who eat of it-adding that the bread was his flesh-which he would give "for the life of the world." Hence, if by change of subject, in this chapter, be meant the transition, so carefully and gradually effected, from the bread, which he had been speaking of, to his flesh-that transition must be assigned to the 51st verse; and it really seems impossible, on any reasonable grounds, to believe that such transition is made at any other part of the discourse. Now, with this belief of a transition at the 51st verse, although held by Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, Dr Wiseman declares himself to be "not satisfied." His persuasion is, that, in the earlier part of our Lord's discourse, the language is to be understood in a metaphorical sense-and in the latter, in a strictly literal sense. He holds that the bread, mentioned in the former part, signifies our Lord's doctrine ; while the flesh, in the latter part, is real flesh, to be veritably eaten. He also maintains that, in the former part, faith is the internal principle by which the bread, or doctrine, is to be received; and that love, or charity, is the principle which accompanies the eating of the flesh, required in the latter part. Faith, then, having been laid down, by the learned author, as the principle peculiar to the former part of the discourse, and charity as that peculiar to the latter, where shall the line of division, between the two parts, be drawn? The learned author's convenience will

be the most effectually consulted by drawing it after the 47th verse; for that is the verse in which faith is mentioned, for the last time, before our Lord adverts to his flesh. There consequentlyas we have already seen, and as we might have predicted he is confident that the division ought to be made. In the 47th verse, our Lord exclaims, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." If it be decided that this address forms, in Dr Wiseman's language, "an appropriate close to a division of discourse" "a manifest summary and epilogue of the preceding doctrine"-the principle of faith may thenceforth be considered to be dismissed; and some new principle, adapted to some new subject, unfolded and enlarged upon. But if the address be prospective as well as retrospective, greater dexterity will be required, than even Dr Wiseman can command, to show that faith is not the great principle still inculcated, through the remainder of the discourse. Common sense indeed, applied to the connexion of the passage, must have appeared, to the author himself, altogether adverse to his own hypothesis; yet arguments with an air of learning being frequently as efficacious in raising difficulties as in removing them, it might appear to be by no means a hopeless experiment to employ them in the instance under consideration. The result, however, is, that if the obvious bearing of the passage were not sufficient to discountenance

the purpose of severing the 47th verse from the verses following, the reasons alleged for the scheme, in the first lecture, combine to prohibit, in the most peremptory manner, all attempts of the kind. And thus, in spite of the learned writer's most strenuous efforts to the contrary, the student of this portion of St John's Gospel is as much at liberty, as ever, to maintain, that the principle of faith, which pervades the former part of the chapter, extends from the 47th verse to the end.

Besides the change of internal principle, from faith to charity, several other advantages might be enumerated, which, in Dr Wiseman's estimation, would accrue to the cause he maintains, from fixing the 47th verse as the termination of one subject, and the 48th as the commencement of another. But these matters will soon come regularly under review; and therefore need not be mentioned on this occasion. On the present subject, it may be enough to say, that the reasons for dividing the discourse after the 47th verse being completely inefficient-and the author himself allowing as he does, with strange inconsistency, the point of division to be "immaterial*". I shall henceforward, with the acknowledged concurrence of Roman Catholic and Protestant writers, consider the first part of the discourse as continued to the 51st verse. Arguments for any doctrine,

* Discourses, Vol. 11. p. 142.

when founded on an arbitrary division like that attempted by Dr Wiseman, must be reprobated by all who feel the attainment of religious truth to be an object of supreme importance. In the study of Scripture, let us honestly endeavour to resign ourselves to the current of divine thought; and not seek, by artificial means, to obstruct its progress.....I have now sufficiently explained the ultimate object of Dr Wiseman's first lecture.

After reading three or four pages of the second lecture, I seemed to be in pursuit of a phantom which I could not overtake. What, I asked myself, What is Dr Wiseman's object; and what are the means of obtaining it? Some time elapsed before I could form a probable conjecture as to the train of thought, which had passed through the author's mind. At length, however, I fanciedfirst, that he deemed it a settled point that there was a total change of subject after the 47th verse; secondly, that he supposed the multitude, who had heard the discourse, to have understood the part before the change figuratively—and the part after the change literally; thirdly, that he was confident that good reasons might be given for the Jews having so understood each part; and lastly, that, in consequence of all these considerations, each part ought to be so understood by us. Something of this kind appears to have been intended, if an opinion may be formed from intimations dropped here and there; and more especially from the

following passages, in which the writer's purposes are the most clearly developed:

"The phrases which occur in the first part of the discourse were calculated to convey to the minds of those who heard our Saviour, the idea of listening to his doctrines and believing in him; the more so, as he positively explained them in that sense. But after the transition I have pointed out, 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. 49.)....Again, "We are therefore authorized to conclude that, whether we consider the customary meaning of the phrases as in use among the Jews of our Saviour's time, or the clear and decisive explanation which he gave to them, those who heard him could not possibly misunderstand this (first) portion of his discourse, nor give any other interpretation to the figure there used, than that of being spiritually nourished by the doctrines which he brought from heaven... I assert that, if we accurately consider the phraseology of this (second) portion of the chapter, according to the only manner in which it could possibly be understood by the Jews whom Christ addressed, we must conclude that they would necessarily infer a change of topic in it, and be convinced that the doctrine now delivered was of a real eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of him who addressed them." (p. 55.)

There seemed, indeed, to be in all this a degree of refinement calculated rather to excite surprise than to inspire confidence. An unwarranted division of a discourse; an assumed fact; proofs of its probability; and a conclusion from the wholepresented altogether a tortuous appearance. In ornamental grounds, as I well knew, the serpentine walk is generally admired; but I was also aware that, in the field of reason, the straight path