my blood,'' eateth me,'' eateth of this bread,' are manifestly identical in meaning. The amplification may be illustrated by Eph. 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 intended, 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 Scripture, and tending directly to a species of pantheism; and, moreover, contrary to the marriage relation which gives occasion to the language."-Essay, p. 78, 79.

Dr. Turner says above, that the language of our Lord, "Except ye eat the flesh," &c., is suggested by that of his opponents, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" &c.: he says also on page 82 of his Essay, that "he adopts [in the use of this figure] the very terms of his opponents." Now we think that this is hardly correct, -that is, if we understand him aright. Our Lord was certainly the first to use the term, "flesh;" for their question, "How can this man," &c., was raised upon that which he had said immediately before-"The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give," &c. He was, also, the first to use the word eat,-though not in immediate connection with "flesh." This, however, would naturally follow from what he had before said. Their question is the logical conclusion from his foregoing propositions. They were to eat of a certain "bread:" that "bread was his flesh, which he would give," &c.: they then ask, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" &c.

This, however, is not a matter of much importance. The last paragraph we have quoted from the Essay imbodies the solution of the whole chapter. The clause, "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give," &c., is the vinculum which unites the one part of the discourse with the other, and shows that they both mean the same thing; that is, faith in the atonement which Christ was to make in his own person on the cross. How can it be said, that the "bread," spoken of in the former part of the chapter, signifies a different thing from the "flesh," spoken of in the latter? that the "bread" is Christ in general received by faith, while the "flesh" is Christ specifically received, in the sacrament of the real presence, by the mouth? when Christ himself makes them identical the one with the other, saying, "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Tittmann concedes that the Protestant interpretation is not after the usus loquendi of Scripture. But is the Romish interpretation any the more so? Dr. Wiseman, however, greedily snaps at this

concession of Tittmann, and then pronounces, "that we must not admit any expression to be figurative, which is not figurative according to the established phraseology of Scripture." Now what is this but saying, that Christ cannot use language which is altogether peculiar to himself? That he cannot adopt a figure or a form of speech, unless he has a specific example of it somewhere else in the Bible? This is rhetoric with a vengeance! Such niceties would better become the mouth of a Lord Kaimes than that of a theologian. A very good reason can be given why this phrase, "to eat the flesh," &c., is a figure for which no exact parallel can be found in the Bible elsewhere; namely, because there is no Jesus Christ, either before or after the four Gospels, present on earth to use this figure in his own proper person. What patriarch, what prophet, what king, what any one of the inspired writers was there, besides Christ, who could use this language in any sense whatever? Indeed, the usus loquendi is as much against the figure of "bread," as applied to a person, as it is against the figure of "flesh," so applied. For who but Christ could ever have said this of himself, (we mean figuratively)-"I am the living bread which came down from heaven, of which if a man eat he shall never die?" Plainly, then, if the figurative sense of the word "flesh" is to be rejected, because no precisely similar phrase can be found elsewhere, so also must the figurative sense of the word "bread” be rejected, for the same reason. Only Christ could use these terms in any sense, whether figurative or otherwise, in their application to a person; because to him only as a person-the great atoning person-were they in any sense applicable.

If it be asked, why he should have changed from the figure of "bread" to that of "flesh," it undoubtedly was (as Tholuck says) to denote more distinctly the propitiation which he was to make by offering himself up as a sacrifice,-the word sacrifice generally conveying the notion of flesh, the flesh of the victim which is immolated, and Christ also being to have his flesh pierced and his blood shed on the cross. We say, "to denote more distinctly his propitiation;" for the idea had all along been implied under the figure of bread; only he brings it out more openly under the new figure of "his flesh."

The truth is, bread and flesh, being the two staple articles of food, and uniting their significations in the word meat, are the same general figure employed throughout the chapter. When our Lord says, "The bread which I will give is my flesh," &c., his hearers immediately catch at the word flesh, murmuring, "How can this man give us?" &c. Christ then holds on upon the word, and "in

sists upon the necessity of their doing what they regarded as impracticable and absurd, in order to obtain spiritual life; he enjoins it with a strong asseveration, with particularity of expression, employing the words, 'drink the blood, as well as, 'eat the flesh of the Son of man.""

"The increased strength and boldness of the terms will appear natural to all who patiently attend to the circumstances. They are in analogy with other Scriptural representations, of which I shall adduce a single instance. St. Paul, delineating the inward 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 regard to it, while at the same time the grace of the gospel is wanting, uses the language, 'I consent unto the law that it is good.' This simply expresses acquiescence in its excellence. But afterward, becoming more warmed with the subject, and desiring to state as fully as possible the completeness of this acquiescence of reason and conscience, he employs a stronger term, ovvǹdouaι, I delight in, or am pleased with, the law of God, after the inner man.' The expressions, eat the flesh and drink the bood of the Son of man,' when considered in relation to the language, eat me,' are similar 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."-Essay, pp. 82, 83.

