of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the king. dom of heaven."

2. "Amen, amen, I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am."

3. "Amen, amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, ye shall not have life in you."

In the propositions and objections, there is a striking resemblance; but the moment we come to the reply, there is manifest divergence. In the first text a modification is introduced, indicative of a figurative meaning; in the second there is a clear repetition of the hard word, which had not proved palatable. And in the third, does Jesus modify his expressions? Does he say, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man in spirit and by faith, ye shall not have life in you?" Or does he repeat the very expression that has given offence? If he does, this passage belongs to the second class, when the hearers were right in taking his words literally, and objected upon that ground; and, therefore, we must conclude that the hearers of our Saviour, the Jews, were right so in taking these words in their literal sense. If they were right, we also are right, and are warranted in adopting that literal interpretation.

After this argument, I need only proceed in as summary a way as possible, to analyse our Saviour's answer; because I am not content with showing that He merely repeated the phrase, and thereby proving that the Jews were right in their version; but I am anxious to confirm this result, by the manner in which He made His repetition, and by the particular circumstances which give force to His answer.

1. The doctrine is now embodied into the form of a precept; and you all know that when a command is given, the words should be as literal as possible, that they should be couched in language clearly intelligible. Now thus, our Saviour goes on to enjoin this solemn precept, and to add a severe penalty for its neglect. "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man,

and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you." Here is a portion of eternal life to be lost or gained by every Christian; and can we suppose that our heavenly Master clothed so important a precept under such extraordinary figurative language as this? Can we imagine that he laid down a doctrine, the neglect of which involved eternal punishment, in metaphorical phrases of this strange sort? What are we therefore to conclude? That these words are to be taken in the strictest and most literal sense; and this reflection gains further strength, when we consider that it was delivered in a twofold form, as a command, and as a prohibition. "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever;" and, "except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you." We have, therefore, the compliance with its promise, the neglect with its penalties, proposed to us. This is precisely the form used by our Saviour in teaching the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. "He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be condemned. The two cases are parallel, and being precepts, both must be taken in their literal sense.

2. In the second place, our Saviour makes a distinction between the eating of His Body and the drinking of His Blood; and does so in a very marked and energetic manner; repeating the expressions over and over again. If this be a figure, there is no distinction between its two parts. If it be only descriptive of faith, if only an act of the mind and understanding be here designated, we cannot, by any stretch of fancy, divide it into two acts, characterised by the two bodily operations.

3. Again, Christ subjoins a strong asseveration; "Amen, amen," which is always used when particular weight or emphasis is to be given to words; when they are intended to be taken in their most simple and obvious signification.

4. In the fourth place, we have a qualifying determinating phrase, because it is said, "my flesh is meat indeed,”—that is to say, truly and verily, "and my blood is drink indeed." These expressions should certainly go far to exclude the

idea, that it was only figurative meat and drink, of which he spoke. When a person says that a thing is verily so, we must understand him, as far as it is possible for language to express it, in a literal signification.

5. It is evident that our Saviour is compelled to use that strong and harsh expression," he that eateth me," a phrase that sounds somewhat painfully harsh when repeated, however spiritually it be understood. We can hardly conceive that He would, by preference, choose so strong and extraordinary an expression, not only so, but one so much at variance with the preceding part of His discourse, if He had any choice, and if this had not been the literal form of inculcating the precept.

I have given you a very slight and almost superficial analysis of our Saviour's answer. I might have quoted many other passages, had time served, to confirm the result at which we have arrived, and to prove that the Jews were perfectly warranted in literally determining the meaning of our Saviour's expressions. We now come to another interesting incident. The disciples exclaim; "this is a hard saying,"the meaning of which expression is; "this is a disagreeable, an odious proposition." For it is in this sense that the phrase is used by ancient authors. "This is a hard saying, and who can hear it?""It is impossible," in other words, "any longer to associate with a man who teaches us such revolting doctrines as these. I ask, would they have spoken thus, had they understood Him to be speaking only of believing in Him? But what is our Saviour's conduct to these disciples? What is His answer? Why, He allows all to go away, who did not give in their adhesion, and at once believe Him on His word; He says not a syllable to prevent their abandoning Him, and they walked no more with Him." Can we possibly imagine that, if He had been speaking all the time in figures, and they had misunderstood Him, He would permit them to be lost for ever, in consequence of their refusal to believe imaginary doctrines, which He never meant to teach them? For if they left him, on the supposition that they heard intolerable doc

66

triues, which, indeed, He was not delivering, the fault was not so much theirs; but might seem, in some manner, to fall on Him whose unusual and unintelligible expressions had led them into error.

reserve.

In the second place, what is the conduct of the Apostles? They remain faithful,-they resist the suggestions of natural feeling, they abandon themselves to His authority without "To whom shall we go?" they exclaim, "Thou hast the words of eternal life." It is manifest that they do not understand Him, any more than the rest, but they submit their judgments to Him; and He accepts the sacrifice, and acknowledges them for His disciples on this very ground. "Have I not chosen you twelve?"—" Are you not my chosen friends, who will not abandon me, but remain faithful in spite of the difficulties opposed to your conviction?" The doctrine taught, therefore, was one which required a surrender of human reasoning, and a submission, in absolute docility, to the word of Christ. But surely the simple injunction to have faith in Him, would not have appeared so difficult to them, and needed not to be so relentlessly enforced by their divine Master.

I will now sum up the argument, by a comparative supposition, which will place the two systems in simple contrast. Every action of our Saviour's life may be doubtless considered a true model of what we should practise, and in whatever capacity He acts He must present the most perfect example which we can try to copy. He is, on this occasion, discharging the office of a teacher, and consequently may be proposed as the purest model of that character. Suppose a bishop of the established Church, on the one hand, and a bishop of the Catholic Church on the other, wished to recommend to the pastors of their respective flocks, the conduct of our Saviour here, as a guide to show them how to act when teaching the doctrines of religion. The one would have, consister tly, to speak thus: "When you are teaching your children the doctrine of the Eucharist, lay it down in the strongest literal terms; say, if you please, emphatically, in the words of

you

the Church Catechism, that, 'the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.' Teach your doctrine in these words to your children. If they say to you, as doubtless they will; but this is the doctrine of Popery,-this is the Catholic doctrine, we cannot believe in a Real Presence,'-follow the example of our Saviour; repeat the expression again and again; give no explanation, but insist, in the strongest terms, that Christ's Flesh and Blood must be truly and verily received; and let your scholars fall away and leave you, as teaching untenable opinions: for, by this course you will imitate the example left by your divine Master." In other words, supposing you wished to give an outline of our Lord's conduct to one who did not believe in His divine mission, you would have to state that He was in the habit of teaching with the greatest meekness and simplicity; that He laid down His doctrines in the most open and candid manner; that when on any occasion His hearers misunderstood him, and took literally what He meant figuratively, He was always accustomed to explain His meaning, to remove the difficulty, and meet every objection; but that, on this occasion alone, he completely departed from this rule. Although his hearers took his words literally, when He was speaking figuratively, He went on repeating the same expressions that had given rise to error, and would not condescend to explain his meaning. You would add, that even with His disciples He would enter into no explanation, but allowed them to depart; and that even His chosen aposties received the same unusual treatment.

But in the Catholic explanation of this chapter, the whole is consistent, from first to last, with the usual conduct and character of our Saviour. We find that He has to teach a doctrine: we believe it to be a promise of the Eucharist; He selects the clearest, most obvious, and literal terms. He expresses it in the most simple and intelligible words. The doctrine is disbelieved as absurd: objections are raised; our Saviour, as on all other similar occasions, goes on repeating the