rd3B

9X-

7f

ESSAY

ON OUR LORDS

DISCOURSE AT CAPERNAUM,

RECORDED IN THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.

BY 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.

NEW-YORK:
Harper & Brothers, 82 Cliff-st.
1845.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by
Harper & Brothers,
In the Clerk's Office of the Southern District of New- York.

Mrg38 Tts

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
HIS AFFECTIONATE FRIEND AND BEOTHEE,
THE AUTHOR.

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#theologica!
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 Nicholas
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 feturning 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

VU1 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 die Lectures furnish. I have pointed out
some which had escaped the notice of Dr. Tub-
ton,* 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 Thomas Turton, D.D., Regius Professor
of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough,
Cambridge, 1S37, 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 Faber,*
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 I had for a considerable time enter
tained, of writing an exposition of the discoure 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 incpntro-
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 George Stanley Faber, B.D., Master of
Sherbum Hospital, and Prebendary of Salisbury, 8vo, London, 1840.

CONTENTS.

PART I.
Pan.
Examination of Dr. Wiseman's View . . .... 1
PART II.
Analysis and Exposition of the Discourse  48
PART III.
View of the Early Fathers, and of some Modem Divines . . 103

ESSAY. PART I.
EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW.
In order to ascertain the import and g-ue mean
ing of our Lord's discourse to the Jews recorded
in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, it be
comes exceedingly important to keep in mind the
particular circumstances that gave occasion to it.
On the eastern side of the 'Sea of Tiberias Jesus
had fed an immense multitude, amounting proba
bly to 8000 people,* on- five barley loaves and
two small fishes, and the fragments that remained
after the whole were satisfied were sufficient to
fill twelve baskets. This was certainly one of
the most extraordinary miracles that he had ever
performed, and we are not surprised that the
witnesses and subjects of it acknowledge him to
be the expected prophet. The erroneousness of
their views, however, and the worldly character
of their minds, are evident from their intention to
seize him and make him king. In order to avoid
* Mark, vi., 44, Luke, ix., 14, and John, vi., 14, speak of " about
5000 men ;" Matthew, xiv., 21, does the same, adding, " besides wom
en and children." John, vi., 2, makes it probable that many of them
were sick. A

2 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMANS VIEW.
the excitement and evils which must have follow
ed such a course, our Lord, after dismissing the
crc^d, retires, agreeably to his manner, to pray
in solitude. At evening his disciples embark in
their vessel, with the intention, probably, of stop
ping farther up on the eastern side of the lake,
where their Master would meet them, and then
proceeding across to Capernaum, which was situ
ated on the western shore.* But an unexpected
storm of wind preventing them from landing, and
driving the vessel far into the lake, Jesus appear
ed to them not long before daybreakf walking
on the water. Being received into the vessel,
the sea became calm, and they soon reached the
destined haven, vi., lr-21.
On the following day, the excited multitude,
not finding Jesus, and knowing that he had not
embarked with his disciples, and having seen no
other vessel than the one occupied by them, pro
cured other vessels and crossed the lake. J Find
ing him at Capernaum, they expressed their won
der at his getting there, 22-25 ; and this is fol
lowed by the discourse now to be considered.
In order to ascertain its true meaning, it is im
portant to determine whether the leading subject
is throughout the same, or whether a transition
must be allowed from one topic to another. Prot-
* See Newcome's Harmony, note, § 64.
t Matt., xiv., 24, 25.
t It is not necessary to suppose that the whole multitude went
over. The Scripture often ascribes to a mass what is strictly ap
plicable to a part only.

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 3
estant commentators generally adopt the former^
view. Among the defenders of the latter Dr.
Wiseman stands prominent, and as his book on
the Eucharist professedly vindicates this view,
and the Romanist doctrine of the Real Presence
as supposed to be founded on this chapter, I shall
examine the principal arguments alleged by him
in confirmation of his theories, as preparatory to
any direct analysis of the discourse itself.
The author begins by laying down certain prin
ciples of interpretation, the correctness of which
is unquestionable, while, at the same time, they
recognise the fundamental importance of philo
logical investigation in order to attain a right
knowledge of Scripture. In examining our.Lord's
discourse in this chapter, he admits that, until
"the 48th or 51st verse, it refers entirely to be
lieving in him," and that on this point " Protest
ants and Catholics are equally agreed." But he
contends that here "a perfect transition is made
from believing in Christ to a real eating of his
body and drinking of his blood in the sacrament
of the Eucharist," while "the generality of Prot
estants maintain that no such transition takes
place." He argues that "there is a change of
subject at the 48th verse," and that " the transi
tion is to a real eating of the body of Christ," p.
50, 51.
Dr. Wiseman considers the 48th and three fol
lowing verses as " a complete section of itself,
verse 47 seeming" to him " to form an appropri-

4 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMANS VIEW.
^te close to a division of discourse, by the em
phatic asseveration amen" (verily) " prefixed to a
manifest summary and epilogue of all the prece
ding doctrine." If what follows in his first para
graph is intended as proof of this, I am wholly
unable to see its bearing, and must therefore pass
it over. Not to deprive the more discerning read
er, however, of the advantage of the argument, I
give it entire, in the author's own words. " ' Amen,
amen, I say unto you, he that believeth in me
hath everlasting life.' Compare verses 35, 37, 45.
Verse 48 lays down a clear proposition, 'I am
the bread of life,' suggested by the preceding
words, and just suited for the opening of a new
discourse," p. 52.
His next proof is stated as follows : "But these
words are exactly the same as open the first part
of our Saviour's lecture at verse 35." Now the
sacred " lecture" does not open at verse 35, but
with the solemn censure of verse 26 : " Verily,
verily, I say unto you, ye seek me, not because ye
saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the
loaves and were filled." The 34th, " Lord, ever
more give us this bread," is merely the expression
of desire with which some of his hearers interrupt
ed his discourse, as the woman of Samaria did in
John, iv., 15. The author's next remark, that it
is " an ordinary form of transition with our Lord,
when he applies the same images to different pur
poses, to repeat the very words by which he ori
ginally commenced his discourse," even allowing

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN S VIEW. 5
it to be true, is therefore wholly irrelevant. But,
admitting its applicability, the instances he pro
ceeds to give in order to illustrate the fact are
not to the point, and his remarks on them neither
founded on the evident intention of the divine
speaker, nor, in my view, deserving of serious ref
utation. But that I may not be thought to do in
justice to the writer, I quote the whole of his il
lustrations. " I will give two or three instances,"
that is, of the " ordinary form of transition" em
ployed by Christ. "In John, x., 11? he says, 'I
am the good shepherd ;' and he then expatiates
upon this character as it regards himself, con
trasting himself with the hireling, and expressing
himself ready to die for his sheep. At verse 14
he repeats the wouds once more, ' I am the good
shepherd,' and explains them with reference to the
sheep, how they hear and obey him, and how his
flock will be increased. Again, John, xv., 1, he
commences his discourse by 'I am the true
vine,' and applies the figure negatively to the con
sequences of not being united to him. Then, at
verse 5, he repeats the same words, and explains
them positively of the fruits produced by those who
do abide in him.* Exactly in the same manner,
* " I consider the latter clause of verse!5 of the first passage, and
verse 6, with the last member of verse 5, in the second, as merely
incidental and parenthetic ; as I- think it will be allowed that the di
vision which I have suggested of each parable is manifest and nat
ural. In this remark I have joined the last member of verse 5 (John,
xv.) with verse 6, because it has long struck me that the common
division of the verses there is not correct. The reasoning seems
hardly conclusive, 'he that abideth in me . . . beareth natch fruit, be-
A2

6 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW.
in our passage, our Saviour, having spoken of him
self as bread, ' I am the living bread,' and expatia
ted on this thought in respect to his being the
spiritual nourishment of the soul by faith, makes
the same form of transition to treat of himself as
bread in another sense, inasmuch as his flesh is
our real sustenance."
His " principal motive'* for maintaining a tran
sition immediately after verse 47, and the intro
duction of a new topic at verse 53, is " the paral
lelism of the members" of the intermediate verses.
" Nothing to me can be more striking than the
regular arrangement of this discourse from verse
48 to verse 52 inclusively ; and whoever under
stands the principle, and is accustomed to its ap
plication, will immediately, upon inspecting the
passage, as I have transcribed it, in the original
and the version, acknowledge that it stands whol
ly detached from what precedes down to verse
47, and that no transition can be allowed at any
point but that. The following is the whole section
of our Saviour's discourse, versicularly arranged :
(a) ' I am the bread of life.
(b) Your fathers did eat manna (bread from
heaven, see verses 31, 32) in the desert,
cause without me ye can do nothing1 (verse 5). But if we put the
stop after ' much fruit,' and join what follows to the next verse, we
have a most expressive argument. ' Because without me ye can do
nothing, if any one remain not in me, he shall be cast forth as a
worthless branch,' &c. Of course I need not remind my readers
that we owe our present division into verses to the elder Stephanus,
who made it for his relaxation inter equitandum." — The author's might
>'e thought to have been made infer dormiendum.

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 7
(c) And are dead.
(a) This is the bread
(b) Descending from heaven, (such),
(c) That if any one eat of it, he may not die.
(a) I am the living bread
(b) Which came down from heaven.
.(c) If any man eat of this bread, he shall
live forever.
'And the bread which I will give is my flesh for
the life of the world.'
" You cannot avoid remarking the*nice balance
of these lines. All those marked (a) contain the
same ideas of bread, and generally of life; the
second ones (b) speak of the descent of this bread
from heaven, contrasted with the manna ; the
third (c) impress its worth in the same compar
ative view. The last clause sums up and imbodr
ies the substance of the preceding. That repeti
tion of the same idea and phrase, which at first
sight appears superfluous in this passage, entirely
vanishes upon viewing this arrangement, and there
is a beautiful progression of sentiment, which gives
a "value to every repetition. Not to detain you
with too many remarks, I will only instance the
progressive character of the lines marked (c).
The first speaks of the want of an immortalizing
quality in manna; the second attributes such a
quality to the manna of the new Covenant, but in
negative terms, ' that if any one eat of it, he may
not die ;' the third expresses the same sentiment
in a positive and energetic form. ' If any man

8 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW
eat of this bread, he shall live forever.' " I le *ve it
to Dr. Wiseman and the admirers of his Mag
nus Apollo in this department of Sacred Litera
ture, Bishop Jebb,* to " remark the nice balance
of the lines" in this portion " of our Saviour's dis
course, versicularly arranged." I content myself
with the remark, that the verses whose members
this hermeneutical Procrustes has subjected to his
operation, imbody the simple expression of a deep
ly important truth, rising, as is most natural, and
in accordance with our Lord's manner and that of
his Evangelist, from a negative intimation to a
strong, positive, life-inspiring declaration. Such
extravagant abuse of the true principle of Hebrew
parallelism tends to degrade this beautiful and po
etic characteristic of that sacred and venerable
tongue. The limit that separates the sublime from
the ridiculous is only one short step.
Dr. Wiseman considers his " attempt to prove
that there is a marked division of the discourse"
as successful and important. On the former point,
the reader must judge. The " importance" of it
consists in its removing the " objection, that if*is
doing a violence to our Saviour's discourse to sup
pose that he passes from one subject to another
where there is nothing to indicate such a transi
tion." " To remove it still farther," he refers to
* No disrespect is intended to Bishop Jebb by this remark. Still
I cannot but think that he has carried his application of the princi
ples of parallelism to a degree wholly unwarranted, and, indeed, es-
extravagant. See his Sacred Literature, London. 1831, 8vo.

EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW. 9
what he is pleased to call " a perfectly parallel
instance," in " the 24th and 25th chapters of St.
Matthew." " The first part of the discourse con
tained in these chapters refers entirely to the de
struction of Jerusalem. It is acknowledged that
its concluding portion is referable only to the final
judgment ; now where does the transition between
the two occur? Why, some of the best com
mentators, as Kuinoel, and after him Bloomfield,
place it at the forty-third verse of the twenty-fourth
chapter. Now, if you read that passage atten
tively, you will be struck with the similarity of
this transition to the one I have laid down for the
sixth chapter of St. John. In the preceding verse
(42) our Lord sums up the substance of the fore
going instruction, just as he does in John, vi., 47.
' Watch ye, therefore, because ye know not at
what hour your Lord will come.' ' Amen, amen,
I say unto you, he that believeth in me hath ever
lasting life.' He then resumes apparently the
same figure, drawn from the necessity of watching
a house, as he does that of bread in our case ; but
then the conclusion of the discourse points out that
the ' coming of the Son of man' now mentioned
(verse 44) is no longer the moral and invisible
one spoken of in the preceding section (verses 30,
37), but a real and substantial advent in the body
(xxv., 31)."
In reference to this intended illustration of the
author, I would make two observations: first, the
transition spoken of may inJIed be found in the

10 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW.
43d verse, but it may also be found with at least
as much probability, and in harmony with sound
exegetical principles, in the 36th. With the words
"that day and hour," compare verse 42, "ye
know not what hour your Lord doth come ;" verse
44, " in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of
man cometh ;" verse 50, " the Lord of that servant
will come in a day when he looketh not for him,
and in an hour that he is not aware of;" xxv., 13,
"ye know neither the day nor the hour." The
author's argument assumes the transition to be at
the 43d verse ; and if this assumption should be
unfounded, the " perfect parallel" is no parallel at
all. Secondly, there is this striking difference be
tween the discourse in St. Matthew and that in
St. John. In the latter no change of subject is
either required by the series of instruction, or nat
ural in itself; in the former it is universally granted
by judicious expositors that a transition is abso
lutely necessary, in order to give a fair and in
telligible meaning to the language. The latter
part of the xxvth chapter contains undeniably a
different Subject from that which is apparent on
the face of the former part of the xxivth.
The author concludes his discussion of this topic
by stating, " that a learned and acute modern Prot
estant commentator has observed, that it is man
ifest that pur Saviour cannot have been under
stood to^continue the same subject at verse 51."
It would be unjustjo Dr. Tholuck, the expositor
referred to, to allow him to be understood as ex-

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMANS VIEW. 11
pressing the view which this statement naturally
implies. He is explaining the whole portion from
verse 51 to verse 59 inclusive, and on citing the
latter half of verse 51, "and the bread which I
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life
of the world," he remarks, that the language ical —
<Je, denoting " a more extended development of the
thought, shows that Christ does not here express
the same that he had declared before." Even
these two lines, the latter of which is quoted by
the lecturer, might have shown himlhat Tholuck
means to represent our Lord as more fully de
veloping the view already given by adding a par
ticular circumstance of importance; But what
estimate must we form of the accuracy of Dr.
Wiseman's statements, when we find his author
proceeding as follows, immediately after the words
quoted : *' Having represented, in general, his ap
pearance in humanity as a divine food, he now
intends to show in what respect it is so particu
larly. If his intention had been to express by
these words only the very same idea before con
veyed, no reason can be given why he should
change the quite clear expression, ' I am the living
bread,' for the somewhat obscure one, 'I will
give you my flesh.' The future I will give refers
to something yet to take place." He means
Christ's death, as he afterward explains it. The
same judicious distinction between the general
thought and a more particular development of it
had been clearly stated on the preceding page,

12 EXAMINATION OF DE. WISEMAN^ VIEW.
where the profoundly learned and pious author re
marks that " an accurate examination of the whole
connexion, and of the particular phrases employed,
shows that a more special meaning must be con
nected with these expressions, namely, that Christ,
having before only in a general way represented
his incarnation as a divine living power, now makes
prominent what was able, in a sense altogether
peculiar, to convey that power of life, that is to
say, his redeeming death, as the crowning point of
his redeeming life."* Had Dr. Wiseman read
the work to which he refers, in confirmation of
his own imagined " transition to a new section of
our Lord's discourse 1" and if so, does he call his
representation of the author's views a fair one ?f
Dr. Wiseman proceeds, in his second lecture, to
adduce farther evidence " that a complete change
of topic takes place after the 48th verse." After
showing that " the phrases which occur in the
first part of the discourse were calculated to con
vey to the minds of those who heard our Saviour
* Commentar zum Evangelio Johannis, Hamburg, 1833, p. 129,
130. t Wiseman elsewhere does manifest injustice to " this learned and
amiable professor," whom he regards " with great personal esteem
and friendship," p. 141, 142. Correction in this case, however, can
hardly be considered as necessary, as one who knows anything of
the character of Tholuck as a commentator will not suspect him of
the weakness of rejecting an interpretation, "because otherwise we
must become Catholics /" He does indeed say , that " if the expressions
are not tropical, they would prove too much, namely, the Catholic
doctrine." But he does not allege the fact of its being Catholic doc
trine as proof of its being too much. He presumes this to be al
ready evident on other grounds.

