state, in different parts of their works, that the expression is always so used, and can mean nothing else.

Let us now come to the application of this discussion. The Jews, so far as we have any means of ascertaining the signification which they attached to the expression, eating a person's flesh, are proved to have given it a definite figurative meaning in the sense of doing a grievous injury, especially by calumny. According to the natural, necessary rule of interpretation, we have no choice, if we put ourselves in the position of hearers,if we enter into the minds of those to whom our Saviour spoke, -we have no choice, except between the literal signification and that only figurative one, that prevailed among them. And if any attempt be made to adopt any other figurative meaning, the least for which we have a right to ask, is an equal demonstration, that such figurative application was so generally used among the Jews, as that there was some chance, at least, of its being so understood.

Thus far, then, may suffice on the examination of the phraseology used in our Saviour's discourse. We have found one class of phrases in the first part of the discourse, which could be understood only of faith; we have found in the second, expressions of a totally different character, which no criterion that the Jews possessed could lead them to interpret otherwise than in the literal sense, or in that one figurative sense, from which all must at once recoil.

But there is another ground of proof in our favour, the expression now used by our Saviour, of drinking His Blood, as well as eating His Flesh. I have before observed, that no person interested in having his doctrine received by his auditors, can well be supposed to use an illustration of all others most odious to them, one which appeared to command something against the most positive and sacred law of God. Now, we may observe two things; first, that the simple drinking of blood, under any circumstances, or in any extremity, was considered a very great transgression of the law of God; and in the second place, that partaking of human blood was consid

ered still worse,—the greatest curse which God could possibly inflict upon His enemies. Now, I would ask, is it credible that our Saviour, when proposing and recommending to His hearers, one of the most consoling and amiable of all His doctrines, would have voluntarily chosen to conceal it under such a frightful and revolting image? For it is obvious, that, as He had before used the ordinary figure of food to signify belief in Him, and in His redemption, if they wished to be saved, there was nothing to prevent His continuing the same phrase; or, if He chose to depart from the figurative word, can we imagine that He would have selected, of all others, one most likely to convey to His hearers' minds the most disagreeable and painful idea? Such a supposition is at once manifestly repulsive.

Now, with regard to the simple drinking of blood, under any circumstances, the prohibition belongs to the oldest law given to Noah, upon the regeneration of the human race, after the deluge.* But in the law of Moses, we read,-" If any man whosoever, of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, eat blood, I will set my face against his soul, and will cut him off from among his people."+ We find, consequently, that partaking of blood is never mentioned except as a dreadful crime. When the army of Saul had slaughtered the cattle in the blood, it was told to him, that "the people had sinned against the Lord; and he said, ye have transgressed." And in the book of Judith, which, whatever any one's opinion of its canonical authority may be, is at least sufficient to show what the feelings of the Jews were, it is said of the people of Bethula, that "for drought of water, they are to be counted among the dead: and they have a design even to kill the cattle and drink their blood..... therefore, because they do these things, it is certain they will be given up to destruction."§ Even in cases, then, of the last extremity, it was supposed, that if men proceeded so far

• Gen. ix. 4. † Lev. vii. 10. 1 Sam. xiv. 33.

Judith xi. 10-11.

as to taste blood, they had no chance of escape, but were sure to be delivered to utter destruction.

But if we come to speak of eating human flesh, or drinking huinan blood, we find it is never mentioned, except as the final curse which God could inflict on His people, or on their foes.—“ Instead of a fountain and ever running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust."* In the Apocalypse, it is written :"Thou hast given them blood to drink, for they have deserved it." And Jeremiah is commanded to prophesy, as a plague which would astonish all men, that the citizens should be obliged to "eat every man the flesh of his friend." With these feelings on the part of the Jews, can you suppose that our Saviour, if He was desirous of proposing to them a doctrine, would have clothed it under such imagery, as was never used by them except to describe a heinous transgression of the divine law, or the denunciation of a signal curse and judgment from God? I am, therefore, warranted in arguing from this again, that such necessity obliged Him to use these expressions, as that he could not possibly depart from them, if He wished to propound His doctrine; and that He was driven to them, however revolting, because He could not adequately state it in any other words. And this necessity could only be their forming the literal expression of the doctrine proposed.

