hearers wrongly understood His figurative expressions in a literal sense, and, in consequence of this erroneous interpretation, raised an objection to the doctrine: and we shall see how our Lord acts on such occasions. We will then examine another case; that is, where his hearers take his words literally, and are right in doing so; and on that literal interpretation rightly taken, ground objections to the doctrine; and then we shall see how He acts in these cases. Thus we shall draw from our Saviour's method of acting, two rules for ascertaining whether the Jews were right or wrong; we shall see to which class our objection belongs-and we cannot refuse to abide by such a judgment.

He

1. In the first place, therefore, we have eight or nine passages in the New Testament where our Lord meant to be taken figuratively, and the Jews wrongly took His words in their crude literal sense, and objected to the doctrine. We find in every instance, without exception, that He corrects them. explains that he does not mean to be taken literally, but in the figurative sense. The first is a well-known passage in His interview with Nicodemus, (John iii.) Our Saviour said to him: "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus takes this, as the Jews do in our case, literally, and objects; "How can a man be born again when he is old?" He takes the words literally, so as really to mean a repetition of natural birth, and objects to the doctrine as impracticable and absurd. Our Redeemer replies; "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is manifestly an explanation of the doctrine, teaching him that a person must be born again spiritually, through the agency of water He does not allow Nicodemus to remain in his mistake, which arose from a misinterpretation of the figurative expression In the 16th chapter of St. Matthew, 5th verse, "Jesus said to His disciples; take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The disciples understood Him iterally, as speaking of the bread used by the Pharisees and

Sadducees, and "thought among themselves, saying, because we have taken no bread." He lets them know that He was speaking figuratively; "Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?" See how careful he is to correct them, although no great harm could come from this mistaken interpretation. But mark a very special circumstance with regard to this passage. Our Saviour saw that his disciples had misunderstood him, and accordingly, in the 12th chapter of St. Luke, which Doctor Townsend and others admit to contain a much later discourse than the previous one, when He wished to make use of the same image to the crowds assembled, remembering how He had been on a former occasion misunderstood by His apostles, He was careful to add the explanation. "Beware," he says, " of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy;" thus guarding against the recurrence of that misunderstanding which had previously taken place.

In John iv. 32, Jesus said to his disciples, "I have food to eat which you know not of;" and they asked, "hath any man brought Him any thing to eat?" Jesus said; "My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." Here again He corrects their mistake, and shows that He is speaking figuratively. In the 11th chapter of St. John, 11th verse, Jesus said to his disciples; "Lazarus, our friend, sleepeth." They here again mistake His meaning; "Lord, if he sleepeth he will do well:" they understood that refreshing sleep would be the means of his recovery; "but Jesus spoke of death, but they thought that He spoke of the repose of sleep. Then, therefore, Jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is dead." No harm could have ensued from their continuing in their original belief, that Lazarus was likely to recover, as our Saviour intended to raise him from the dead; but He would not allow them to take His figurative words literally, and therefore He plainly said, “ Lazarus is dead," showing that He meant the expression figuratively, and not literally. Another instance; when the disci

ples took literally His expression in the 19th chapter of Matthew, "that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," He, as usual, corrects them by adding, "that it was a thing impossible to man but not to God." They had taken His words literally, and consequently understood them of an absolute practical impossibility: but He did not mean the figure expressive of impossibility to be pushed so far; and accordingly He rejoins, that only humanly speaking such salvation was impossible, but that with God all things are possible.

In the eighth chapter Jesus says; "Whither I go you cannot come;"—and they said, "Will He kill Himself?" But He replied; "You are from below, I am from above,-you are of this world, I am not of this world." That is to say, “I go to the world to which I belong, and you cannot come to it, as do not belong to it."

you

In all these cases our Blessed Saviour explains His expressions: and there are three or four other passages of a similar nature, in every one of which He acts in the same way. We have thus our first canon or rule, based upon the constant analogy of our Lord's conduct. Where an objection is raised against His doctrine, in consequence of His words being misunderstood, and what He meant figuratively being taken literally, He invariably corrects, and lets his hearers know that He meant them to be taken figuratively. I know but of two passages which can be brought to weaken this rule; one is, where Jesus speaks of His body under the figure of the temple; Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." The other is, where the Samaritan woman understands Him to speak of water literally, and He seems not to explain, that He spoke only in figure. Now, if I had sufficient time to enter into an analysis of these two passages, which would occupy a considerable time, I could show you that these two instances are perfectly inapplicable to our case. I ground their rejection on a minute analysis of them, which takes them out of this class, and places them apart quite by

66

themselves.*

But as the instances already cited establish the first rule quite sufficiently, I shall proceed at once to the other class of texts; that is, where objections were brought against. Christ's doctrine, grounded upon His hearers taking literally what he so intended, and on that correct interpretation raising an objection.

II. In the 9th chapter of St. Matthew, our Saviour said to the man sick of the palsy; " Arise, thy sins are forgiven thee." His hearers took these words in the literal sense, when He meant them to be literal, and make an objection to the doctrine. They say-" This man blasphemeth;" that is to say, He has arrogated to Himself the power of forgiving sins, which belongs to God. He repeats the expression which has given rise to the difficulty, he repeats the very words that have given offence; "Which is it easier, to say thy sins are forgiven thee, or to take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...." We see, therefore, in the second place, that when His hearers object to His doctrine, taking it in the literal sense, and being right in so doing, He does not remove the objection, nor soften down the doctrine, but insists on being believed, and repeats the expression. In the 8th chapter of St. John,'Abraham, your father, rejoiced to see my day. He saw it and was glad." The Jews take His words literally, as though He meant to say that he was coeval with Abraham, and existed in his time. "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" They here again take His words literally, and are correct in doing so, and object to His assertion; and how does He answer them? By repeating the very same proposition," Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am." In the 6th chapter of St. John, in the very discourse under discussion, we have an instance where the Jews say; "Is not this Jesus, whose father and mother we how is it then, that He saith I came down from heaven?" They object to His assertion, and He insists on it, *See it in "Lectures on the Eucharist," pp. 104-115.

66

know,

and repeats it again and again, even three times, saying, that He had come down from heaven.

Thus, then, we have two rules for ascertaining, on any occasion, whether the Jews were right or wrong, in taking our Lord's words to the letter;-first, whenever they took them literally, and He meant them figuratively, He invariably explained His meaning, and told them they were wrong in taking literally what He meant to be figurative. Secondly, whenever the Jews understood Him rightly in a literal sense, and objected to the doctrine proposed, He repeated the very phrases which had given offence. Now, therefore, apply these rules to our The difficulty raised is, "how can this man give us His flesh to eat?" If the words were meant figuratively, Jesus, according to His usual custom, will meet the objection, by stating that He wished to be so understood. Instead of this, He stands to his words, repeats again and again the obnoxious expressions, and requires His hearers to believe them. Hence we must conclude that this passage belongs to the second class, where the Jews were right in taking the different expressions to the letter; and consequently we too are right in so receiving them. Take the three cases together.

case.

THE PROPOSITION.

1. “Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

2. “Abraham, your father, rejoiced to see my day: he saw it and was glad."

3. « And the bread which I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world."

THE OBJECTION.

1. "How can a man be born again when he is old?

2. "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

3. "How can this man give us His Flesh to eat?"

THE ANSWER.

1. "Amen, amen, I

say to thee, unless a man be born again