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN S VIEW. 13
the idea of listening to his doctrines and believing
in him, and the more so, as he positively explain
ed them in that sense," he affirms, " that after the
transition a totally different phraseology occurs,
which, to his hearers, could not possibly convey
that meaning, nor any other save that of a real
eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood"
p. 59, 60. My purpose confines me to an exami
nation of this last statement.*
After giving several of the clauses which speak
of " eating the flesh and drinking th« blood," the
author proceeds with his comment. This I shall
now quote, accompanied by such remarks as ap
pear suited to its character.
" 1. We have seen above, that after our Saviour,
in consequence of difficulties found by the Jews,
had commenced, at verse 35, to explain his senti
ments literally, he never returns again to the fig
urative expression until after he closes that sec
tion at verse 47. If we suppose him to continue
the same topic after this verse, we must believe
him, after having spent thirteen verses in doing
* In illustrating the phraseology of the former portion of the dis
course, the author calls our attention to what he considers as "very
remarkable," namely, " that never once through this part does our
Saviour suffer the idea of eating him to escape his lips," p. 63. It is
true, he does not employ the language, but let any one compare
verses 32, 33, 35, 48, 50, with 57, 58, and he will see that they con
tain the idea, for they both imply and assert that the bread is to be
eaten, and that he is the bread ; verses 51-58 inclusive show plainly
that to eat him, which is identical with eating the bread that came
down from heaven, and to eat his flesh and drink his blood, are
equivalent in meaning. B

14 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAn's VIEW.
away with the obscurity of his parabolic expres
sions, and in giving the explanation of its figures,
to return again to his obscure phrases, and to
take up once more the use of the same parable,
which he had so long abandoned for its literal
explanation." To remove the impression intend
ed to be produced by this loose and inaccurate
representation, it will be sufficient to remark, that
several of the assertions here made are wholly
unfounded. So far from the 35th verse begin
ning a " literal explanation of sentiments" before
conveyed by " figurative expression," the very
first statement is figurative : " I am the bread of
life," and so also is the second : " he that cometh
to me shall never hunger." The author must
have presumed that the greater proportion of his
audience would not read the discourse on which
he comments. The docile listener, who has been
so trained as to abandon his natural right of in
quiring and judging for himself, and who, there
fore, acquiesces without examination in the cor
rectness of the statements made in his hearing,
imagines that the lecturer's minute and careful
investigation must be sufficient warrant for the
exposition ; whereas, the intelligent reader, who,
with independence of mind and careful attention,
looks at the discourse for himself, must imme
diately see that the representation made rests on
no solid ground. It is true that, in general, the
language of our Lord in several of the verses
Jbllowing the 35th is literal, but this is also true

EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMANS VIEW. 15
of that which precedes. There is nothing in the
whole portion more literal, indeed nothing can
possibly be more literal, than his answer to the
question, " What shall we do that we may work
the works of God ? This is the work of God, that
ye believe on him whom he hath sent." A simi
larity pervades the whole portion, and there is
no evidence to support such a different mode of
representation as is assumed. Of the thirteen
verses said to be "spent in doing away the ob
scurity of parabolic expressions, and in giving
the explanation of the figures," three are nothing
but a statement of the dissatisfaction of the Jews,
and the Saviour's direction to them to cease their
murmurings. " 2. We have seen likewise how carefully our
Lord avoids, throughout the first part, the harsh
expression to eat him, even where the turn of his
phrase seemed to invite ~ him to use it ; on the
contrary, in the latter section, he* employs it with
out scruple, and even repeats it again and again.
This is a remarkable difference of phraseology
between the two sections." The reader may
form no very incorrect opinion of Dr. Wiseman's
accuracy from this statement. " The harsh ex
pression," which he says is "employed without
scruple, and even repeated again and again," oc
curs once, and only once, in verse 57. The ap
parently harsher expression, " to eat his flesh and
drink his blood," does indeed occur several times
in verses 53-56 ; but this is accounted for by the

16 EXAMINATION OF DR.
close connexion in which these verses stand with
the preceding one, which informs us that " the
Jews strove among themselves, saying, how can
this man give us his flesh to eat ?" a question
which was suggested by our Lord's words re
corded immediately before : " the bread that I
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the
life of the world." Be it noted, also, that this
harsher expression occurs nowhere else in the
whole discourse ; a fact quite consistent with the
opinion, that while the phraseology is altered, the
idea intended to be conveyed remains the same
throughout. No argument can be founded on
"our Lord's avoiding," in the early part of his
discourse, " the expression to eat him, even where
the turn of his phrase" (it is said) " seems to in
vite him to use it ;" for he does the same in what
the author would call " the latter section." See
verses 50, 51, 58, in which he employs the lan
guage, eat of this bread, " avoiding" (I might say)
"the harsh expression," eat me. The difference
of phraseology, therefore, is not so remarkably
great as the doctor would induce his reader to
believe. " 3. So long as Christ speaks of himself as the
object of faith, under the image of a spiritual food,
he represents this food as given by the Father
(verses 32, 33, 39, 40, 44) ; but after verse 47 he
speaks of the food, which he now describes, as to
be given by himself. ' The bread which I will
give is my flesh for the life of the world' (verse

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 17
52). ' How can this man give us his flesh to
eat?' (verse 53). This marked difference in the
giver of the two communications, proposed in the
two divisions of the discourse, points out that a
different gift is likewise promised. If faith is the
gift in both, there is no ground for the distinction
made in them ; if there is a transition to a real
eating, the whole is clear. While we consider
Jesus Christ and his doctrine as the object of our
faith, he is justly described as sent and presented
to us by the Father ; when we view him as giv
ing his flesh to eat, it is by the precious bounty
of his own love towards us." Here it may be
replied, that whether the language of verse 51,
" the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I
will give for the life of the world," be explained
of the atonement made by our Lord " in his own
body on the tree," or in reference to the Romanist
doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist,
the orthodox believer in the Trinity would hardly
deny, that in either case the Father might well
be said to be the giver, while the blessing is
equally the gift of the Son. The " marked dif
ference in the giver," therefore, is rather appa
rent than real, and no inference can be drawn
from it in favour of " a different gift." Both the
sacred persons give the same thing, which may
therefore be stated as the gift of each. The
author's language, " if faith is the gift in both
communications," need hardly be animadverted
on, as its inaccuracy is doubtless attributable to
B2

18 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN S VIEW.
haste or inconsideration. Faith is the instrument
by which the blessed donation is received. No
sound Protestant considers it as the gift itself.
" 4. The difference here discernible between
the givers is no less marked regarding the ef
fects of the gift. To both are attributed the hav
ing everlastirfg life, and being raised up at the
last day (verses 40, 44, 47, 52, 55, 59). But be
yond this there is a marked distinction. In the first
part of the discourse our blessed Saviour always
speaks of our coming to him through the attrac
tion or drawing of the Father (verses 35, 36, 44,
45). Now this expression is ever used when
speaking of faith, to which we apply that part
of his discourse. For example : ' Come unto me,
all you that labour' (Mat., xi., 28, cf. 27) ; ' Every
one that cometh to me, and heareth my words, and
doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like'
(Luke, vi., 47) ; ' Search the Scriptures, for you
think in them to have everlasting life ; and the
same are they that give testimony of me ; and
ye will not come to me, that ye may have life'
(John, v., 39, 40) ; ' If any man thirst, let him come
unto me and drink. He that believeth in me,'
&c. (vji., 37, 38), where the same image is used as
in the first part of the discourse in the sixth chap
ter. Hence our Redeemer, at the conclusion of
his discourse, says, ' But there are some of you
that believe not  therefore did I say to you,
that no man can come unto me, unless it be given
him by the Father.' In this manner, the quali-

EXAMINATION OP DE. WISEMAN S VIEW. 19
ties of the first method of receiving Christ's food,
are precisely what we should expect if he treated
of belief.
" But, after the place where we suppose the tran
sition made, he speaks no longer of our coming
to him, but of our abiding in him, and he in us
(verses 57, 58). And this is a phrase which al
ways intimates union by love. Thus (John, xiv.,
23), ' If any one love me, he will keep my word,
and my Father will love him, and we will come
to him, and will make our abode with him.' In
the 15th chapter (verses 4-9), the figure drawn
from the necessity of the branches being united
to the vine, gives the same result. ' As the
branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abide
in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide
in me  Abide in my love.' In the first Epis
tle of St. John, it is distinguished from faith as an
effect from the cause. ' If that abide in you which
you have heard from the beginning (the word of
faith), you also shall abide in the Son and in the
Father' (ii., 24). ' And now, little children, abide
in him, that when he shall come we may have con
fidence, and not be confounded by him at his com
ing.' These words are more clearly explained
in the 4th chapter (verses 16, 17), 'He that abi
deth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.
In this is the charity of God perfected within us,
that we may have confidence in the day of judg
ment' In addition, compare iii., 24; iv., 12, 13."
A plain man would think that " the difference

20 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW.
in the effects" cannot be very " marked," if such
blessed consequences " as having everlasting life,
and being raised up at the last day," are equally
the result of each. Does Dr. Wiseman mean that
" beyond this there is a marked distinction ?"
After having greatly excited our desire to know
what this extraordinary distinction is, he tells us
that " in the first part of the discourse," and else
where, our Saviour speaks of faith by the lan
guage coming to him, but after the supposed tran
sition he does not speak of our coming to, but of
our abiding in him, which intimates a union by
love ; to illustrate which he quotes several very
apposite passages. Hence he concludes that " we
have the effects of the doctrine inculcated after
the 48th verse, given us quite different from those
before rehearsed ; and as the latter apply io faith,
these are such as describe a union with Christ
through love. Something, therefore, is here deliv
ered or instituted, which tends to nourish and per
fect this virtue, and not faith ; the topic, therefore,
is changed, and a transition has taken place. And
what institution more suited to answer this end
than the Blessed Eucharist? What could be
more truly an instrument or means for our abiding
in Christ and Christ in us?" He allows everlast
ing life to be the effect of faith, while, at the same
time, he implies that a union with Christ by love,
taught exclusively in the latter part of our Lord's
discourse, is an effect "quite different" from and
" beyond" it. Does he mean to teach us that ev-

EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 21
erlasting life, the legitimate " effect" of faith, is at
tainable without a union with Christ, and that such
union draws after it some other "effect," some
higher benefit ? " Something," says he, " is here
delivered or instituted, which tends to nourish and
perfect this virtue (love), and not faith; the topic,
therefore, is changed, and a transition has taken
place." Undoubtedly something is here delivered
and taught which does more directly tend to nour
ish and perfect love, and that something i& " a true
and lively faith," such as St. Paul describes in He
brews, xi., 1, " which stirreth and worketh inward
ly in the heart."* Why, then, should we suppose
that the topic is changed ? Why is not the same
living principle acting in all its holy energy upon
the object which, most of all, is likely to call forth
its efficiency, that is, the one sacrifice of Christ's
precious body and blood, still to be regarded as
the sole topic of our Lord's discourse throughout?
There is evidently no reason for supposing a
change of subject at all ; but if there were, the
newly-introduced topic would be, by the author's
own showing, " a union with Christ by love."
Any especial reference to the eucharist would be,
I do not say inadmissible, but certainly unneces
sary. " 5. Our opponents suppose the phrases in the
two portions of the discourse to be parallel, and
to refer equally to faith. By this reasoning it fol-
* See Homily entitled " A short Declaration of the true, lively, and
Christian Faith."

22 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW.
lows, that to eat his flesh (verses 54, 55, 56, 57)
means the same as to possess the bread of life
mentioned in the former section (verses 32, 33,
35)." And what does the author advance to show
that it does not ? " If," says he, " to feed on
Christ mean to believe in Christ, then to eat the
flesh of Christ (if the phrase has to be considered
parallel) must signify to believe in the flesh of
Christ. This is absurd : for the flesh and blood
of Christ were not an object of faith to those who
really sinned by bejieying him too literally to
be only a man ; nor can our belief in them be the
source of eternal life." — P. 71. Now this is mere
trifling ; for no Protestant, in view of our Lord's
discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John, ever
identified " believing in the flesh of Christ" with
believing him " too literally to be only a man :"
and this the learned writer very well knew. The
figment is original with Dr. Wiseman. The views
implied or referred to in the remainder of the par
agraph have already been considered, or shall be
in the sequel.
The author, however, seems to think that all
the nice distinctions which he has thus far made
are either themselves of little importance (an
opinion which I am sure will have the sanction
of a large proportion of his most judicious read
ers), or else that, however great may be their ab
solute force when placed in the balance with the
vast weight of what remains in the last place to
be adduced, their comparative lightness will be

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 23
perceived by every one. His sixth and conclu
ding demonstration is introduced as follows :
" 6; But all the differences which I have hith
erto pointed out are mere prceludia to the real,
and, I trust, decisive examination of the point
which yet remains." Notwithstanding the array
of learning displayed in the argument thus in
troduced,* I shall venture to endeavour to follow
the steps of the erudite author. If, perchance,
something like a slip of the leader's foot should
here and there be traced on the surface, let it not
be forgotten that to stand firmly on such a ground
requires all but a native right to the soil.
The argument is philological. The author in
quires into the meaning of the phrase, " to eat the
flesh of a person," in order to ascertain whether,
when used by our Lord in this chapter, it can " be
taken figuratively." And, after stating that the
words must either be taken in their literal sense,
or else in that figurative sense which usage has
attached to them, he affirms, " that whether we
examine the phraseology of the Bible, or the ordi
nary language of the people who still inhabit the
same country, and have inherited the same ideas,
or, in fine, the very language in which our Sav
iour addressed the Jews, we shall find the expres-
* The edition of Dr. Wiseman's book which I have made use of
is that of Philadelphia, published by Eugene Cummiskey. If it
should be thought advisable to issue another edition, it is hoped that
attention will be paid to the Hebrew and Arabic quotations. The
unfortunate misplacing of the words must have excited a smile in the
author, if a copy of this should have fallen into his hands.

