most Protestant divines, and among them by Dr. Beveridge, upon the very ground given by himself, namely, that the discourse of Jesus Christ refers to belief in him. For here also he remarks, "there must be restrictions too."* Secondly, I say that there is no restriction at all; because, whenever in any law, or promise in Scripture or elsewhere, rewards or consequences are mentioned, the simple term, expressive of the act to be done, always essentially signifies that act as duly done. When faith is mentioned as having rewards attached to it, a real, a sincere faith, a faith working by charity, is always implied, for "the devils also believe and tremble." When it is said that all who believe and are baptized, shall be saved,‡ much surely is understood relative to the proper dispositions. When efficacy is attributed to the sacrifices of the Old Law, we have no difficulty in understanding that this depended upon the interior feelings of repentance, gratitude, or humility, which accompanied them. The law, in short, always supposes the act well performed, and so it is of course with the law of the Eucharist. 2. A second text popularly adduced against us is the sixty-fourth verse. "The flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit and life." Our Lord is supposed to have intimated by these words, that his phrases were to * Page 103. + St. James ii. 19. See Horne, vol. ii. p. 557. No. viii. 7th ed. Mark xvi. 16, Jo. xi. 26. be taken spiritually and not literally, and so to have intended them for a key to all the preceding discourses. This interpretation may be considered as fairly given up by all learned commentators; 'but as I have more than once observed that it has a popular influence, and that it is often used by ordinary controversialists, as the great ground for rejecting the Catholic explanation of this chapter, I will enter into a fuller exposition of them than otherwise I deem necessary. I will show you first, that this popular way of understanding these words has no foundation; and secondly, that the most learned Protestant commentators are with us in rejecting it. I. 1. There is not a single instance in the Old or New Testament in which flesh means the literal sense of words. Yet this is necessary for us to understand, by the spirit, their figurative or spiritual signification. In some instances, indeed, the spirit is thus opposed to the letter,* but no one will consider flesh an equivalent term to this, especially in a chapter wherein it has been used twenty times in its ordinary meaning. 2. If by the flesh we are to understand the material flesh of Christ, by the spirit we must understand his spirit. If so, in what way does the phrase explain that the foregoing words are to be taken figuratively? For the assertion that Christ's spirit * Rom. vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. Particularly Rom. ii. 29. where flesh might have been used if an equivalent. gives us life, is surely not equivalent to a declaration, that whatever had been said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood is to be understood of faith. 3. The terms flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other in the New Testament, have a definite meaning which never varies. A full explanation of these terms you will find in the eighth chapter of St. Paul to the Romans, from the first to the fourteenth verse. The beginning is as follows. "There is now therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own. Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh; that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. For they that are according to the flesh, mind the things that are of the flesh; but they that are according to the spirit, mind the things that are of the spirit. For the wisdom of the flesh is death; but the wisdom of the spirit is life and peace. Because the wisdom of the flesh is an enemy of God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be. And they who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you." (vv. 1-9.) From this passage, were others wanting, it would be clear that the flesh signifies the corrupted dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature; and the spirit means the sentiments of man, as elevated and ennobled by grace. The qualities here attributed to these powers, or states, are precisely the same as are indicated in the text of St. John. "The wisdom of the flesh is death," "the flesh profiteth nothing;" "the wisdom of the spirit is life," "it is the spirit that quickeneth." Christ's words, then, are spirit and life, or "the spirit of life," by a grammatical figure common in sacred and profane writers :* in other words, such as the mere man cannot receive, but which require a strong power of grace to make them acceptable. If you desire more proofs of this being the only true signification of these terms in Scripture, you may turn over to the following texts. Gal. v. 13-26; 1 Pet. iv. 6. You may consult, likewise, Mat. xxvi. 41; Jo. iii. 6; Rom. vii. 5, 6, coll. 25; Gal. iii. 3, iv. 8; 1 Pet. 1 Cor. v. 5; 2 Cor. vii. 1; iii. 18. The origin of the phrase will be further explained by Jo. viii. 15; Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. ii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 10. II. But I might have spared myself all the trouble of detailing the internal evidence concerning this text, as all modern Protestant commentators of any value, agree with us in this interpretation. Kuinoel discusses the terms at length. After * As "chalybem frænumque momordit;" "pateris libamus et auro." See Glassius, or any writer on sacred philology. having stated the interpretation popularly given, which I am refuting, he thus comments on it :"Sed hæc verborum interpretatio usu loquendi scriptorum Novi Test. comprobari nequit..... Præplacet igitur mihi eorum ratio quibus wμ« est perfectior, sublimior sentiendi et statuendi ratio quam doctrina Christi efficit; a humilis, vilis sentiendi ratio qualis erat Judæorum, qui præconceptas de Messia et bonis in ejus regno expectandis opiniones fovebant: ut adeo sensus sit, valedicere debetis opinionibus vestris præjudicatis, nam sublimior tantum sentiendi et statuendi ac operandi ratio, Eva, salutem affert; humilis, vilis statuendi ac sperandi ratio, Judaica illa ratio, rag nihil confert ad veram felicitatem."* His transcriber Bloomfield repeats his remark; that this translation" (the popular one) "cannot be proved from the usus loquendi of Scripture."+ The Lexicographer of the New Testament, Schleusner, agrees fully with them:—“ Z«ę§: pravitas, vitiositias humana.... altero vero (ratio) hæc quod sensus animi per religionem Christianam emendatos a nominare solebant apostoli." Again:“Пvė vμ Vis divina qua homines adjuti proni ac faciles redduntur ad amplectendam et observandam religionem Christianam. Jo. vi. 63.”§ * In Joan. vi. 63, tom. ii. p. 400, ed. Lond. † Ubi sup. p. 221. ‡ Sub voce, oags, No. 17, tom. ii. p. 618, ed. Glasg. 1817, § Sub voce, Avɛvua, No. 21, p. 448, |