But, my brethren, hitherto we have been in a manner feeling our way; making use of such criterions, and such means of illustration, as we could collect from other sources; but I now come to the best and surest canon of interpretation. It is not often we have the advantage of having it recorded, in so many words, what was the meaning attached to the words spoken by those who heard them. We are generally obliged to investigate a text, as we have hitherto done, by bringing it into comparison with whatever passages resemble it in other places,—it is seldom we have the hearers' own explanation,— and still seldomer that we can arrive at the teacher's declara

Wisd. xi. 7.

Apoc. xvi. 6.

Jer. xix. 8,

ion of what he meant.

These form the surest and most con

vincing sources of interpretation.

It is evident that the Jews, in the former part of the discourse, when our Saviour spoke of coming down from Heaven, had misunderstood Him, so far, at least, as to call in question His having come down from Heaven. Our Saviour removes that difficulty, and goes on, again and again inculcating the necessity of belief in Him. The Jews make no further objection; consequently they are satisfied; and so far as that doctrine went, there was nothing more to be said against it. If we are to understand our Saviour's discourse, in the latter part of the chapter, as only a continuation of the preceding, the Jews could have no new reason to object, because their only doubt about His coming down from Heaven had been removed. How comes it, therefore, that they did not feel satisfied with what came afterwards? It can only be, that they were convinced He had passed into a new subject. After our Saviour had removed their former objection, they had rejoined nothing; but no sooner did He come to the other section of His discourse, than they immediately complained:— no sooner did he say, "and the bread which I will give is my flesh," than they instantly murmured and exclaimed, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They did not understand it as a continuation of the topic on which He had been previously addressing them; they felt that the same discourse was not continued; for this was evidently a difficulty grounded on the supposition of a change of subject. Now, what was the difficulty? Manifestly the difficulty, or impossibility, of receiving the doctrine. But if they had thought he still spoke of faith in Him, nothing was easier than to understand it. For they had already heard Him speak at length on the subject, without complaint. But the very form of expression," how can this man give us his flesh to eat,”proves that they believed him now to propose a thing impossible. to perform-they could not conceive how it was to be carried int effect. This could only be if they understood the words in

their literal sense. Not only so, but this is agreed on all hands; for we are often upbraided for resembling the men of Caphernaum, in taking the expressions addressed to them, in their carnal literal sense: so that they must be considered as agreeing with us in assuming the literal interpretation. So far, therefore, we have every reason to say, that they who, in ordinary circumstances, must be considered the best interpreters of any expression used, agreed that our Saviour's words could convey no meaning to them but the literal one. I say in ordinary circumstances; because, on any occasion, were you to read an account of what had taken place many years ago, and there were expressions so obscure that you did not understand them, and could any one who had been on the spot explain them, and tell you what they meant, you would admit his testimony, and allow that, being a man of those times, he had a right to be considered a competent authority. Therefore, so far as the Jews are concerned, and so far as hearers are the proper judges of the meaning of any expression addressed to them, we have their testimony with us, that our Saviour's expressions in the latter part of the discourse, were such as could not refer to faith, but related to a new doctrine, which appeared to them impossible.

We must not, however, be satisfied with this discovery; for a great and important question here arises. The Jews believed our Saviour's words in the literal sense, even as we do; now the main point is, were they right in doing so, or were they wrong? If they were right in taking our Saviour's words literally, we also are right,-if they were wrong in taking them literally, then we also are wrong. The entire question now hinges on this point, the ascertaining, if possible, whether the Jews were right, or whether they were wrong, in taking Christ's words in their literal sense. A most accurate criterion by which to discover whether the Jews and ourselves be right or wrong, easily presents itself, and the process of applying it is a very simple one. Let us examine, in the first place, all those passages in the New Testament, where our Saviour's