24 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN S VIEW.
sion, to eat the flesh of a person, signifying inva
riably, when used metaphorically, to attempt to do
him some serious injury, principally by calum
ny or false accusation. Such, therefore, was
the only figurative meaning which the phrases
could present to the audience at Capernaum." —
P. 74.
He proceeds to show that the phrase in ques
tion is thus used in the Hebrew Bible, and occa
sionally in the New Testament ; also, that the
same metaphorical terms appear in the Koran
and other Arabic writings ; and that, in Latin,
and, indeed, in most languages, calumny is ex
pressed under the figure of gnawing, biting, &c.
All this is, of course, unquestionable.
He then "passes to the language which our Sav
iour himself spoke" (or is generally supposed to
have spoken), " and which was vernacular among
the Jews whom he addressed." He shows that
the same sort of figurative language appears in
Chaldee and in Syriac. But it ought not to es
cape his reader's notice, that the usage in these
languages, as appealed to by Dr. Wiseman, is not
precisely parallel with the phrase to eat the flesh
of one, the original words being H 'Sip *?3N, and
invariably meaning, to eat bits or morsels of one,
not x~\D2, flesh ; in the words of Winer, whom he
quotes, " alicujus frusta comedere," " die Stilcken
jemandes fressen." Still, though there is some
difference in the words, the expression no doubt
means to calumniate.

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN S VIEW. 25
Here it may be remarked, in passing, that Dr.
Wiseman's assertion, " that the name 6id6oXoc
(devil) is translated throughout the Syriac ver
sion of the New Testament by x:np ^n. ochel
kartzo, the eater of flesh" (a bit), is strangely in
correct. The author makes the same statement
in his Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and
Practices of the Catholic Church. , The fact
stands thus : The word 8id6oXoc occurs in the
New Testament thirty-eight times, in nineteen of
which the Syriac version does not employ this ex
pression, but four others. Once, Luke, viii., 12,
it uses a compound term, denoting enemy ; once,
Acts, x., 38, the word for wicked or evil ; three
times, Rev., xii., 9, 12 ; xx., 2, a word synony
mous with impostor, deceiver ; and fourteen times,
Matt, xiii., 39. Luke, iv., 5. John, vi., 70 ; xiii.,
2. 1 Tim., iii., 6, 7. 2 Tim., ii., 26. Heb., ii.,
14. James, iv., 7. 1 Pet, v., 8. 1 John, iii7 8,
three times, and verse 10, the word Satan. The
representation of Dr. Wiseman is true only of the
other nineteen places in which Sid6oXoc is found.
This should make the reader cautious how he re
ceives the doctor's statements of this kind without
examination ; for it must be admitted that, in this
instance, there is an unpardonable want of accu
racy, to say the least*
* Since writing the above, the author's reply to certain English
controversial publications has come into my hands. In the fourth
Lecture of his original work, p. 145, in endeavouring to show that the
term flesh cannot be used in our Lord's discourse to denote " the lit
eral sense," as " letter is in some instances," he adds, " especially in
c

26 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW.
In the third Lecture he proceeds to show that
the Jews regarded drinking blood as highly crim-
a chapter wherein it has been used twenty times in its ordinary mean
ing." One of his opponents, Dr. Turton, mentions the fact that the
word had been employed before the 63d verse but five times by our
Lord, and once by the Jews. Dr. Wiseman endeavours to vindicate
himself from the charge of " extraordinary exaggeration" by saying,
that by the expression " twenty times, he meant, as every one not
engaged in controversy would have understood, often." — Reply, p. 19.
The reader will determine whether such looseness is allowable in a
writer engaged in philological discussion. The remargin a note, that
he " had accurately stated, in its proper place, the number of times
the phrase was used, while here the subject came in indirectly," is
inadmissible, as the frequency of the use of the term was evidently
intended to have a bearing on his argument.
Another representation of this author is of so extraordinary a na
ture that I forbear any attempt to characterize it. In his second lec
ture, p. 87, 88, he had quoted from Tittmann's Meletemata Sacra. Dr.
Turton objected to his application of this writer's language. In re
ply, after speaking of " the Regius Professor's either blundering or
unfair comment" as " a curious specimen of the learning of a contro
versialist," our author remarks as follows : "But this is not the most
curious part of this extraordinary proceeding. I quoted the Melete
mata Sacra. I suppose the learned professor was unacquainted with
the work ; so, like a good controversialist — certainly not like a good
scholar — he goes to another work of Tittmann's, and from that at
tempts to confute me. This is his commentary on St. John. Now
in this, Tittman, being a Protestant, interrupts our Lord's discourse
Protestantly, and says, ' apud nostras,' that is, among German Prot
estants, there is no doubt that no reference is here intended to the
Blessed Sacrament. But how, I ask, does this opinion of Tittmann's
invalidate his statement, that it is not by the usus loquendi that this
interpretation is attained, which is all that I quoted him for ? Sup
pose that the learned German admits other ways of arriving at an ex
planation of phrases ; this does not prove my allegation of him false,
when I cited him to contradict Mr. Townsend's assertion, that the
Protestant interpretation is based on the usus loquendi. The words
from the Meletemata Sacra axe as clear as those from the Commenta
ry; nor will any quotation from the latter obscure or invalidate the
former." — Reply, &c, p. 186.
The scholar will know what to think of this. The merely general

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 27
inal, and eating human flesh as implying " the most
dreadful curse which the Almighty could inflict."
Hence he infers that our Saviour cannot be sup
posed to " have clothed doctrines no ways repul
sive under imagery drawn from such an odi
ous source ; that nothing but the absolute neces
sity of using such phrases could justify the re
currence to them ; and, therefore, that he used
them because it was his wish to teach the doctrine
which they literally convey, that of the Real Pres
ence."— P. 97, 98. •
The proposition on which the argument is based
is undoubtedly true. The Hebrews, in common
with a large proportion of mankind, cherished the
feeling ascribed to them ; but the inference found
ed upon it is by no means a necessary result.
The figure of eating is suggested by the miracle
performed the day before ; it is continued, most
probably, in consequence of the captious Jews
having referred to the manna, as miraculously
given by Moses for the support of their forefathers ;
reader will hardly believe me when I assure him that the Melete
mata Sacra is trie same book as the Commentary — that the very
words "apud nostras" (to which the learned author adds, "nee apud
verum doctum esse potest," showing that he had no idea of limiting
the doubt to " German Protestants") occur on p. 276, which are here
professedly drawn from " another work" — and, moreover, that the
edition quoted by Wiseman, in his second Lecture, is that of Leipsic,
1816, now lying before me, the title-page of which is as follows :
" Caroli Christiani Tittmanni, Theol. Doct., &c, &c, Meletemata
Sacra sive Commentarius Exegetico-Critico-Dogmaticus in Evan
gelium Joannis." Comment is superfluous. — Tittmann's book is
well worth, the attention of theological students. It is learned, sen
sible, and pious.

28 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW.
and the particular phraseology evidently repeats
and amplifies the language of their own objection,
as I have just stated. The expressions, to eat me,
and to eat my flesh and drink my blood, contain
identically the same thought ; and if the one would
necessarily be revolting to a Jew, as implying
what is disgusting and criminal, so also would the
other, as intimating to his mind the idea of canni
balism. And yet it is allowed that this might be,
and it is quite evident that it is, employed in the
figurative meaning, which those who dissent from
the doctrine of the Real Presence would attach to
the other. (See p. 70, bot.) The argument of
the author is vastly stronger against the whole
doctrine of transubstantiation than it is against
a figurative use of such phraseology. The infer
ence naturally to be drawn, when language is em
ployed which " orders a person to commit what
he" not only " deems, but really is, a heinous crime,"
is this, that such language must not be understood
literally ; whereas, according to Wiseman's sys
tem, our Lord's hearers, and his followers in every
age, are actually required to do what is consider
ed so exceedingly criminal. Surely, in avoiding
an imaginary Scylla, the lecturer has plunged into
a real Charybdis.
I proceed now to what is called " the most im
portant proof." This is stated to be " the direct
testimony of those addressed (as) to how they un
derstood our Saviour, and his warrant for the cor
rectness of their interpretation." — P. 99, 100. The

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN S VIEW. 29
former remark proves nothing more than that the
Jews misunderstood him, as they had often done
before ; the latter would settle the point if it could
be admitted, but, unfortunately, it is not true.
Before I examine the grounds alleged by the au
thor in defence of it, I cannot but express my
wonder that he should close some observations
tending merely to show how our Lord's hearers
understood him, with the language, " Thus far,
then, we have the strongest testimony we can re
quire to our Saviour's having passed in his dis
course to the literal eating of his flesh" (p. 102),
when the testimony does not purpose to prove
anything beyond this single point, that he had been
literally understood by them. Their misaporehen-
sion is represented as the real meaning !
He asserts, " That whenever our Lord's hearers
found difficulties or raised objections to his words,
from taking them in their literal sense, while he
intended them to be taken figuratively, his con
stant practice was to explain them instantly in a
figurative manner,* even though no great error
could result from their being misunderstood." —
P. 103. He adduces several instances (although
Matt, xix., 24, and John, viii., 21, are very little
to the point), and undoubtedly our Lord very often
did explain his meaning. But to infer from ordi
nary practice a universal, invariable usage, with
out a single exception, cannot be admitted. There
* He means, that our Lord made his hearers know that the lan
guage was figurative, and communicated his thought in proper terms.
C 2

30 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW.
might be strong reasons, and sometimes not ascer
tainable by us, for omitting explanation in partic
ular cases, which would not ordinarily apply.
The conclusion drawn is universal in its applica
tion, while the induction of particulars intended to
sustain it is, at the most, only general. Admitting
that our Lord adopted the method of instructing
by parable in order to make the best and most
lasting impression, it is impossible to deny that he
explained himself more clearly to his disciples than
he did to certain others. " Unto you it is given to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but
unto them that are without all these things are
done in parables. Without a parable spake he not
unto them, and when they were alone he expound
ed all things to his disciples." — Mark, iv., 11, 34.
In Matt., xvi., 4, indignant at the people's contin
ued want of faith, notwithstanding the most direct
evidence, he declares that no sign should be given
them but that of Jonas the prophet, without ex
plaining wherein it consisted ; and in xxi., 27, he
expressly refuses to " tell by what authority" he
acted. The cases in John, ii., 19, 20, and in iv.,
10-15, where his figurative language is misunder
stood, while nothing explanatory is added, are ex
amined by the author ; but he does in express
words, and with marked inconsistency, abandon
his own theory, and contradict the affirmation
with which he set out. In the words just quoted
he states that " our Lord's constant practice was
to explain;" on page 107, "from examples" alleged

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAn's VIEW. 31
by him, he " deduces a very certain corollary or
canon, that whenever our Saviour's expressions
were erroneously taken in their literal sense, and
he meant them to be figurative, it was his con
stant practice instantly to explain himself, and let
his audience understand that his words were to
be taken figuratively." Let us turn now to page
117 and 119. "I have never said that our Sav
iour was bound to answer, the objections of the
Jews ; but I have examined only his practice when
lie did answer or explain, and have fou»d that his
conduct was precisely that of an honest and up
right teacher, who corrected mistakes,* and enfor
ced his doctrines without fear. But in the case of
John, ii., he deems it right to give no answer at all,
and the passage only proves that our Saviour
sometimes declined answering an abjection" (he
should have said explaining a figure). " To the
instance," in John, iv., " I will briefly reply, that
our Saviour declines answering'' the Samaritan
woman's " difficulty at all." Really, either bonus
dormitat Homerus noster, or he presumes very
much on the lethargic disposition of his hearers
and readers. The avowed abandonment of his
own principle entirely precludes the necessity of
a more minute examination of his remark.
The author's fourth and last Lecture remains to
be considered. In it he continues his argument by
* Does the doctor mean to imply, that when he did not correct mis
takes, that is, when he did not answer or explain, his conduct was
not precisely that of an honest and upright teacher ?

32 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW.
an " analysis of our Saviour's answer to the Jew*
and their incredulity," and also by examining his
conduct to his disciples and apostles. After an
swering " objections to" what he is pleased to call
" the Catholic interpretation of the chapter," he
closes the subject. — P. 123, seq.
In reviewing the author's course of remark, it is
impossible to avoid the difficulty of prolixity,
which most probably the reader, in common with
myself, has already felt in this discussion. It is
necessary to present the argument, if not in all cases
as fully as it is stated in the author's work, yet al
ways sufficiently so to be clearly understood, and
afterward to say what may be proper in reply.
What in the original Lecture may be comprehend
ed within very narrow limits, may require a con
siderable space in order to be suitably examined.
I shall endeavour to be brief, unless at the expense
of necessary indefiniteness and obscurity.
1. The first argument is founded on " the double
form, negative and positive," in which the " pre
cept" that contains the " doctrine" is conveyed
(verses 53, 54), which he compares with "the
words of St. Mark, ' He that believeth and is bap
tized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall
be condemned,' " xvi., 16. Hence he is led to make
'two reflections:" first, "the beautiful similarity
of form with which we find the two principal sac
raments of the Christian religion inculcated, if with
the Catholic Cnurch we suppose the words of St
John to refer to the Eucharist;" and, secondly

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN S VIEW. 33
" the clearness of the expression in St. Mark, and
the absolute absence of comprehensibility in that
of St. John, the moment we take it in the Protest
ant sense." Neither of these reflections contains
any argument. The latter is an instance of that
begging of the question which appears not unfre-
quently in the work, and, consequently, does not
require notice ; and the former only proves that
the form of expression in the two cases is similar.
To infer from this that the words under consider-
ation were intended to teach the doctrine of the
Real Presence is ridiculous. All that the compari
son of the two places shows is this, that in giving
instructions, or laying down laws with their sanc
tions, our Lord and his Apostles sometimes adopt
the negative and the positive forms in connexion.
Among numerous instances, it may be sufficient to
select two. •' Whosoever shall confess me before
men, him will I confess also before my Father
which is in heaven ; but whosoever shall deny me
before men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven." — Matt, x., 32, 33. " He that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ; and he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him." — John, iii., 36.
2. Our search, for argument in the next para
graph is equally fruitless. Indeed, the writer here
shows a rashness in exposing his Church to attack
which is really amazing. " In these words, our
Lord makes a distinction between eating his body
and drinking his blood ; a distinction without any

34 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW.
real signification or force, if he be not speaking of
the Real Presence ; for to partake of the blood of
Christ by faith adds nothing to the idea of parta
king of his body." I will not lay any stress on
the fact, that in this discourse our Lord never em
ploys the word " body" at all (although, in refer
ence to the interpretation which explains it exclu
sively of the eucharist, it is not unimportant), for
its use by our author may be a mere inadvertence.
But if there really be such a significant and forci
ble distinction, and if the command to drink the
blood is as unlimited as that to eat the flesh, both
being intended to be understood literally, on what
ground of Scripture or reason do Dr. Wiseman
and his coadjutors withhold the blood from the
people, that very blood which has a distinctive
force and significancy ? So far as anything like
argument in the passage may be discerned, the
answer is simply what has been before said, name
ly, that the two phrases eating the flesh and drink
ing the blood are employed emphatically, both con
veying the idea of a thorough reception, and, by
consequence, a most intimate union.
3. The third argument is founded partly on the
supposition that our Saviour meant to answer an
objection, and partly on the asseveration expressed
by the words verily, verily. This, it is said, is
unwarrantable, " if he meant to be understood only
of a belief in his death, to which doctrine the ob
jection of the Jews was not directed." Certainly it
was not. Neither is it said by orthodox Protestants

EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN'S "VIEW. 85
that a mere belief in his death is what our Lord
intended ; but a belief in it as an atoning sacrifice
for sin, and such a belief as recognises its value
and necessity, giving to the believer a vital union
with the sacred object of his faith, and leading
him to a correspondent life of obedience. This
is what the hearers had no conception of, and
therefore they express not so much their " objec
tion to the doctrine," as their inability to under
stand the meaning of the words by which it was
conveyed. " How can this man give^ us his flesh
to eat ?" is equivalent to saying, " this is unintelli
gible and absurd." The " strong asseveration" is
not, as Dr. Wiseman supposes, " an answer to a
difficulty," but a repetition of the announcement
before made, and it is imbodied in the very words
of the cavillers. Whether the supposition, that he
thus " insists on the necessity of believing in him"
in such a way as has been just stated, " is to ima
gine him acting wantonly and insincerely with
their judgment and feelings whom he had under
taken to instruct," as the author affirms, is a point
which shall be afterward considered.
4. The next remark relates to the expression in
verse 55, " my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood
is drink indeed," or " truly meat and truly drink,"
which he regards as " confirming the literal mean
ing of the words." He acknowledges " that the
word truly* is spoken, not merely of identity of
* Whether we adopt the reading afoidfc or iXndws, the sense re
mains the same.

