Conformably to his master's practice, St. Peter preached the efficacy of the name of Christ, and the consequent necessity of belief in him, upon having wrought a miracle, through the invocation of that name.* It will be acknowledged at once, that if our Saviour ever intended to propound the doctrine of the real Presence, a more appropriate and favourable opportunity never occurred, in the course of his entire ministry, than the one exhibited in the sixth chapter of St. John.

The introduction of the whole discourse, and of this topic in particular, becomes still more natural, when we consider that, according to a tradition believed by the Jews, the Messiah, among other points of resemblance to Moses, was, like him to bring down manna from heaven. The Midrasch Coheleth, or exposition of Ecclesiastes, thus expresses it:" Rabbi Berechiah said, in the name of R. Isaac: As the first Goel (deliverer) so shall the second be. The first Goel brought down manna, as it is written, I will cause bread to rain upon you from heaven.' So, likewise, will the later Goel cause manna to descend." As the Jews therefore demanded a sign of his mission, (v. 29) similar to that which proved the divine legation of Moses, who brought down manna from heaven, (vv. 30, 31) our Saviour was naturally led to show that he

*Acts iii. 6. 16.

† Schoettgen, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudica. Dresd. et Lips: 1733. Tom. i. p. 359.

was the second Goel who could rival that miracle, by giving a food which really came down from heaven.

On the signification of his discourse as far as the forty-eighth or fifty-first verse, Protestants and Catholics are equally agreed, it refers entirely to believing in him. It is at one of the verses just mentioned, that we begin to differ most materially upon the subject of his doctrine.

The Catholic maintains that, a' this point, a total though natural change of subject takes place, and a perfect transition is made from believing in Christ, to a real eating of his Body and drinking of his Blood, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The generality of Protestants maintain that no such transition takes place, but that our Saviour really continues to discourse upon the same subject as before, that is, on faith. I have said the generality of Protestants, because there is a variety of opinion among them. Not only Calixtus, Hackspan, Grunenberg, and others abroad, but several distinguished Anglican divines have referred the latter part to the Eucharist, though they do not allow the real Presence, at least, in clear terms. Dr. Jeremy Taylor takes it quite for granted, and reasons upon texts from this part of the chapter, as proving points connected with the Lord's Supper.t Dr. Sherlock

*

* See Wolfii's Curæ philologiæ et critice in iv. SS. Evangelia. Ed. 3a. Hamburg. 1739. pp. 864.

† Worthy Communicant. Lond. 1660, pp. 27, 37, &c.

goes further, and undertakes to demonstrate that it can refer to no other subject.* On the other hand, many Protestant expositors suppose the latter portion of the chapter to relate more specifically than the preceding part to belief in the passion of atonement of our Saviour.†

The point at issue, therefore, between us and our adversaries, is two-fold. First, is there a change of subject at the forty-eighth verse; secondly, is the transition to a real eating of the body of Christ? The double affirmative reply which we give is a fair and obvious point of hermeneutical inquiry, and as such I shall proceed to treat it in our next lectures.

It will appear from what I have said, that I am not satisfied with the transition being placed, as it usually is, at the fifty first verse. Before closing this lecture, therefore, it is proper that I clear up this point; the more so, as the determination of such a transition must materially advance the strength of the arguments which I shall bring forward at our next meeting. For if it shall be shown, that the portion of the discourse comprised between the forty-eighth and fifty-second verses is a complete section of itself, we shall not unreasonably conclude that a new subject may likewise be

* Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies. 3d ed. Lond. 1700. p. 364.

† As Dr. Waterland, "Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist," in the collection of his Works by Dr. Von Mildert. Oxf. 1823.

Vol. vii., p. 105,

therein treated. I have no hesitation in placing the transition at the forty-eighth, and my reasons are the following:

1. Verse 47, seems to me to form an appropriate close to a division of discourse, by the emphatic asseveration amen prefixed to a manifest summary and epilogue of all the preceding doctrine. "Amen,

amen, I say unto you; he that believeth in me hath everlasting life." Compare vv. 35, 37, 45. Verse 48 lays down a clear proposition: "I am the bread of life," suggested by the preceding words, and just suited for the opening of a new discourse.

2. But these words are exactly the same as open the first part of our Saviour's lecture, at v. 35. Now, I find it an ordinary form of transition with him, when he applies the same images to different purposes, to repeat the very words by which he originally commenced his discourse. I will give two or three instances. In John x. 11, he says, "I am the good shepherd;" and he then expatiates upon this character, as it regards himself, contrasting himself with the hireling, and expressing himself ready to die for his sheep. At v. 14, he repeats the words once more, "I am the good shepherd;" and explains them with reference to the sheep, how they hear and obey him, and how his flock will be increased. Again, John xv. 1, he commences his discourse, by-"I am the true vine," and applies the figure negatively to the consequences of not being united to him. Then at v. 5, he repeats the same

words, and explains them positively of the fruits produced by those who do abide in him.* Exactly in the same manner, in our passage, our Saviour, having spoken of himself as bread, "I am the living bread," and expatiated on this thought, in respect to his being the spiritual nourishment of the soul by faith, makes the same form of transition, to treat of himself as bread in another sense, in as much as his flesh is our real sustenance.

3. The motive, however, which principally induces me to see a clear separation between v. 47 and 48, and which forbids me to allow any other transition or break in the discourse, till its complete interruption at v. 53, is the connexion of the entire passage in what is known by the name of the poetical parallelism. This is not the place to enter into an explanation of this system; for that I must refer

* I consider the latter clause of v. 15, of the first passage, and v. 6, with the last member of v. 5, in the second as merely incidental and parenthetic; as I think it will be allowed that the division, which I have suggested of each parable, is manifest and natural. In this remark, I have joined the last member of v. 5, (Jo. xv.) with v. 6, because it has long struck me that the common division of the verses there, is not correct. The reasoning seems hardly conclusive," he that abideth in me... beareth much fruit, because without me, ye can do nothing." (v. 5.) But if we put the stop after "much fruit," and join what follows to the next verse, we have a most expressive argument. "Because without me, ye can do nothing, if any one remain not in me, he shall be cast forth as a worthless branch," &c. Of course, I need not remind my readers that we owe our present division into verses to the elder Stephanus, who made it, for his relaxation inter equitandum.