with an accusative, propter.) De secunda, que est tantum spiritualis, iterum ipse Dominus loquitur: Caro nihil prodest, spiritus est qut vivificat; ac si diceret: si intelligis tantum carnalem sumptionem absque gratia, nihil pro- dest, immo nocet; spiritualis vero absque carnali te vivificat. De tertia que est tantum sacramentalis, dicit Apostolus: Qui manducat et bibit in- digne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit, non dijudicans corpus Domini: quod est dicere, non discernens corpus Domini ab aliis cibis.—Instructio Sacer- dotis de tribus precipuis mysteriis, cap. xii. Opera; Paris, 1719, vol. ii., eol. 548. t Cave, Hist. Lit., vol. ii, p. 300; Oxon., 1743. APPENDIX. 155 aud second may be taken by both good and bad in common; the bad man to his death, the good to his life. But only the good man can receive the last; for, to eat the mystical body of Christ is nothing else than, by faith, hope, and love, to become incorporated in the unity of the Church.” To the same pur- pose, afterward, “ Except ye eat: spiritually or by faith; or, taking the antecedent for the consequent, except you are united by love to the Son of God, who is the Son of man.”* His com- meut contains much more to the same purpose, proving con- clusively that, although he does not lose sight of the eucharist, he never fails to represent the eating and drinking as a spiritual reception of Christ through virtue of an inward union with him by faith; and this as the main point of instruction in this por- tion of the Discourse. After the reader has carefully considered the views of the fathers both of the early and Middle Ages, as they have now been presented to him, he will be the less surprised at the ac- tion taken on John sixth by the celebrated Council of Trent. The learned divines of this synod well knew that they could not maintain the sacramental interpretation on the ground of the consent of the fathers. In the course of the discussions which arose on the subject of giving the cup to the laity, this chapter was appealed to in order to show that our Lord speaks indiffer- ently of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and also simply * Ut si quis ex ipso manducaverit : credendo et amando; vel digne car- nem ejus et sanguinem sumendo,—Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane: seu, si quis eucharistiam digne sumpserit, vel quis Christum fide et amore sibi junxerit, et verba ejus et exempla in nutrimentum suum converterit. Vi- vet in eternum: Si in hoc perseveraverit.—Nisi manducaveritis: per fidem, secundum illud Augustini, Crede et manducasti.—Nota tria esse in sacra- mento eucharistie ; speciem panis, corpus Christi verum, corpus Christi mysticum, Primum est signum tantum; secundum signum et res; ter- tium res tantum. Primum sumitur tantum sacramentaliter; secundum sacramentaliter et spirituallier; tertium tantum spiritualiter. Primum et secundum potest sumere communiter bonus et malus; sed malus ad mor- tem, bonus ad vitam. Tertium non potest sumere nisi bonus. Nam cor- pus Christi mysticum manducare nihil aliud est quam fide, epe et charitate unitati ecclesiastice incorporari—Nisi manducaveritis: spiritualiter, seu per fidem. Vel ut sumatur antecedens pro consequenti, nisi uniti fueritis per charitatem filio Dei, qui est filius hominis. 156 APPENDIX. of eating his flesh ; and hence it was inferred that the latter vir- tually comprehends the former. But, in opposition to this, it was urged that “many fathers understood those places in St. John not of sacramental, but of a spiritual eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood; and therefore that the council should not indirectly sanction the opposite interpretation.”’* Cardinal Seripando, who presided on that occasion, remarked that there were two controversies connected with the discourse in that chapter of St. Johu; one with the heretics, on this point, wheth- er the communion in both kinds was therein divinely command- ed and made necessary for the salvation of all the faithful; and the other among the Catholics themselves, whether the dis- course related to sacramental or spiritual communion: that, even allowing St. John to speak of the former, the inference that the cup was absolutely necessary to salvation was errone- ous; and that the propesed decree decided nothing in reference to the second of the twocontroversies. The “modest” cardinal, as Pallavicini calls him, should have stated the point somewhat differently ; for the controversy was not whether the cup is ab- solutely necessary to salvation, but whether the command to drink it is not as plain and obligatory as that to eat the flesh, and therefore the drinking of the one as certainly necessary to salvation as the eating of the other. After much consideration