36 EXAMINATION OF DR.
things, but also of their qualities, so that Christ
calls himself the true vine when he only spake in
parables." But he asks, " While the Jews under
stood our Saviour to speak of really intending to
give them his flesh to eat, if they were wrong, can
we suppose him to answer them by saying, that
his flesh was really meat? Or can we, under*
these circumstances, imagine him to use the word
at all, and that twice and emphatically, unless he
wished to be taken literally?" This is nothing
more than a repetition of what he had said in the
former paragraph, and might be dismissed without
farther remark. Yet it may be well to note, that
the same sort of language is employed in a pre
vious part of the chapter, where no one thinks of
a literal interpretation. See verses 32-35, and
compare Luke, xvi., 11. "If ye have not been
faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will
commit to your trust the true ?" The use of the
word does not prove that it must be taken literal
ly, but, rather, that it is intended to impress and
inculcate some most important consideration
5. The last '-' confirmation" of the literal sense is
found in "the harsh expression (verse 57), 'he that
eateth me.' " It is left to make its own impression
on the reader, whom it is sufficient to remind, that
wisdom, personified under the image of a female,
employs the same language : " They that eat me
shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall
yet be thirsty." — Eccles., xxiv., 21.
Dr. Wiseman, having thus satisfied himself that

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 37
" almost in every phrase this reply of our Saviour
affords a strong confirmation of the Catholic doc
trine," proceeds " to consider the effects which this
answer produced upon his hearers."
1. "Instead of removing their previous difficul
ties, it manifestly confirmed them." They regard
ed his " proposition as harsh and revolting, and
could not bear to listen to it. They were more
convinced than ever that he spoke of the real man-
ducation of his flesh." — All this only shows that
they persisted in misunderstanding his«meaning.
2. " Jesus answered these murmurs by the
words, Doth this scandalize you ? If, then, ye shall
see the Son of Man ascend up where he was be
fore ! (verses 61, 62)." According to Dr. Wiseman,
the object of this reply of our Lord " is to refer his
auditors to a great and striking proof which he
was to give that he had divine authority to teach,
and that his words were to be believed, whatever
difficulties they might present." And this view,
he thinks, is illustrated by John, i., 50, 51, and
Matt., xxvi., 63, 64. He " considers the appeal
to his ascension in the sixth chapter of St. John" as
equivalent to the inquiry, " Would you not receive
my word after such a confirmation?" But the
force of this argument depends wholly on the au
thor's interpretation of the question ; whereas the
more natural sense, and which is better sustained
by the context, is that which makes our Lord im
ply the absurdity of the literal meaning, by ap
pealing to the manifest unreasonableness and self-
D

38 EXAMINATION OF DR.
contradiction of literally eating his flesh and drink
ing his blood, after his body should have been re
moved from them into heaven.
3. " The consequence of this conference is, that
' many of his disciples went back, and walked no
more with him' (verse 67). Can we suppose that
Jesus would have allowed things to come to this
extremity, that he would cast away forever many
of his disciples, when an explanation in two words
would have saved them ? And yet even this did
he, if the Protestant interpretation of his discourse
be true." Here, again, the lecturer assumes, more
suo, an honest and candid disposition in the dis
ciples who relapsed. But let us suppose that they
were governed by worldly and merely prudential
considerations, and we may easily account for
their going back, as " they had no root in them
selves." They may have sought the prophet of
Nazareth, " not because they saw the miracles"
and felt their force, " but because they did eat of
the loaves and were filled," and hoped to eat again.
This representation of their character will be more
particularly illustrated, and its correctness evinced.
in a subsequent part of the Essay.
4. Christ's conduct towards the twelve is al
leged as " affording additional assurance of the
correctness of the literal interpretation of his dis
course. He asks them, after the departure of oth
er disciples, ' Will ye also go ?' Whoever reads
the answer which Peter gives to this touching
question must be convinced that the Apostles were

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 39
manifestly perplexed as to the nature of their di
vine Master's intentions. For Peter does not even
allude to the doctrines taught, but throws himself
entirely upon his belief in our Saviour's authority,
and answers accordingly : ' Lord, to whom shall
we go ? thou hast the words of eternal life.' —
(Verse 69.) Now when we consider that to them
it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom
of God, it must appear extraordinary that even
to them he should not have condescended to give
any explanation of this singular enigma, which
Protestants suppose him to have been uttering.
By one only hypothesis can we solve this difficul
ty, by acknowledging that they had really under
stood him right, but that he spoke of a mystery
which only required faith — and that they had
clearly professed through Peter — but which could
not receive any explanation, so as to bring it with
in the comprehension of reason."
To reply as nearly as possible in the writer's
own words, I would say : " When we consider
that to the Apostles it was given to know the mys
teries of the kingdom of God,* it must appear ex
traordinary that even to them he should not have
condescended to give any" illustration of, or to
remove any difficulty relating to, "this singular
mystery, which" Romanists " suppose him to have
been uttering." For, allowing that it " cannot re
ceive any explanation so as to bring it within the
comprehension of reason," yet, as it is apparently
* Luke, viii, 10.

40 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMANS VIEW.
at variance with reason, and certainly contradict
ed by the testimony of four of the five senses, it is
impossible to " solve the difficulty" pressed upon us
by the want of any attempt to elucidate the doc
trine, or to lessen the perplexity which must have
embarrassed the minds of the Apostles, except
" by acknowledging that." the exposition suggested
by our Lord, when he said, " the words that I speak
unto you are spirit, and they are life," is the only
true one, and that the phrases eating his flesh and
drinking his blood are not to be understood of " a
real manducation of his body," but of a spiritual
union with him by means of a living faith.
The author proceeds : " In order to condense
and sum up the arguments which I have hitherto
brought in favour of the Catholic dogma, I will
propose a very simple hypothesis, and deduce
them all from its solution." That is to say, he in
tends to state a hypothesis, which is to be very
simple ; to solve it, which implies that, notwith
standing its great simplicity, it contains some
difficulty which must be removed ; and this be
ing done, the arguments hitherto alleged will be
condensed and summed up. Although I freely
confess myself at a loss to comprehend the full
meaning of all this, yet, as it is evident that he
means to do something, which, if done, would
make all his previous labour unnecessary, I can
not but express my regret that he should not have
solved this very simple hypothesis and made his
deductions therefrom before, as it seems really

EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 41
unkind, with such a purpose and ability, to have
given his hearers and readers so much useless
trouble, as a proper examination of the preceding
part of his work demands.
He then, with great truth and beauty, deline
ates our Saviour's character as independent, and,
at the same time, humble ; as bold, yet gentle ; firm,
yet meek ; exhibiting to all successive teachers
the most perfect pattern for imitation. This de
lineation he brings to bear on the Protestant ex
position of his discourse in John, vi., in order to
show that such an exposition is utterly at vari
ance with this character. As the author's repre
sentation either imbodies part of what he had be
fore said, or assumes what he cannot prove, it
might be passed over. But for the sake of gen
eral readers, who cannot be expected to examine
minutely into the correctness of all his statements,
I feel compelled to make one or two remarks.
" The Protestant" is represented as supposing the
Saviour " to undertake to expound one of his most
beautiful and consoling doctrines to a crowd of
ardent and enthusiastic hearers, who had just be
fore followed him into the wilderness, and fasted
three days in order to listen to his instructions." —
P. 134. Now all this is a figment of the author's
imagination. The Protestant supposes no such
thing. It is the learned doctor who confounds two
distinct facts; namely, the feeding mentioned in
Matt, xv., 32-38, and Mark, viii., 2-9, of the four
thousand, of whom it is said, that they had been
D2

42 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW.
" with Jesus three days, and had nothing to eat,"
with the feeding of " five thousand men, besides
women and children" (making, in all probability,
nearly as many more), narrated in Matt., xiv.,
16-21, and John, vi., 5-13, which miracle had
been performed some time before. Those were
not the religious men who had come from far, had
fasted three days, and were likely to faint by the
way if dismissed. And it is extraordinary that
such a mistake should appear in a "theological
course of lectures several times delivered in the
English college at Rome," and, in order to " do
ample justice to the line of argument pursued,"
not only repeatedly delivered, but published, and,
of course, revised and prepared for the press. A
careful perusal of this very chapter might have
pointed out this mistake ; for John, vi., 22-29, tells
us, that " the people came to Capernaum, seeking
for Jesus the day following" the miraculous feeding:
consequently, they had enjoyed a good meal the
day before the discourse Was addressed to them.
If they were the " ardent and enthusiastic hearers"
which it is all-important to the argument to rep
resent them, how is it that " the model of all meek
ness, condescension, and sweetness" opens his dis
course to them with a charge of selfishness and
irreligious indifference, introduced, too, with a
strong asseveration? "Verily, verily I say unto
you, ye seek me because ye did eat of the loaves,
and were filled." Does he ever begin to address
well-disposed hearers in such language as this?

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN^ VIEW. 43
How is it that these enthusiastic admirers of Je
sus, hanging as it were upon his lips, demand a
sign, and tell him that Moses wrought a miracle
of long continuance in giving their fathers the
manna? Is this the way of enthusiastic admi
rers ? How is it that he who " needed not that
any should testify, for he knew what was in
man,"* solemnly declared to these ardent and en
thusiastic hearers, " I say unto you that ye have
seen me ands believe not?" verse 37. How is it
that he plainly enough intimates to thenfthat they
were not under the Father's influence ? verses 44,
45. How is it that these " docile disciples" mur
mured at him because he said " I am the bread
that came down from heaven ?" verse 41. If such
is the author's hypothesis, it is, with all its sup
posed simplicity, encumbered by difficulties which
neither he nor any other ingenious solver of
doubts can expound. The truth is, that he has
entirely misapprehended the character of these
men. He has confounded them with others who
appear to have been of very different disposition,
by identifying two distinct and independent facts ;
and when he says that " one word of explanation
would have saved them from their apostacy," he
asserts what he cannot know, and what is utterly
irreconcilable with the facts of the case. His ar
gument is wholly founded in error. Had he prop
erly investigated and reflected on these points, he
might have spared himself and his readers the
* John, ii., 25.

44 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW.
questions, whether " this conduct of Jesus could
win the affections of the infidel ?" Whether " such
conduct is a model for imitation?" Whether
" any Protestant bishop would instruct his clergy
men to act thus in reference to children who
should misunderstand their catechism?" p. 136.
All this seems intended ad captandum. The
thoughtful examiner must feel that it assumes the
thing to be proved.
And so also does Mr. Coleridge, in the quo
tation from his "Aids to Reflection," with which
Dr. Wiseman closes his lecture. "After which
time many of (Christ's) disciples, who had been
eyewitnesses of his mighty miracles, who had
heard the sublime morality of his Sermon on
the Mount, had glorified God for the wisdom
which they had heard, and had been prepared
to acknowledge the Christ, went back and walk
ed no more with him ! What every parent, ev
ery humane preceptor would do when a child
had misunderstood a metaphor or epilogue in a
literal sense, we all know. But the meek and
merciful Jesus suffered many of his disciples to
fall off from eternal life, when to retain them he
had only to say, Oh, ye simple ones, why are ye
offended ? my words, indeed, sound strange ; but I
mean no more than what you have often and often
heard from me before with delight and entire
acquiescence ! Credat Judseus : non egoi" The
learned and profound author assumes, respecting
these disciples, what is not susceptible of proof.

EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW. 45
How does he know that they " had heard the sub
lime morality of the Sermon on the Mount, had
glorified God for its wisdom, and been prepared
to acknowledge the Christ ?" How does he know
that they would have been so easily retained?
How does he know that these disciples were not
merely external hangers-on to the supposed Mes
siah, from whom they had hoped to receive hon
ours and dignities in his secular kingdom ? How
does he know that they were not men filled with
the spirit of this world, without any talte for an
inward union in sentiment, affection, and whole
character with the pure and holy one whom they
professed to regard as their master ? To assume
all that he says, merely because the persons in
question are called disciples, is too large a de
mand to be readily complied with by those who
bear in mind that Judas was a disciple, and a
chosen apostle too, and that yet " the meek and
merciful Jesus" himself does not scruple to call
, him " a devil." In fact, with all due, and, there
fore, with very great respect for the philosophic
thinker and poet, I am constrained to be of the
opinion that, in this representation, the force of
his eloquence and imagination predominates over
that of his logic.
The view taken of the character of these men
by St. Augustin and Chrysostom is much more
in accordance with the real facts. " They were
far away from the bread from heaven ; neither
did they know what hungering for it meant. They

46 EXAMINATION OP DR. WISEMAN S VIEW.
had the jaws of the heart languid ; with open ears,
they were nevertheless deaf; they were seeing,
and yet they remained blind. For that bread re
quires the hunger of the inner man." Such is the
representation of the deeply religious African
bishop.* The golden-mouthed patriarch of Con
stantinople also remarks, with great truth, that
" the obscurity of what is said excites the atten
tion of the hearer ;" and hence he infers most
correctly, that this ought not to give offence, but
rather to lead to inquiry. " But now they go
away. For if they had believed him to be the
prophet, they would necessarily have believed
his declarations ; so that the stumbling-block lay
in their folly, and not in the obscurity of what
was said."-\ And afterward he contrasts the hum
ble fidelity of true disciples with the querulous
disposition of these multitudes, who exclaim, this
is a harsh doctrine, and consequently depart from
him. As might be supposed, the author proceeds to
show " how beautifully the CathoUc interpretation
suits the well-known character of Jesus." As the
whole is nothing but a graphical description of a
* Isti a pane de ccelo longe erant, nee eum esnrire noverant. Fau
ces cordis languidas habebant ; auribus apertis surdi erant ; videbant,
et cceci stabant. Panis quippe iste in terioris hominis quaerit esuriem.
In Joan., Tract, xxvi., Opera, torn, hi., p. 357.
t "Core tt/c huhvuv iivoiac to atavdaXov jjv, 6v ttjc hiroplae tuv
%,eyo/itvav. In Joan., Horn, xlvi., Al. xlv., Opera, edit. Bened. Ve-
net., 1741, torn, viii., p. 271.

EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN'S VIEW. 47
hypothetical case, any review of it is wholly un
necessary The last subject proposed for examination re
lates to " the different arguments brought by Prot
estants to prove that our Lord's discourse cannot
be referred to the eucharist." These will be con
sidered in a subsequent part of this Essay, to the
subject of which they most properly belong.

PART II.
ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OP THE
DISCOURSE.

Having sufficiently examined most of the lead
ing arguments intended to support Dr. Wiseman's
view of this discourse of our Lord, I proceed to
consider its general scope and meaning.
I have already stated the circumstances that
gave occasion to the discourse, and the wonder
expressed by the multitude on finding Jesus at Ca
pernaum. Discerning their real character, he ac
cuses them of unworthy and selfish motives, and
exhorts them to seek earnestly the spiritual and
everlasting food which could be imparted only
by himself, whose authority God had indubita
bly attested. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye
seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but be
cause ye did eat of the loaves and were filled.
Work not for the meat which perisheth^ but for
that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,
which the Son of Man will give unto you ; for
him hath God the Father sealed," verses 26, 27.
The reader cannot fail to observe that the figure
selected by our Lord whereby to convey his ex
hortation is taken from the food miraculously
supplied on the preceding day. This is agreea
ble to his usual manner. We have a striking

ANALYSIS AND EXFOSITION, ETC. 49
illustration of this in his conversation with the
Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well, whom he had
asked for a drink, and to whom he immediately
after recommends the blessings of the Spirit un
der the figure of living or running water.* An
other, equally strong, may be found in his illustra
tion of the deplorable condition of the Jews of his
day, under the idea of an evil .spirit taking his
seven companions, and returning with vastly in
creased force to the residence from which he had
been expelled. This illustration is doubtless sug
gested by his having just before relieved a blind
and dumb demoniac, and vindicated himself from
the calumnious charge of his virulent opposers.f
And, as he seizes on late or passing events to sup
ply suitable figures, so does he occasionally em
ploy the very language of his hearers to convey
his own thoughts, the manner and tone giving
them perspicuity, impression, and vitality.!
Attention to our Lord's usage in these respects
may throw light on some parts of this discourse.
When his hearers, in evident allusion to his words,
inquire of him, " What must we do that we may
work the works of God ?" he immediately replies,
" This is the work of God, that ye believe on him
whom he hath sent," verses 28, 29. The great
work, the work required by God and. acceptable
to him, the work which is the true principle and
* John iv., 10, 14. t Matt., xii., 43-45 ; 22, seq.
t See John, ix., 40, 41; and compare Luke, xx., 16, with Matt,
xxi., 41. E

50 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OP
germ, as it were, of all other works, is a right
faith in Christ. This is the introductory proposi
tion laid down by him in this important discourse.
It is first stated in figurative language, and then
in literal. And it is never lost sight of; it is re
peated over and over again, with the same change
of expression. Thus, he promises blessings to the
believer when he says of him in figure, " he that
cometh to me shall never hunger," and adds, in
proper terms, " he that believeth on me shall nev
er thirst," verse 35 ; meaning, shall be abun
dantly supplied with the Spirit.* Thus he says
of the believer, using the same figure, " him that
cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out," verse
37 ; and again, without a figure, that " every one
that believeth on him he will raise up at the last
day," verse 40 ; and again, with the same figure,
that the Father's influence is necessary to pro
duce this faith, " no man can come to me except
the Father which hath sent me draw him," verse
44 ; and that the attentive and docile are divinely
taught and do so believe, " they shall be all taught
of God : every one, therefore, that hath heard and
learned of the Father cometh unto me," verse 45 ;
and, once more, solemnly pledges the full blessings
of the Gospel to all such : " Verily, verily, I say
unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting
life," verse 47. It is essentially important to re
gard this as the main principle advanced and
urged. * Compare iv., 13, 14 ; vii., 37, 38.

THE DISCOURSE. 51
In what manner, now, do these Jews receive
our Lord's doctrine respecting this " work of
God," that is faith ? Do they show themselves, ac
cording to Mr. Coleridge's representation of their
character, as disposed to glorify God for the wis
dom which they had heard, and prepared to ac
knowledge, " this is indeed the Christ V Do they
manifest the docile temper of the "child," to whom
he compares them ? Do they drink in his words
with delight, as we might expect such " ardent
and enthusiastic hearers," as Dr. WisemSn repre
sents them, would do ? On the contrary, although
they had seen him perform the most amazing mir
acle, by which their own. wants had been abun
dantly supplied,* like their perverse and faithless
ancestors in the desert, they disregard it, and de
mand another, wishing, perhaps, for a continual
supply, such as that afforded to their fathers by
the manna, and setting the miracle of Moses in
contradistinction to that of Christ. " They said,
therefore, unto him, What sign showest thou, then,
that we may see, and believe thee ? what dost
thou work ? Our fathers did eat manna in the
desert, as it is written, he gave them bread from
heaven to eat," verses 30, 31. Perhaps, too, they
meant to imply, that if Jesus were the true Mes-
* Lucre's supposition, that those who required a miracle were not
present at the miraculous feeding the day before, and had only heard
of it, and seem to have doubted it, is wholly at variance with proba
bility, and disproved by the circumstances of the occasion. See his
Commentar uber die Schriften des Evangelisten Johannis, voL ii.,
p. 170.

52 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
siah, he ought, like his predecessor, to cause man
na to be rained from heaven. The passage re
ferred to is Ps. lxxviii., 24, 25, where the Hebrew
has trotf jrn corn (food) of heaven, on/ax an1?
bread of mighty ones (angels), and the Septuagint,
aprov dvpavov eSunev dvTolg- aprov dyysXuv e<payev
avdpuTroc : he gave them bread of heaven ; bread
of angels man did eat. The words used in the
Gospel, ek tov ovpavov, are susceptible of the same
sense, as the substantive with the preposition is
sometimes employed instead of the adjective.
Thus, for instance, in Luke, xi., 13, we have
6 Trarrjp 6 ef dvpavov, for heavenly Father, and in
2 Cor., v., 2, to 6iKT]TTipiov r/ficiv to ef dvpavov, for
heavenly habitation. But although the idea of
heavenly food, very excellent and miraculous in
character, is of course conveyed, the words seem
to be chosen in order to express also the source
from which Christ himself, the true bread, the liv
ing antitype of the manna, came ; and the lan
guage in Exod., xvi., 4, both in the Hebrew and
Septuagint, is similar : " I will rain for you bread
from heaven" O'DBJn ?D, dpTovg ea tov dvpavov.
The 6 KaTaddtvuv, in verse 33, should be translated
in connexion with apToc, the bread which cometh
down, and so the hearers understood it, for they
immediately ask for such bread, verse 34. The
present, in verses 33 and 50, expresses the inherent
character of this food ; it is heavenly, and from
heaven it always comes. When our Lord speaks
of himself as having come from heaven, St. John

THE DISCOURSE. 53
employs the aorist, KaTatac. See verses 41, 51,
with which compare K.dTa6e6vKa in verses 38, 42.
To this demand of the Jews, most unreasona
ble in itself, and clearly indicative of want of right
perception and feeling, our Lord replies with
earnestness, that the true bread from heaven was
not given by Moses, but by his own Father, that
it is himself, the manna being only a material
symbol and figure of the spiritual reality, and that
this is intended, not like the ancient miraculously
communicated food, to assist in sustaining the
present life of a few, but to afford eternal life to
the whole world. Having no internal character
adapted to a perception of his meaning, and dwell
ing on the gross idea of corporeal food to be im
parted daily by their Messiah, whereby present
life should be sustained without toil, they exclaim,
" Lord, always give us this bread," verses 32—34.
He immediately corrects their sensual error by de
claring that the bread just spoken of is himself, add
ing also a promise to whosoever should believe on
him, verse 35. Then he repeats what he had be
fore plainly implied, that, although they had seen
him in his character as a divine teacher, and had
been eyewitnesses of his miracles,* yet they still
remained unbelieving, verse 36 ; a statement quite
irreconcilable with the representation of their
character which has been already referred to.
He proceeds to state an important truth, to which
* This, though not asserted, is evidently implied. Compare sim
ilar language in Matt., xxiii., 39 : "Ye shall not see me henceforth."
E 2

54 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
afterward also he calls their attention (verses 44,
45), namely, that it is only through the Father's
influence that any are enabled truly to believe in
him, thereby intimating the danger of forfeiting
by prejudice and passion all reasonable expecta
tion of securing it, verse 37. Now he assumes
the prerogatives of the divine Messiah, and affirms
that he will not reject the believer, but will raise
him up at the last day, and this in accordance
with the will of the Father, to accomplish which
he came down from heaven, verses 38-40. Were
these statements of Christ received with the docil
ity of children, to say nothing of the ardour of en
thusiastic disciples ? The next verses inform us that
they " murmured at him," and were not prepared
to admit his Messiahship. " Is not this Jesus, the
son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
How is it, then, that he saith, I came down from
heaven ?" (verses 41, 42). No wonder that the di
vine teacher, after checking their murmurs, in
sists on the necessity of the Father's grace, and
of docility in the subject. " No one can believe
in me except the Father draw him ; all such are
taught by him, and are diligent and docile pupils,
instructed by the invisible, yet ever-present and
influencing God," verses 43-46.
The assertion made in the former part of verse
44 is simply this, that no one can believe in Christ
without the influence of the Father, and the next
verse shows that such effective influence is im
parted to those only who attend and learn. 'EA-

THE DISCOURSE. 55
ev<rq by no means implies an irresistible oper
ation. The use of words, which in their own
nature denote force, merely in a moral and lim
ited sense adapted to the character of the object
acted on, is very common in Scripture. Thus,
we have avayndfa and $id£,o\iai employed in the
sense of inducing, urging, pressing, where no sen
sible expositor would think of any stronger mean
ing ; as in Matt., xiv., 22 : Mark, vi., 45 ; Luke,
xiv., 23; Acts, xxviii., 19; Matt., xi., 12; Luke,
xvi., 16. And so kXuvw, which with bakw often
conveys the idea of dragging, is here fised of a
moral influence, which may be resisted and coun
teracted. Compare xii., 32, which undoubtedly
expresses the thought, that the Gospel system of
Christ crucified would attract multitudes. See,
also, James i., 14, where kgeXfco/ievog is used of a
person being drawn away by sinful passion, irre
sistibility being out of the question. And, lastly,
compare the use of hXicvaav \iz, in Cant., i., 4, (3),
immediately followed by d-rciou aov — Spauovusv, let
them draw me, we will run after them.
Here I must be allowed to interrupt the general
current of the discourse, by calling the attention
of the reader to the 37th verse : " All that the
Father giveth me, shall (will) eome to me ; and
him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
The reason why such shall not be rejected im
mediately follows, it is the Father's will, to accom
plish whieh Christ came down from Heaven, 38-
40. Notwithstanding the use of the neuter ¦nav.,

56 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
persons are certainly meant, as is proved by the
nature of the subject, and the masculine rbv epx&-
fievov that follows. This usage is not uncommon
with St. John, and is found also in other writers.
Thus, we have in i., 12, to Idia and bi Idiot, nearly,
if not quite, synonymous ; in xvii., 2, iva nav b
dedtonag avTui, duoq dvrolg ; and in 1 John, v., 4, 5,
nav to ysyewnfisvov en tov Oeov viita tov Koaytov,
is followed by rig botiv 6 vikuv tov icooftbv ki fii) 6
moTevav. Virgil also employs the neuter to des
ignate persons:
" Et quidquid tecum invalidum metuensque pericli est,
Delige, et his habeant terris, sine, mania fessi."
Mneid, v., 716, 717.
When our Lord says, " all that the Father giv
eth me will come to me," he means to teach us,
that those who truly believe on him are given
him by the Father, that is, are led to believe by
the Father's influence. It may not be unworthy
of remark, that dlduoi is present. Compare verse
32. All is the Father's gift. He impresses this
consideration, implying, of course, the danger of
provoking the Father to withhold it. The perfect
in verse 39 expresses the accomplishment of be
lief by the Father's influence ; as if he had said,
" This is the Father's will, that all who have be
come true believers through his influence should
be raised to life." With this view of the much
litigated words, "the Father giveth," the next
verse coincides, the phrases, seeing the Son and
believing on him, being substituted for them, and

THE DISCOURSE. 57
expressing, also, the necessity of using all suitable
means to acquire the truth. Compare verse 36,
which is addressed to such as did not believe, al
though they had seen him. The idea is yet more
clearly developed in verses 44, 45, which insist on
the necessity of the Father's influence and of our
docility. He that heareth and learneth of the
Father is substituted for whom the Father giveth.
A comparison of other places in this Gospel,
where the same or similar language occurs, is al
together favourable to this view. Thus, in x., 29,
" the Father who gave them to me," that is, ' who
so influenced them by his grace as to induce them
to believe on me, and thus to become mine.' See,
also, the texts in the 17th chapter, which are all
susceptible of a clear exposition in the same way,
verses 2, 6, 9, 1 1 (if o~vg he the true reading, which
is better supported by internal evidence than ex
ternal), 12, 24. The same thought occurs, also,
in vi., 65, although the form of expression is some
what varied : " No one can come to me except it
be given him of my Father ;" in other words, ' to
become mine by a true faith requires the gracious
influence of the Father.' Compare the language
of xix., 11:" Thou couldst have no power against
me, except it were given thee from above," that
is, ' thou canst only act under divine permission."
Also, iii., 21, " A man can receive nothing, except
it were given him from Heaven."
If it should be said that, inasmuch as coming
to Christ is identical with believing on him, the

58 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OP
view now given makes our Lord, in verse 37, utter
the truism, ' All that the Father, by his grace, in
duces to believe on me will believe on me,' the
answer is, that the first clause need not, in all
cases, comprehend all that the next asserts. The
phrase, " giveth to me," may occasionally bear a
more limited sense, equivalent to ' properly influ
ences for me,' while at others it includes the ef
fect of such influence, namely, right faith. Such
limitations of the ordinary meaning of a word, or,
on the other hand, some accession to it, is by no
means of unfrequent occurrence in Scripture.
I will only add, that a careful attention to the
wide range of meaning allowed by Hebrew usage
to the word give will tend not a little to remove
any difficulty which the reader may feel in the
statements here made.
The divine teacher now resumes the leading
topic of his discourse, which he introduces with
the strongest asseveration, verse 47. There is a
close connexion between this verse and the pre
ceding. The great object of faith is he who, " be
ing in the bosom of the Father" (i., 18), and hav
ing seen him and been most intimately associated
with him, and having also been sent by him from
heaven with the fullest authority and power, is
consequently able to give eternal life. He is the
food that imparts and sustains life ; the life which
alone is worthy of the name (!8). ' Your fathers
ate the manna in the desert, yet they died ; how
ever extraordinary and excellent the food thus

