"Nor of sacramental feeding": Waterland on John 6

For the time being, a final extract from Waterland's A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as laid down in Scripture and Antiquity. A key indicator of Waterland's Reformed Eucharistic theology is his reading of John 6.  Reviewing the patristic evidence, he asserts:

Hitherto we have seen nothing in the Fathers that can be justly thought clear and determinate in favour of oral manducation, as directly and primarily intended in John vi. Many, or most, of them have applied that general doctrine of spiritual feeding to the particular case of the Eucharist, because we are spiritually fed therein: but they have not interpreted that chapter directly of the Eucharist, because it has not one word of the outward signs or symbols of the spiritual food, but abstracts from all, and rests in the general doctrine of the use and necessity of spiritual nutriment, the blood of Christ, in some shape or other, to everlasting salvation. Thus stood the ease, both in the Greek and Latin churches, for the first four centuries, or somewhat more. 

Amongst the Latins, however, this was to change, part of a wider process by which "the symbolical language of Scripture and Fathers be came neglected, and in a while forgotten":

But about the beginning of the fifth century arose some confusion. The frequent applying of John vi. to the Eucharist came at length to make many, among the Latins especially, interpret it directly of the Eucharist.

The Reformation thus becomes the means of retrieving the earlier patristic reading of John 6 against "the sacramental construction".  Alongside "the Lutherans and Calvinists abroad", Waterland points to "our own most early and most considerable Divines" who "have concurred in discarding it":

It would be tedious to enter into a particular recital of authorities ; and so I shall content myself with pointing out two or three of the most eminent, who may justly be allowed to speak for the rest. Archbishop Cranmer stands at the head of them. 

He summarises Cranmer's insistence that John 6 is not an explication of Eucharistic doctrine:

The sum then of Archbishop Cranmer's doctrine on this head is: 1. That John vi. is not to be interpreted of oral manducation in the Sacrament, nor of spiritual manducation as confined to the Eucharist, but of spiritual manducation at large, in that or any other sacrament, or out of the Sacraments. 2. That spiritual manducation, in that chapter, means the feeding upon Christ's death and passion, as the price of our redemption and salvation. 3. That in so feeding we have a spiritual or mystical union with his human nature, and by that with his Godhead, to which his humanity is joined in an unity of Person. 4. That such spiritual manducation is a privilege belonging to the Eucharist, and therefore John vi. is not foreign to the Eucharist, but has such relation to it as the inward thing signified bears to the outward signs. To Archbishop Cranmer I may subjoin Peter Martyr, who about ten years after engaged in the same cause, in a large Latin treatise printed a.d. 1562. No man has more clearly shewn, in few words, how far John vi. belongs not to the Eucharist, and how far it does. 

Waterland goes on to note of Martyr that he recognises that John 6, "though not directly spoken of the Eucharist", can have application to "the thing signified".  He similarly states of Cranmer:

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

He concludes his review of the teaching of Cranmer and Martyr with the following observation:

From what has been observed of these two eminent Reformers, we may judge how John vi. was understood at that time: not of doctrines, nor of sacramental feeding, but of spiritual feeding at large, feeding upon the death and passion of Christ our Lord. This, I think, has been the prevailing construction of our own Divines all along ... This account is formed upon our Catechism, and upon the old principles of our first Reformers, and the next succeeding Divines.

A number of points are worth considering here.  The first is that this reading of John 6 is yet another indication of Waterland's Eucharistic theology being definitively Reformed.  The second is his reverence for Cranmer and Martyr, to be matched with his praise for Beza and Bucer when discussing the Eucharist as "commemorative sacrifice".  Again, the Reformed emphasis is obvious.  The third is that while this reading of John 6 rejects the "sacramental feeding" interpretation, Waterland emphasises - not least on the basis of the words of Cranmer and Martyr - that it still has application to the spiritual feeding which occurs in the Sacrament.  This is suggestive of how Reformed Eucharistic teaching gave rise to the rich Eucharistic devotion and piety of the High Church tradition. 

For example; the words, 'except ye eat the flesh of Christ, &a, 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 of our Lord's passion: nevertheless, since the Eucharist is one way of participating of the passion, and a very considerable one, it was very pertinent and proper to urge the doctrine of that chapter, both for the clearer understanding the beneficial nature of the Eucharist, and for the exciting Christians to a frequent and devout reception of it. Such was the use which some early Fathers made of John vi. (as our Church also does at this day, and that very justly).

(The quotations are from Chapter VI, 'Of Spiritual Eating and Drinking, as taught in John vi'.)