and discussion, it was agreed that, in reference to our Lord’s Discourse, the decree should be amended by adding the words, ‘“‘ However, among the various interpretations of the holy fathers and doctors, it may have been understood.”t This passed by a majority of twenty-six, eighty-three voting in favor of the amendment, and fifty-seven against it. The minority did not maintain that the chapter related directly to the eucharist. They took the ground “that it was not in character with the * Che in quel testo de S. Giovanni intendevasi da molii Padri non il mangiamento e il bevimento sacramentale, m4 lo spirituale della carne e del sangue di Christo; st che non conveniva al Concilio statuir obliqua- mente la contraria interpretazione.—Istoria del Concilio di Trento, scritta dal Padre Srorza PaLLavicino ; Rom., 1657, cap. xi., lib. xvii., p. 408. + Comungue fra le varie interpretazioni de’ Santi Padri e de’ Dottori s’ in- tenda.—P. 409 APPENDIX. 157 dignity of the council to say any thing about the uncertainty of the meaning of so celebrated a portion of Scripture, and by ex- press terms to leave it doubtful; and that it would be more dec- orous to adhere to the original form of the decree, and not to mention the second controversy at all.’’* That such were the views and action of the Council of Trent is candidly admitted by Dr. Wiseman.t Mr. Johnson, too, has certainly the best reason for saying, ‘‘ It is evident that the Coun- cil of Trent did not believe the discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John to speak strictly of sacramental eating and drinking.”’f But he is undoubtedly mistaken in giving what follows as an “especial” cause why they did not limit the meaning of the dis- course to the sacramental exposition: ‘‘ Because it was appre- hended that if John sixth were taken as meant of the eucharist, it must follow that it was absolutely necessary that the people must communicate in both kinds.” The language of Cardinal Seripando, already quoted, expressly disclaims such an appre- hension, inasmuch as it denies the inference to be well founded. It is indeed true, as the author remarks, that “ our Saviour de- clares it to be altogether as dangerous to omit the drinking of his blood as the eating of his flesh ;” and the correctness of the conclusion he draws as to the necessity of the cup would be un- deniable if the eucharist were the direct subject of the chapter. But that the divines of this council would have allowed this con- clusion is quite another matter. The inference drawn from the indifferent use of the phrases eating the flesh and drinking the blood, and from the former alone, namely, that this comprehends the other, shows that they would’not; and it is plain that the presiding cardinal expressly denies it. The result is irresistible, that the leading theologians of the Church of Rome at that pe- riod knew well that they could not claim a consent of fathers for the sacramental interpretation of John sixth. * Allegavano questi, non esser dignita del Concilio, reeando un capo si celebre della Scrittura, toccar la dubieta del senso, e insieme lasciarla con aperte parole in sospeso: maggior decoro serbarsi nella prima forma, in cui non si menzionava la controversia.—P. 409. + Lectures on the Real Presence; Lect. v., p. 163-165. t The Unbloody Sacrifice ; London, 1718, p. 154. O 158 APPENDIX. A calm and candid attention to these particulars in the history of the interpretation of this chapter, and also in that of the Coun. cil of Trent, can not fail to be instructive. If men will but di vest themselves of prejudice, and take the necessary trouble in order to secure the truth, they must see that the exposition of John sixth which has most generally prevailed in all periods of the Church is that of spiritual feeding on Christ by faith, and that, to use the language of Hooker, either “in the sacrament” or “ otherwise;”* the former means having been always re- garded as the most important. Loose assertions, which have no better support than an assumed meaning of certain figurative words in this chapter, can therefore have no influence on those who are conscientiously bent on seeking, finding, and keepizg the truth of God’s most holy word. * Book v., sect. 55; Oxford, 1793, vol.ii., p. 219. Compare the languags in section 60, p. 248: “By sacraments and other sensible tokens of grace.” aN , ‘ 2 fae Ga ny Le abe tere cities Se aie trate ta (ese V5 meee 0 (eileen. chs He oe #1 & Ayn > wil ‘pie 4S~ at Gulls fora oh Re eel aw A — e6kee 64et Aaheieteer bees AS 5 or oe oo Gal 3 .* ' Prem, ie Y. rr Se > ee = = ‘pe 14.0) (4 ear SRD 7 _ ae STO he: we: iM YAP iw an a LP a : e Ghat on "gt - Pha 2+ SES) fer : ay a *» - ite | a —| m 0 Cc m RNG GAYLORD #3523P\l Printed in USA Oe pate erg Pn