THE DISCOURSE. 59
communicated, it was incompetent to perpetuate
even their animal life ; whereas the antitype of
the manna, the spiritual food which has no asso
ciation with earth, but descends from its own
heaven, imparts and preserves a life which is be
yond the influence of death, verses 49, 50. I am
that life-giving, life-sustaining, and never-failing
food, having come down from heaven ;' verse 51,
former part. The participle "living" in this
place does undoubtedly convey the idea of ever
lasting, indestructible, and heavenly, in opposition
to what is temporary, decaying, and earthly.
Permanency, possessing the principle of life, is its
usual meaning. Still, as it is undeniable that our
Lord speaks of himself as the giver and sustainer
of spiritual life (verses 33, 35, 50), it is best to
take the word in its most comprehensive sense.
'O ek. tov dvpavov icaTaddg, may refer to eyoi or to
d aprog. I have endeavoured to adapt the transla
tion to the grammatical ambiguity of the original.
The meaning of the whole clause will remain the
same. I come now to that portion of our Saviour's dis
course which requires the most careful examina
tion. After telling his hearers that the food of
which he has been speaking is himself, he pro
ceeds to say, more particularly in the latter part
of verse 51, that it is his flesh, which he will give
for the life of the world. A declaration seem
ingly so extraordinary, and to them unintelligible,
became the occasion of excitement and disputa-

60 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
tion ; and, attaching no other meaning to his words
than a carnal and literal one, such as their gross
views of the supply of bodily food which the Mes
siah was to furnish would naturally suggest, they
speak of it contemptuously, and as a palpable im
possibility : " How can this man give us his flesh
to eat?" verses 51, 52. The Master enjoins the
necessity of their doing what they regarded as
absurd and impracticable, in order to obtain spir
itual 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." To those who so do, he
promises a joyful resurrection ; he speaks of this
food and drink as the best and truest ; of the one
who uses it as intimately united with him, as par
taking of life by* him as he does by* the Father ;
and concludes by characterizing it as having
come down from heaven, and by contrasting its
effects in conveying spiritual and everlasting life
with those of the manna, on which their deceased
ancestors had lived for a time in the desert, verses
53-58. What means he by this eating his flesh
and drinking his blood ?
* The usual meaning of did with an accusative is, on account of,
with a genitive by. f See, for an instance of each usage, Heb., ii., 10.)
Still it is acknowledged by the best grammarians, that in the New
Testament dta is sometimes (though very seldom) used with the ac
cusative in the sense of means ; cause, object, and means being so in
timately allied. See Winer's Grammalik N. T., p. 324, 339. The
above translation is therefore sanctioned by occasional usage, and is
to be preferred, because it produces a meaning best adapted to the
context and subject.

THE DISCOURSE. 61
The expression, "And, moreover,* the bread
which I will give is my flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world," cannot be explained
merely of Christ's devoting himself, consecrating
his whole earthly life to man's welfare. The
¦word flesh is never used in this sense, neither can
it be said, in accordance with it, " the bread which
I will give is my flesh, which I will give." This
denotes a future act, whereas the consecration
referred to had been already made in a good de
gree, and was still in progress. #
Neither is it correct to say, that having spoken
in the preceding part of his discourse simply of his
doctrine, our Lord now introduces another distinct
and additional idea, representing his^death as what
was to give life unto the world. For what is this
sentiment but a part of his doctrine, a very prom
inent and important part, and implied in what he
had already said? Such a distinction and sup
posed transition are without evidence.
Are we, then, to explain this part of the dis
course solely or principally in reference to the
eucharist, and to interpret the phrases "eat the
flesh and drink the blood" in accordance with the
doctrine of transubstantiation, or in reference to
the symbols of bread and wine representing the
real body and blood of the Redeemer? There are
difficulties in this view, some of which cannot be re
moved, and of which it is necessary to take notice.
1. It might be said, that the word here used is
* I have employed these words to convey the force of nai — de).
F

62 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OP
flesh, while body is always employed eisewhere,
as in the words of the institution, as given by the
evangelists and St. Paul.* If our Lord intended
here a particular reference to the eucharistic body
or symbol, it would seem reasonable to expect him
to have used the same word on both occasions.
To this it may be replied, that such arguments are
not of much weight, because, as either word is
well adapted to express the thought intended,
the choice of either may have been rather circum
stantial than necessary. This is true ; and yet
the reader must feel that if the eucharistic food be
meant, the sense would have been clearer if the
word body had been employed as elsewhere.
2. On this theory it is not easy to explain the
language, " I will give," in verse 51. This can
not be interpreted of the eucharist, for Christ's
flesh or body was not then given. The words of
the institution, " Which is given — which is shed,"f
have, indeed, been alleged to prove that the giving
and the shedding, that is, the offering made by
Christ when he gave himself to be crucified, and
allowed his blood to be poured out as a sacrifice
and libation for human guilt, was made at that
time and in that very act. But this is plainly at
variance with repeated declarations of the Apos
tles, that the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
was made once for all by his death upon the cross. J
* Matt., xxvi., 26. Mark, xiv., 22. Luke, xxii., 19. 1 Cor., xi., 24.
t Luke, xxii., 19, 20.
% See, among other places, Heb.j vii., 27 ; viii., 25-28 ; x., 10, 12,
14. 1 Pet., ii., 24.

THE DISCOURSE. 63
The use of the present to diddfievov, to euxwoubvov,
to icXufievov (1 Cor., xi., 24), is easily explained,
as the Saviour represents before the eyes of his
Apostles a symbol of what was so very soon to
take place. Such language is very common.
Thus we read, " The hour is coming, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God."* Whether this be understood of a literal,
or, more correctly, of a moral resurrection, does
not affect its application to the case in hand. Of
the same kind is our Lord's language, " The hour
is come that the Son of Man should be glorified ;"
" now is the judgment of this world."f The prox
imity or certainty of what is stated is the ground
of the usage. And on the same principle, what
is still future is sometimes spoken of as past, as is
often the case in prophecy. Thus, also, our Lord,
in his last prayer before his passion, speaks as if
his whole atoning work on earth were completed,
as if he had already risen, and was going to his
Father. The language is particularly worthy of
notice : " I have finished the work which thou
gavest me to do ; and now I am no more in the
world : while I was with them in the world I kept
them."J When, therefore, our Lord employs the
present in the eucharistic institution, he does so,
not because he means to teach us that his sacri
fice was then offered, not that his body was then
given, his blood then shed ; but because this was
so soon to take place, that it is in his mind as if it
* John, v., 25. t xii-. 23, 31. X *»ii., 4, 11, 12.

64 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
were present, though, strictly speaking, it was
only symbolized by the celebration.
It is certain, then, that the words " I will give,"
cannot be explained of the eucharist. They must
be understood of Christ's voluntary sacrifice on
the cross, as the same verb is employed in other
places. Thus, for instance, it is said, " The Son
of Man came to give his life a ransom for many
— he gave himself a ransom for all — who gave
himself for our sins — who gave himself for us."*
This is the only meaning that accords with usage
and harmonizes with the context. If, then, the
language of verse 51 is to be explained of some
thing different from the eucharist, it follows ne
cessarily that the eating and drinking afterward
mentioned must also relate to something different,
for the connexion is so intimate as to compel us
to understand both of the same general topic.
3. On the theory by which this passage is ex
pounded of the eucharist, it is not easy to explain
the fact, that St. John, in his Gospel, gives no ac
count of the institution. It will, doubtless, be said,
and for this very reason he introduces this dis
course, that he may impress its necessity. And
even Bishop Beveridge, who does not understand
this discourse as intended directly of the eucharist,
expresses the opinion, " That St. John, having re
corded words so very like to those in the institu
tion of that holy sacrament, did not think it neces-
* Matt., xx., 28. Mark, x., 45. 1 Tim., ii., 6. Gal., i., 4. Tit.,
ii., 14.

THE DISCOURSE. 65
sary to describe, as all the other evangelists did,
the institution of his Last Supper."* Still it ap
pears unnatural to speak in direct reference to an
institution which our Lord himself originated, and
which, in this respect, is different from baptism,
and to speak of its use as necessary in order to
obtain Christian privileges, without taking any no
tice of its establishment. It is certain that those
who derived their knowledge solely from this Gos
pel could not so have understood the discourse ;
this is true, also, of the original hearers. And, on
the other hand, if this part of our Lord's discourse
was intended to refer primarily to the eucharist,
it is somewhat extraordinary that the other evan
gelists should have given their readers no account
of it. The institution would so naturally have
suggested the discourse, that it is not easy on this
theory to explain the omission.
4. Closely connected with this difficulty is an
other, which Dr. Wiseman " thinks the most fa
vourite reason given for not understanding this
discourse of the eucharist," namely, " that it was
not yet instituted."f And Sherlock,J as quoted by
him, notes this as " the only objection he knows
against so expounding" it. It is surprising that the
* Sermons, London, 1708, vol. v., p. 314. t Page 138.
t The author of the discourse from which Dr. Wiseman makes an
extract is Dean Sherlock, not the bishop, who was his son. This
is a mere inadvertence. In the same way, the Sacred Theory of the
Earth, which was written by Dr. Thomas Burnet, has often been
ascribed to the bishop, whose Christian name was Gilbert, and
sometimes printed as his.
F2

66 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
knowledge of so distinguished a divine should on
this point have been so limited. We are told by
the reverend author that "there are several an
swers to this" objection. They are given by Dr.
Wiseman, with some original " remarks" and " il
lustrations." Sherlock replies to the objection, that " our Sav
iour said a great many things to the Jews in his
sermons which neither they nor his own disciples
could understand when they were spoken, though
his disciples understood them after he was risen."
Dr. Wiseman illustrates this by reminding the
reader " of the distinction between comprehending
and understanding, the latter referring to the
meaning of the words, the former to the nature of
the doctrine." That Christ's flesh and blood were
to be eaten and drunk the hearers could readily
understand, although " they could not comprehend
how this was to be effected."*
This is certainly true, and the distinction is im
portant. It is in the highest degree reasonable
that the understanding should give its full assent
to the truth of a proposition, or acquiesce in the
obligation of a precept, although it may not com
prehend the nature of the one nor the manner of
complying with the other. One thing it perceives
and knows, namely, that in the one case some
truth is contained, in the other some act is enjoin
ed. This perception and knowledge are founded
on the previously established authority of him
* Page 139.

THE DISCOURSE. 67
with whom the proposition or precept originates.
On this principle, therefore, we should be justified
in maintaining that there is sound mathematical
truth in some proposition of Newton's Principia,
even if we could not comprehend its meaning.
We merely confess our ignorance and acknowl
edge his authority. And thus, if it be sufficiently
proved that, in the case under consideration, the
thing intended is the eating and drinking in the
eucharist, the bare fact that our Lord's original
hearers could not have comprehended the nature
of the thing, and " how it was effected," is not a
valid objection. They could readily understand
that something in reference to himself was to be
done ; and reason as well as faith required them
not only to acquiesce in the proposition, but to re
solve to do the thing, and to wait patiently until
they should be instructed in its nature and manner.
The principle, then, on which the dean's obser
vation is founded is not only the basis of sound
and acceptable faith, but it is an essential element
of reason, the highest degree of both being al
ways in perfect harmony. Our Saviour's dis
courses contain frequent illustrations of it. When,
however, Dr. Wiseman " gives" as " one, his con
versation with Nicodemus," which, he says, " took
place before baptism was instituted, and yet the
necessity of it is there declared," adding that " no
one has ever thought of denying that the regener
ation there mentioned referred to baptism, on the
ground that this sacrament had not been institu-

68 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OP
ted,"* he is singularly unfortunate in his selec
tion. He assumes what, beyond all doubt, he
could not prove. Yet even if his assumption
were allowed, the cases would not be relevant.
I will not urge that the practice of baptizing pros
elytes to Judaism was then in general use. This
might be questioned ; although, on the theory
which wholly denies its use antecedent to the
coming of John, it is difficult to account for the
question of the, delegation sent to him from Jeru
salem : " Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not
the Christ, nor Elias, neither the prophet ?"f The
language seems to imply, that, had he avowed him
self to be any one of these personages, they would
not have been surprised at his baptizing, and con
sequently implies, also, that they were familiar
with the usage as a ceremony of initiation. Waiv
ing all this, however, it is a matter of fact that
John, as the precursor of the Messiah, had been
publicly baptizing, and that crowds had flocked
to him from Judea and Jerusalem. The use of
water, then, in admitting to discipleship in the
doctrine of the prophetic Elias, must necessarily
have been known to Nicodemus, and he could
not have failed to apply the well-known fact as
explanatory of our Lord's language. But it is
not necessary to take this view. It is in the high
est degree probable that Christ's baptism was in
use before the conversation held with Nicodemus.
The first direct mention that is made of our Lord's
* Page 140. t John, i., 25.

THE DISCOURSE. 69
baptizing is, indeed, in the verse that follows the
account of this interview ; but the apparently inci
dental manner in which the practice is introduced
makes it extremely probable that Jie had already
instituted, or, which is equivalent, sanctioned the
rite : " After these things came Jesus and his dis
ciples into the land of Judea ; and there he tarried
with them and baptized." — John, iii., 22 : compare
verse 26 ; iv., 1. Those places show the prac
tice immediately or shortly after the interview
with the Jewish ruler. Before it, Christ Had pub
licly avowed himself to be the Messiah, by clear
ing his father's house of profanation, by a sym
bolical prediction of his death and resurrection,
by working miracles so remarkable, either in
number or kind, or both (ii., 22 ; iii., 2), as to in
duce a member of the Sanhedrim to show him
the respect of a visit, and to recognise him as a
divine teacher. All this implies that he spent
some time in the great capital, and must have
elicited a considerable degree of public atten
tion. As an effect of his actions and instructions,
"many believed on his name;" and the proba
bility is in favour of the opinion, that such persons
made the same public profession of their faith as
those did who became his disciples after the in
terview ; in other words, that they received his
baptism. When, therefore, Dr. Wiseman asserts
that "the discourse in the sixth chapter of St.
John stands in the same relation to the institution
of the eucharist as the conference with Nicode-

70 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OP
mus does to the institution of baptism,"* he makes
a statement which is entirely gratuitous, and with
out even the shadow of a proof.
Still, while the illustration of Wiseman must be
rejected, the principle of Sherlock is freely admit
ted. Our Saviour's precept might have a sub
sequent institution in view, and relate to some
thing hereafter to be done. Let us now examine
if such is the fact.
On this supposition, it will be difficult to explain
satisfactorily why our Lord did not openly and
plainly announce his intention of instituting the
eucharist, in which either his flesh and blood, or
the symbols of them, should be eaten and drunk.
It is true that, on the theory of transubstantiation,
such a declaration would not have removed the
harshness of the precept in the opinion of the hear
ers, but it would at least have given them a clear
idea of his meaning. On the Protestant theory of
the eucharist, it would at once have removed the
whole difficulty. The strength of this considera
tion must, of course, be increased in the minds of
those who, with Dr. Wiseman and Mr. Coleridge,
have taken a favourable view of the docility and
religious honesty of the party addressed, from
whom it is not to be supposed that such informa
tion would be withheld.
Farther, the general tenor of the discourse
shows, that when our Lord urges on his hearers
the duty and necessity of " eating his flesh and
* Page 141.