The general objections which lie against the Papal, or indeed any sacramental view whatever, of these verses, are stated by the essayist with perspicuity and force. There is one, however, which he appears not to have brought out in all the amplitude and strength which he might have done, had not his effort been principally a critical exegesis of the chapter itself. It is the á priori utter improbability that our Saviour should have been discoursing on such a subject under such circumstances. The sacrament of the holy supper is a subject proper to be pressed, not upon the unregenerate, but upon those who have attained to somewhat in the divine life. Repentance, faith, knowledge, and religious affection are all previously necessary, (in what particular measure of them we say not,) in order to any profitable introduction of this mystery. Accordingly it was not instituted by Him whose death it was to commemorate, until the night before that death, and then only in presence of the twelve, and in the retirement of "an upper room." And yet, as Dr. Wiseman would have us believe, here is our Saviour, a whole year prior to his death, urging the obligation and the benefits of this ordinance upon a carnal, captious assemblage of persons, who as yet were destitute of the very rudiments of the religion of the cross; who, as their language shows, were as igno

rant of the true character of Christ, of the great end for which he came into the world, and of the means by which he was to accomplish it, as it was well possible for men to be; who understood well enough what it was to have their stomachs filled with loaves and fishes, but for the spiritual bread which feeds the soul, had, as Augustin saith, "the jaws of the heart languid; with open ears, were nevertheless deaf, and though they saw, yet remained blind."* Credat Judæus Apella-non ego. Jesus Christ was a judicious teacher. He always chose his topics, as well as the style of treating them, in reference to the character of his auditors. And it is worthy of note that, save the place here alledged, there is not in the whole four Gospels another allusion to this ordinance discoverable, till its final institution at the close of our Lord's earthly

career.

It is commonly imagined that the early fathers of the church take the sacramental view of John vi; and, further, that this view is definitely declared by them in the form of set expositions. Now such is not the fact. The fathers have left no formal treatises on the chapter-like this of Dr. Wiseman, for example; they never handle it dogmatically, or controversially; and, moreover, what they do say favors the Protestant rather than the Papal interpretation. To say the least, their verdict is so far from being decisive in itself, that "modern theologians differ in their views of the exposition given by these fathers of the chapter under consideration; some contending that they understood it directly of the eucharist, while others maintain that they only apply part of its language to this sacrament." In this opposition stand Johnson and Waterland, two of the most eminent divines of the English Church; the former, "conceiving that the fathers never doubted but that the mystical, or sacramental, sense was that which the Saviour primarily intended; while the latter held, that they only sometimes applied what our Saviour there says to the sacrament, having first interpreted it, in its original designation, of faith. This distinction he thinks important." "For example, the words, 'except ye eat the flesh,' &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 in you without participating in our Lord's passion. Nevertheless, since the eucharist is one way of participating in 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 of the beneficial nature of the eucharist, and for the

* Quoted in the Essay, p. 46.

exciting of Christians to a frequent and devout reception of it. Such was the use which some of the early fathers made of John vi."

But we are not left in this matter to the representations of others. Dr. Turner, whose philological studies have evidently not been pursued at the expense of patristic researches, has hunted up everything written on this chapter by the most celebrated fathers of the first four centuries; and having translated the extracts, has incorporated them in Part III of his Essay, accompanied by their originals; so that the reader can form his own opinion on the point. Most probably, however, nearly every one will acquiesce in the conclusion which he himself has drawn :-"That the obscurity of the inspired page is not always removed by the expositions of even the best of these writers; and that the interpretation may chance to be no clearer than the text, and equally to require philological investigation and antiquarian research."

The following passage from Ignatius, with the remarks of our essayist thereon, we think worthy of quotation:

"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 Ignatius uses this language of the Lord's supper: By calling the eucharist the bread of God he clearly refers to John vi, 33; it is certain that by that phrase he means the eucharist.' But so far is this from being certain, that it does not appear even probable. The language is used in the same sense as in the verse referred to; that is to say, of Christ himself, who came from God to be the author and sustainer of spiritual life to us. This 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 Ignatius calls him, the bread of God,' as he was a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and to be mysteriously eaten as such. Some will no doubt think that Johnson's opinion is favored by the word 'altar.' But it is a mistake to suppose that Ignatius intends this word to designate the Lord's table. That author understands it of the altar-room,' by being called up into which, and there eating the sacrifice,' he says, that Christian people are dignified beyond the old peculium,' (the Jews,) and within which all communicants did unquestionably, in Ignatius's time, go, in order to receive the eucharist:' although afterward, 'they were prohibited from entering 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