THE DISCOURSE. 7l
drinking his blood, he means that the persons ad
dressed should themselves, without delay, do the
thing required. It is evident that the whole dis
course preserves a proper unity of subject, and
that verses 48-58 inclusive are indissolubly con
nected. Notwithstanding the several phrases em
ployed in verses 53-58, the subject required to be
eaten is the same throughout. But the language
in verse 58, " This is that bread which came down
from heaven: not as your fathers did eat the
manna and are dead, he that eateth of tills bread
shall live forever," necessarily refers us back to
that of verses 31-33 : " Our fathers did eat the
manna, as it is written, he gave them bread from
heaven to eat — verily, verily, I say unto you, my
Father giveth you the true bread from heaven,
for the bread of God is he that cometh down from
heaven and giveth life unto the world ;" and both
are most clearly connected with the very first di
rection, "labour (or work) for that meat which
endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of
Man shall give unto you," verse 27. It is quite
evident, then, that our Lord is not asseverating in
his most solemn manner the necessity, in order to
secure union with him and a glorious resurrec
tion, of obeying a law which was not to be plainly
promulgated until a year after,* but is urging an
immediate compliance with the command which
introduces his discourse.
5. The effects of obedience and disobedience,
* Compare vi., 4, vii., 1, 2, and Matt., xxvi., 19, 26.

72 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
as stated by Christ, do not harmonize with the in
terpretation which refers this passage principally
or wholly* to the eucharist. " If any man eat of
this bread he shall live forever — whoso eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life,
shall live forever, dwelleth in me and I in him, and
I will raise him up at the last day. Verily, verily,
I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh and drink
the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in
you." I do not attach much importance to the
fact that all this is said absolutely. I am willing
to grant that such language might be employed
of what has been called " sacramental feeding,"
while the condition that the eating and drinking
be rightly and worthily done, that isj with suitable
dispositions on the part of the communicant, is im
plied. Absolute declarations, when the subjects
of them are in their very nature conditional, and
also shown to be so by the analogy of God's deal
ings, are often made in Scripture. But so solemn
a warning, implying the most serious threat and
such glorious promises, are never represented in
the New Testament as the result of neglecting or
* I do not acquiesce in the inference as Dr. Wiseman has stated it :
" precludes the possibility of any reference to the eucharist." Neither
do the divines he refers to maintain this. Indeed, the very language
of Beveridge which he quotes shows the contrary. " It is not the
sacramental, but spiritual eating his body and blood our Saviour here,
speaks of. I mean, our Saviour hath no particular reference in this place
to the representatives of his body and blood in the sacrament, but
only to the spiritual feeding upon him by faith, whether in or out of
the sacrament." It is not easy to defend the doctor's candour and
perspicacity both.

THE DISCOURSE. 73
complying with any one positive institution. Cer
tainly, this is so in reference to the other sacra
ment. He never read, '' He that is baptized shall
be saved," but " he that believeth and is baptized,"
while we do read, " he that believeth not shall be
damned," and " whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved ;"* and it is particularly
worthy of notice, that when baptism is mentioned
as saving, cleansing, forgiving, there is generally,
if not always, some word or phrase added, ex
pressive of internal sanctification. Thus, when
Ananias requires Saul to " arise and be baptized,
and wash away his sins," he adds, " calling on the
name of the Lord," which implies the necessity
of prayer as well as of outward profession.f And
when St. Paul speaks of Christ " having purified
his Church by the washing (or bath, Xovrpti) of
water," he immediately adds, " through the word," J
implying the efficacy of the " truth"§ in producing
the result. St. Peter, also, when he speaks of
" baptism saving us," is careful to guard against
the error of attaching this important result to the
outward act, and therefore explains it to be " not
the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the an
swer of a good conscience towards God," adding,
also, " by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."|| Here
inward purity is presumed to exist along with the
outward act, and Christ's resurrection is repre-
* Mark, xvi., 16. Acts, ii., 21. Rom., x., 13.
t Acts, xxii., 16. t Eph., v., 27. y John> **&•> 17<
|| Pet., iii., 21. G

74 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
sented as the procuring cause of the 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, thanThad
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 ^ou 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
" I 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., $ 59

THE DISCOURSE. 77
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 it is 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 phraseology plunges us
in obscurity and nonsense."f
* Pages 138, 139. t Page 90.
G2

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
conve3's 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 ;
sxiiL, 31, 32 ; and compare Ezek., xvi., 45. In
* 2 Sam., v., l.

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 ¦npEpa,
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
mind 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,"f which " is the substance of things hoped for
and the evidence of things not seen," J 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, Jbringing
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 insulated. We are com
pelled to examine them in connexion with and by
* Rom., x., 10. t Gal-, '•> 6. t Heb., xL, 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. At the 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 I 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, " / consent

THE DISCOURSE. 83
unto the law that it is good."* This simply express
es acquiescence in its 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, "avvTjdoixai, I delight
in, or, am pleased with, the law of God, after the
inner man."f 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-
d 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 handstand 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. t Verse 22 t Pages 60-63.

84 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF
and enjoy its sweetness, to devour the truth with
greediness, or to swallow error with avidity. 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 in the Old. Illustration may be unneces
sary, yet I will cite a few passages. " If any man
hear my voice, I will sup with him and he with
me:* I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:f
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 : J 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.
Eat that thou findest, eat this roll. So I opened 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 ; and it was in my mouth as honey for
sweetness."*^ Here the figure of eating is carried
* Rev., iii., 30 f 1 Cor., iii., 2. % Sol. Song, v., 1.
§ Isa., xxv., 6. || Jer., xv., 16. % Ezek, ii, 8; iii., 1-3.

THE DISCOURSE. 85
out ; the food is to be taken freely, so as to per
vade the whole system; it also communicates
pleasurp 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 oi feeding and
satisfaction, as Pyn and nx'i, and may also explain
the fact that the former is used to denote associa
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 Maimonides employs similar language v/hen
he speaks of " filling the stomach with bread and
meat," while he means to express the idea of
" knowing what is lawful or unlawful. "J 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
* Eccles., xxiv., 21.
t This is a quotation from the Midrash Koheleth, and has been
epeatedly 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, naaa narpia, 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
(HDD buz k,1?dsi ntyn hw N,l?D3), 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
Rav, he did not create the world except for David ;
and Samuel says, for Moses ; and Rabbi Johanan
says, for Messiah. What is his name ? 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
(pr, yenon, Ps. lxxii., 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 (nrjn, chaninah, Jer., xvi., 13). And some
say that Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, is his
name, as it is said, for the comforter (oriJD, 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 (jnJJ,
the original for smitten, is sometimes used of lep
rosy), stricken by God and afflicted." — Isa., liii., 4.
Babylonian Talmud, treatise Sanhedrim, 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 Solomon Jakchi, followed by Lightfoot, Works,
vol. ii., p. 554, fol, London, 1684. Buxtokf considers them as fie
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,"
«fec. (ix., 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
ceived him with avidity, embraced him joyfully,
and, 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 Hora; Hebraicae, Oper., torn.
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 author 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
eat of it? {the abundance). Will Chillek and Bil-
lek eat of it ? This was said 40 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 lo 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 in the 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 it, by which he translates the origi
nal suffixes in and n, 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 in a 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 Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, commonly
called Rashe, 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
Church, compared to whom all its modern ones are pigmies." This
introduces a quotation from Lightfoot's Horae, 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 learned 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., 31. Mic, 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."f
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 jjrink the
blood." And it is certainly true, as Tittmann 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.J 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 iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, Leipsic, 1812,
p. 355. t John, viii., 43. t See Wiseman, page 87.
() He employs the word propriis in a technical sense, in contra
distinction to 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
feel 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.!
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
* John, vii., 17.
fProv.,viii.,8, 9. This is implied in the word |'3D, and is given
by the Chaldee and Syriac versions.

96 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OP
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 faith."
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
body 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 require
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.
t In Johan. Evang., cap. 6, Tract, xxv., $ 12, torn, ii., par. ii., p. 3§4,

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 1" 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-
fluerice, could hardly be thought capable of enter
taining. 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."* Faber, 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 Ckanmee, D.D., Oxford, 1833, vol. ii,
p. 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 seems to have taken the same view, and
Whitby explains the term of the body of Christ
Still, 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, " AW 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.
t Isa., xl., 5. John, i., 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. ;f 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.J 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."^ To
this view of the usage of Scripture it may be add
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 sleep in
different modifications of meaning even in the
' * Gal., iii., 3. Heb., vii., 16 ; ix., 10.
t 1 Cor., ix., 11 ; 2 Cor., x., 4.
% Rom., vii., 14; viii., 4-9. John, iii., 6.
§ 1 Cor., ii., 11 ; x., 3, 4. Gal., iv., 29. To these might be added
1 Cor., xv., 45. Rom., i., 4. John, iv., 24.
I 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.-)- 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.
* 1 Thess., v., 6, 7, 10. 2 Cor., v., 6, 8, 9. Heb., xiii., 13, 11.
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 reader is referred to Matt., xii, 20, and to Rom., i., 16, compared
with Gal., vi., 14.

PART IIL
VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS AND OF
SOME MODERN DIVINES.

I proceed 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 them 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.
Johnson maintains that they interpret it prima
rily and properly of the eucharist, and only re
motely of receiving Christ's doctrine or precepts.
"I 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, I 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
ccenam, to be meant by our Saviour otherwise
than in this anagogical way of interpretation."*
On the other hand, Dr. Waterland advocates
* The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar, unveiled and supported. By
John Johnson, M.A., Vicar of Cranbrook, London, 1724: part L,
chap, ii., sec v., p. 358, 359.

AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 105
the opinion that the early fathers do not interpret
this chapter directly of the eucharist, but only aj>-
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 OP 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 laid down in
Scripture and Antiquity. By Daniel Waterland, 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 volnme
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 early
fathers, with such comment merely as seemed
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.
Ignatius 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
* Hsec inconstantia Patrum proculdubio inde orta est, quod in Sa
cramento Eucharistiae non oralem, sed spiritualem fidei manducatio-
nem admitterent. Commentarius Evang. secundum Johannem,
Amst., 1727, 4to, torn, ii., 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 later 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
* 'Ovx fj&o/tai Tpofyy tpdopac, oidi rjSovalt; tov piov tovtov • ap-
tov tov deov {r£\u, o ian ffczpf Irjoov Xpiarov tov kn yivovc Aa-
6i6 • Kal no/ia iJeXo rb alua avTov, <S ioTtv aydmj atpdapTOf. —
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 ljome 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. •>., p. 394.
K

110 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS,
is instead of a thousand witnesses."* " To 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."f 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."J 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 ;"
" it is 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, ii., sec. v., p. 392.
t P. 153, 154.
t M>7<5«c Tr7.ava.a6o • lav fti) tic V hrbt; tov ^vaiaaTjjptov, ia-
Tepelrai tov aprov tov i>f ov. — Chap. v. ^ p. 346, 394.

AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. Ill
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."f 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."J
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.xxi., 6, 8, 17, 22; xxii., 25.
t 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 Suicer's Thesaurus, under
¦dvoiaoTTipiov, ii., 1, d ; Parkhurst's Greek Lexi-

AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 113
con, No. II., and Tholuck 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 nere 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, Theodoret, on thst epistle : " This," says
he, " is much more precious than the old, for that was a shadow of
K2

114 VIEW OP THE EARLY FATHERS,
I do not find anything in Justin Martyr bear
ing on the interpretation of this chapter, and there
fore pass on to Irenaeus. 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 receives the irrational sacrifices, but this that which is
rational and divine." — Opera, torn, hi., p. 460. And Chrysostom,
Horn, 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 bumed fat. All these are abol
ished, and in their place is substituted a rational worship." — Opera,
torn, xiii., Bened. edit., p. 114. He then proceeds to describe this
worship as spiritual, consisting in modesty, temperance, almsgiving,
and other virtues. Also, Cyrill 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
ably 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. Cyrill's language appears
to me to contain the fullest meaning. As if the Apostle had said, all
the blessings of the Gospel meet in Christ. To speak of the altar, 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
* Atd tovto, ac vnirioic, b uproc b rfkeioc tov Harpbc ydXa rjfilv
tavrbv izapfaxev, oirep i)V r/ /car" avBpcmov avrov wapovaia, Iva
6c iiro fiaoBov Trie aapKoc avrov rpaipivrec, ical Sta rijc Toiavrric
yaXaKTovpylac iBtaBivrec rpuyetv ical mveti) rbv hbyov tov -deov,
tov rfjc dBavaaiac aprov, oirep iarl to milvfia tov JlaTpbc, kv
fijilv avroic Kareaxetv dvvtiBd/iev. — Adv. Haer., lib. iv., cap. lxxiv.,
p. 378, edit. GSABB, 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, pramisit, spiritus est qui vivificat.
Atque ita subjunxit, caro nihil prodest ; ad vivificandum scilicet.
Exequitur etiam quia velit intelligi spiritum, verba qua? locutus sum
vobis, spiritus sunt, vita sunt. Sicut et supra; qui audit sermones
meos et credit in eum qui me misit, habet vitam etemam, 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
vitas appetendus, et devorandus auditu, et ruminandus intellectu, et
fide digerendus. Nam et paulo ante, carnem suam panem quoque
ccelestem pronunciarat, urgens usquequaque per allegoriam 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."f
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 cames jEgyp-
tiorum praeverterant divinae 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.
t Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, spiritualiter potius
intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster est ; quia vita Christus, et
vita panis. Ego sum, inquit, panis vitse. Et paulo supra ; panis est
sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit de coslis. Tum quod et corpus ejus in
pane censetur, hoc est corpus meum. Itaque, petendo panem quoti
dianum, perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo et individuitatem a
corpora 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 HTs 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 utihtate
divina proficit ad salutem. Nam panis vitas 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,
intercedente aliquo graviore delicto, dum abstenti et non commu-
nicantes a coelesti pane prohibemur, a Christi corpore separemur, ipso
praedicante et monente : ego sum panis vitas qui de ccelo descendi ;
si quis ederit deo me pane, vivet in seternum ; panis autem quem ego

120 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS,
Clement 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., iii., 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 saeculi vita. Quando ergo dicit, in aeternum
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
separator 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.
* T)/v roidvde rpooiqv dXkaxoBi be. b Kvpior, hv tC> Kara 'ladv-
vi\v hvayyeXla, kripac k&veyicev bid avfi6b?.av • fdyeaBe /iov rdc
aapnac, elirav, ical meaBe fiov to at/ia • hvapyic tijc mareac Kal
ttjc iirayye'Kiac to irbrtfiov dTX^yopav, bC av % eKKXijaia, Kadd-
7tep dvBpairoc, eK 7roA/U>v avvearjjKvia fte?MV, dpberai re Kai duf-
erai, ovyKporelrai re Kai avfiirqyvVTai, el; dptpoiv • aafiaroc fihi,
Trie Ttlareuc, ipvxJjc be, rf/c ekiriboc • aairep Kal b Kvptoc, eK cap-
koc Kal aiuaroc. — Paedag., lib. i., cap. vi., p. 100, edit. Sylburg. Lu
tetian (Paris), 1629. The construction and meaning of evapyic is not
clear to me. Waterland translates thus : "allegorically signifying
the clear liquor of faith and of the promise ;" making it qualify rd
iroTi/iov, p. 158. Faber 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 !"
Whitby, 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, Svo, p.
386. It is not improbable that ivapyic may be intended to denote
the life and vigour of true faith.
* "0 Kbyoc to, irdvra r$ vrima, Kal irarrip Kal firjrrip, Kal nai-
Sayaybc Kal rpofyevc ' <j>ayea8£ /iov, ifrnal, ttjv oapKa, Kal wieaBi
fiov rb difta. Tavrac rjjj.lv oiKeiac rpoipdc b Kvpwc xoprjyei, Kal
adpKa bptyei Kal difia iK%eei Kal oibev ele aiS-i/aw toic rraibioic
ivbel ' a rov irapabo^ov fivarijpiov ! AirobvaaaBai Tjfilv ttjv iza^Mr
idv Kal aapKiKJjV kyKeXeverai ipBopdv, aartep Kal rr/v ¦KaXaiav rpo-
tyfjv • Kaivrjc bi dTArjc T7jc Xpiarov bialrnc fieraXa/iBdvovrac, eKei-
vov, el Svvarbv, avalajibavbvrac, iv iavxolc diroriBeaBai, Kal rbv
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. All (is) the Lord 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.
aaTqpa evarepviaaaBai • Iva Karapriaa/iev Tqc aapKoc tjuuv ra
ndBti. — Ubi sup., p. 102.
* HoXXaKac dXk-nyopeiTai b Aoyoc, Kal /Spufia, Kal adp%, Kal
Tpofyrj, Kal aproc, Kal di/ia, Kal yd?ta • airavra b Kvpioc, tic airdr
/Xavaiv ijfiuv t&v lie dvrbv •KemoTevKbruv. — P. 105.

AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 123
That Origen 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 sinsf], whose blood we drink, that is, receive
the words of his doctrine."J
In applying the directions in Exod., xii., 8, seq.,
respecting the passover, to what is said of Christ in
John, xix., 32-36, i., 29, and vii., 52, seq., among
other remarks, he says : " This is observed by me
because John, in his Gospel, says, ' And the bread
* Est in Novo Testamento litera, quae occidat eum qui non spirita-
liter quae dicuntur adverterit. Si secundum literam sequaris hoc ip
sum quod dictum est, nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis
sanguinem meum, occidit haec litera. — In Levit. Horn., vii., Opera,
edit. Bened., Paris, 1738, torn, ii., p. 225.
t He had just before quoted Isa., liii.
t Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi, non solum sacramentorum
ritu, sed et cum sermones ejus recipimus, in quibus vita consistit,
sicut et ipse dicit, verba quae locutus sum, spiritus et vita est. Est
ergo ipse vulneratus, cujus nos sanguinem bibimus, id est, doctrina;
ejus verba suscipimus. — In Num. Horn., xvi., torn, 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 I 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 I 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." f
" 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 that came
down from heaven."J
* Touro bi/ioi TeTijpnrai bid rb Kal Iv tu Kara luavv?jv XiyeaBaf
xal b upToe be ov eyu buaa, r) oupH/iov eariv imp TJjc rov xbauov
i^oiTjc' 7/roi be bid rdc eni role dfiapTrj/xaaiv ijfiav fieravolae ttjv
Kara i?eov %vir7]v Xvirovfievuv, uerdvoiav lie auT7jplav dfierafiiXij-
tov rj/iiv ipya^Ofievrjv, Iirl lUKpibov iaBlojiiv Kpea tov a/ivov, Kal
rd dXvfia. — Comment, in Johan., torn. x. ; Opera, torn, iv., p. 177.
t Persecutionem si patiar et confitear Christum meum coram hom
inibus, certus sum quia et ille me confitebitur coram patre suo qui in
coelis est. Fames si affuerit, turbare me non potest; habeo enim
panem vita? qui de ccelo descendit et reficit animas esurientes. Nee
aliquando potest panis iste deficere, est enim perfectus et seternus..
— Comment, in Epist. ad Rom., lib. vii., torn, iv., p. 607.
% Oil Karaioxvv&TjaovTai Iv Kaipifi irovijpiji, Kal r. e.) Kaipbv
ttovripbv Xiyei rbv Tijc Kpiaeac xpbvov, Kai tv iijiipaic Xi/iov %pp-

AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 125
" Man did eat angels' bread, &c.J 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."f 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
TaoBqaoVTai. 'H/iipac Xipjov bvo/idfyi iv die noXXol rav aKaBdprov
oreploKovTai tov aprov tov Iikovtoc' Iya htii b uproe b airo rov ov
pavov Karaide. — Selecta in Psal. (xxxvi., 19), Opera, torn, ii., p. 654.
* 'Aprov ayyeXov eipayev avBpairoc, Kal t. e.] 'O 2orijp fyriaiv
iya li/ii b dproc b i.K rov ovpavov Karabde, Tcvtqv bvv rbv aprov
jjaBiov /iev irpbrepov ayyeXoi, vvvl be Kal avBpanot. To eaBUiv
IvravBa to yivuoKeiv arj/iaivei : tovto ydp loBlei vote b be yiva-
BKei, Kal tovto ovk laBiei b bv yivoaKei. — Ibid., p. 771. Compare,
also, on Isaiah, Horn, iii., Opera, torn, iii., p. 111.
t " Si perfecta loquimur, sf robusta, si fortiora, cames vobis Verbi
Dei apponimus comedendas." — In Num., Horn, xxiii., Opera, torn, ii.,
p. 359.
L 2

126 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS,
flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have life in
you.' "*
The next writer to be adduced is Augustin,
the celebrated Bishop of Hippo.
" They said to him, ' What shall we do that we
may work the work of God V 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 quae illic corporaliter
celebranda mandantur. Expellimus enim vetus fermentum mahtiae
et nequitiae, et in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis celebramus pascha,
Christo nobiscum coepulante secundum vohmtatem agni dicentis,
nisi manducaveritis camem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, non
habebitis vitam manentem in vobis." — In Matt. Comment., torn, iii.,
p. 896. Compare, also, p. 899, and see p. 837, where the same appli
cation is 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^; Aquinatis, Doct.
Angel., Ordin. Praedic, Opera, Venet., 1775, 4to, torn, 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 to man ? 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, whieh is the holy Church in his
* As it is unnecessary to quote the whole of the original Latin, 1
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 aeternam. Utquid paras dentes et ventrem ? Crede et mandu-
casti." — In Johan. Evang., cap. 6, Tract, xxv., § 12, edit. Bened.,
torn, iii., pars h., Ant. 1700, p. 354. "Nemo implet legem, nisi quem
¦adjuverit gratia, id est panis qui de ccelo descendit. Daturas ergo
Dominus Spiritum Sanctum, dixit se panem qui de caslo 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., $ i., 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
quently, 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 utique aeternam. Hunc itaque cibum et
potum societatem vult intelligi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod
est sancta ecclesia in praedestinatis, et vocatis, et justificatis, et glorf-
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 praeparatur, et de mensa Domi
nica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium ; res vero
ipsa cujus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium,
quicumque ejus particeps fuerit." — Ibid, c) 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."f
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 ilium bibere potum, in
Christo manere et ilium manentem in se habere. . Ac per hoc qui non
manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nee
manducat [spiritaliter] carnem ejus, nee bibit ejus sanguinem [licet
carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et san
guinis Christi] ; sed majis tantae 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.
t "Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, ille autem dixit 66
adscensurum in coelum, 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.. tj 3.
t "Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat, delectissimi, ut carnem
Christi et sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in sacramento,
quod 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 tanquam membra maneamus,
ut ejus Spiritu vegetemiir." — Ibid., § 11.
* " Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere : figura est ergo, praecipiens
passioni Dominicae 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, torn, iii., pars
i., 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, iii., 5, in
reference to baptism, and John, vi., 51, 53, 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 w,ork 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-
diarist, 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 sanctae mensae suae : nisi man
ducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum non habebi-
tis vitam in vobis. — Nee salus nee vita aeterna sine baptismo et cor
pore et sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est, frustra sine his
promittitur parvulis." Da pec. merit, et remiss., lib. i., cap. xx.,
xxiv., 4 26, 34, Opera, torn, 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 vita; aetemae ad mindu-
candam carnem suam et bibendum sanguinem suum. Qui audistis
haec, nondum omnes intellexistis. Qui enim baptizati et fideles estis,
quid dixerit nostis." — Sermo cxxxii., de verbis Evang. Johan. 6, Ope
ra, torn, v., p. 449, 450.

AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 133
diately adds the qualification, " if .what is visibly
takerr 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 mej 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."f On Isaiah, lxvi., 17: " Tropologically we may
* " Tunc 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.t " Hunc panem et Jacob patriarcha comedere cupiebat, dicens, si
fuerit Dominus, &c. Quolquot enim in Christo baptizamur, Chris
tum induimus, et panem comedimus angelorum, et audimus Dofni-
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 ecclesiae sanguinem suum."— Ad Hedib., Ope
ra, edit. Bened., Paris, 1706, torn, iv., pars i., p. 172.
M

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 !"f
* " 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 ; nee comedunt carnem
Jesu, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus. De quo ipse loquitur, qui com-
edit carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, habet vitam aeternam.
Etenim pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Qui non foris, sed in
domo una et intus comeditur." — Comment, in Isa. Proph., lib. xviii.,
torn, iii., p. 506.
f "Legimus sanctas scripturas. Ego corpus Jesu Evangelium

AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 135
I conclude this representation by a quotation
from one of the epistles of Basil : " 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-
terium — qui fidelis est intclligil — 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 pericuium incurrimus !" — Breviarium in Psalt., cxlvii.,
3, Opera, torn, ii., Appendix, p. 504.
* " 'O Tpoyav /ii, §r\ai, fr/aerat bi' l/ie • Tpayo/iev yap dvrov r})v
adpKa, Kal rrlvo/iev dimiti to di/ia, koivovoi yivb/ievoi bid rrjc evav-
Bpowriaeac, Kal rye diadriTrjc fuijc rov loyov Kal rfjc aoqiiac • adp
Ka yap Kal aifia rraaav avrov rr)v /ivariKr)v Imbij/iiav bvb/iaae •
Kal ttjv Ik rrpaKTiKrje Kal ipvaiKijc Kal &eo\oyiKtje avveardaav bi-
baoKaXlav IdijXaae, oY r>c rpfyerai V">;w" — Epis. 141, Opera, edit.
Paris, 1618, torn, ii., p. 928. I have translated diaBrirfic 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'Arroque's History of the Eucharist, part
ii., 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
texts and phraseology whereby to express it.
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 Calvin, Luther, and
Melancthon, 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 Gerhard : " What is said in John,
vi., 53, 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 of all."* The language of Erasmus, however,
* " Dictum Joh., vi., 53, non de sacramentali sed spirituali corpo
ris et sanguinis Christi manducatione et bibitione tractat, quae om-

AND OP 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"f
James Capel 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." J
The same view is given by the most distin
guished divines of the English Church. The com-
nibus ad salutem necessaria est." — De Sacra Caena, cap. xxi., § 230,
p. 190. Loc. Theol., torn. v. Franc, et Hamb., 1657.
* " Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrina coelesti." — Crit.
Sac. on John, torn, vi., p. 115, edit. Amst., 1698.
t " His locutionibus significatur fidei vis et efficacia qua unimur
Christo."— Ibid., p. 125.
% " Haec verba perspicue docent jam tum debuisse Christi camem
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.
M2

138 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS,
mentary of Whitby is accessible to all, and his
exposition is so well known as to make any cita
tions superfluous. His learned predecessor, Dr.
Hammond, 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, Bishop Beveridge 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 as a
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. Waterland, 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, London, 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 form a suitable conclusion. The opinions of
Archbishop 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 thinkf 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 verv 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."J
" 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.
t Aug., de Civitate, lib. 21, cap. 25.
X The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, D.D., Archbishop of Canter
bury, collected and arranged by the Rev. Henry Jenkyns, 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., iii.
t) 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."t * Ibid., book ii., chap, x., p. 338, 339.
t 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 I 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 I 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 I in him.' "f
'¦ 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,
against the false Calumniations of Dr. Richard Smyth, p. 9, 10.
t Ibid., p. 64. Answer to Gardyner, book i.
N

146 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS,
as our only price, ransom, and redemption from1
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 bflead 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
clearjy 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 ."f
" Faithful Christian people, such as be Christ's
* Ibid, p. 65-67. t 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 las! 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."f
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 !
* Ibid., p. 139. t Page 187.

The end.

Notice.
A Companion to the Book of Gene
sis, by S. H. Turner, D.D., for sale by
Stanford & Swords, 139 Broadway.
Price $1 25.
INTERESTING WORKS
PUBLISHED by
HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW-YORK.

Jarvis's History of the Church.
A Chronological Introduction to the History of the Churcn, being a New
Inquiry into the true Dates of the Birth and Death of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ ; and containing an original Harmony of the Four Gospels,
now first arranged in the Order of Time. By the Rev. Samuel Farmar Jar-
"is, D.D., LL.D., Historiographer of the Church. 8vo. Price $3 00.
Hunter's Sacred Biography.
Sacred Biography ; or, the History of the Patriarchs. To which is added
the History of Deborah, Ruth, and Hannah, and also the History of Jesua
Christ : being a Course of Lectures delivered in the Scotch Church, Lon
don-Wall. By Henry Hunter, D.D. 8vo. Price $1 75.
M'llvaine's Evidences of Christianity
The Evidences of Christianity, in their External, or Historical, Division :
exhibited in a Course of Lectures. By Bishop M'llvaine. 8vo. Price $1 00.
Dr. Stone on Preaching and the Sacraments,
The Mysteries Opened ; or, Scriptural Views^of Preaching and the Sac
raments, as distinguished from certain Theories concerning Baptismal Re
generation and the Real Presence. By the Rev. John S. Stone, D.D. 12mo.
Price $1 00.
Dr. Smith's Treatise on the Heart.
The Heart delineated in its State by Nature, and as renewed by Grace.
By Hugh Smith, D.D. 18mo. Price 45 cents.
H'llvaine's Charge.
A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocess-of Ohio, at the Twenty-
sixth Annual Convention of the same, in Rosse Chapel, Gambler, Sept. 8th,
1843. By Bishop M'llvaine, D.D. 8vo. Price 12J cents.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 09863 0248