let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth in me," &c. (vii. 37),-where the same image is used as in the first part of the discourse in the sixth chapter. Hence, our Redeemer, at the conclusion of his discourse, says, “But there are some of you that believe not.....therefore did I say to you, that no man can come unto me, unless it be given him by the Father." In this manner, the qualities of the first method of receiving Christ's food, are precisely what we should expect if he treated of belief.

But, after the place where we suppose the transition made, he speaks no longer of our coming to him, but of our abiding in him, and he in us. (vv. 57, 58.) And this is a phrase which always intimates union by love. Thus, (John xiv. 23) "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." In the 15th chapter, (vv. 4-9,) the figure drawn from the necessity of the branches being united to the vine, gives the same result. "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.....Abide in my love." In the First Epistle of St. John, it is distinguished from faith, as an effect from the cause. "If that abide in you which you have heard from the beginning, (the word of faith,) you also shall abide in the Son and in the Father." (ii. 24). "And now little children abide in him, that when he shall come we may have confidence, and not be confounded by him at his coming." These words are more

clearly explained in the 4th chapter, (vv. 16, 17), "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him. In this is the charity of God perfected within us, that we may have confidence in the day of judgment." In addition, compare iii. 24. iv. 12, 13.

Thus, we have the effects of the doctrine inculcated after the 48th verse, given us quite different from those before rehearsed; and as the latter apply to faith, these are such as describe a union with Christ through love. Something, therefore, is here delivered, or instituted, which tends to nourish and perfect this virtue, and not faith; the topic therefore, is changed, and a transition has taken place. And what institution more suited to answer this end than the Blessed Eucharist? What could be more truly an instrument or means for our abiding in Christ, and Christ in us?

5. Our opponents suppose the phrases in the two portions of the discourse to be parallel, and to refer equally to faith. By this reasoning it follows, that to eat his flesh (vv. 54, 55, 56, 57,) means the same as to possess the bread of life mentioned in the former section (vv. 32, 33, 35.) I will not revert to the observations already made, that in it our Saviour never once uses the word to eat, as applied either to himself or his doctrines; but will allow, for a moment, that the expressions there used are equivalent to a declaration, that the bread of life, which he identifies with himself, is to be eaten; in other words, that he is our food, and that, by this

is signified, that we must believe in him. But, if to feed on Christ mean to believe in Christ, then, to eat the flesh of Christ, (if the phrase has to be considered parallel,) must signify to believe in the flesh of Christ. This is absurd; for the flesh and blood of Christ was not an object of faith to those who really sinned by believing him too literally to be only a man; nor can our belief in them be the source of eternal life. Protestants say, that, as to feed on Christ signifies to believe in him, so, to eat his flesh, and drink his blood, means to believe in his passion. But they do not bring a single argument to show that such a phrase was in use, or could have been intelligible to his hearers. The expressions, therefore, used in the second part of our Lord's discourse, are in no wise parallel to those of the first, nor can they bear the same meaning. In fact, the only one they will bear is the literal signification.

6. But all the differences which I have hitherto pointed out, are mere præludia to the real, and, I trust, decisive examination of the point which yet remains. By discussing the meaning which the Jews attached to the phrases employed by our Saviour in the first part of his discourse, we found that he kept perfectly within the limits of established language, that the expressions which he used were sufficiently ordinary and intelligible. We must now descend to a similar investigation of the phrases used in the second part, and discover what was the only meaning which the persons whom he

addressed could attach to his words. The line I intend to pursue is simply this.

Protestants say, that the expression, "to eat the flesh of Christ," is to be taken figuratively. I will therefore inquire if ever it bore a figurative meaning. If I discover that, among the persons whom Jesus addressed, it did bear a figurative signification, besides its literal sense, then I must conclude, that those persons could only select between that established figurative sense, and the literal import of the words.

To place the strength of this course of inquiry in its clearest light, I will indulge in a few brief remarks. The explanation of tropical phraseology, as Jahn has well remarked, must depend entirely upon the usus loquendi, or the sense attached to it by the persons to whom it was addressed.* In fact, there is no style of language in which we are left less at liberty in attaching signification to phrases, than in employing metaphorical terms which are in daily use. Take, for instance, the word lion. So long as by it we describe objects which fall under the senses, we apply it to things of very different forms; the animal of that name, or its Egyptian, Chinese, or heraldic representation,

"Quemadmodum omnis interpretatio, ita quoque et agnitio et interpretatio troporum ab usu loquendi tropico, qui cuilibet nutioni, instituto, ætati, etc. proprius est, pendet."-"Sicuti omnis sermonis, ita etiam, tropici, suprema lex, est usus et consuetudo loquendi!"-Enchiridion Hermeneut, generalis. Vien. 1812. pp. 106, 107.

though differing equally from their prototype, and from one another, all these are equally called by the same name. But when you come to the figure, and say that "such a man is a lion," you have no choice of meaning; and though the lion might be justly distinguished for his agility, his lofty gait, his generous disposition, and his noble instincts, yet would no one ever understand the figure of any of these, but only of that overpowering strength, joined to unyielding courage, of which he is the emblem.* And if, in like manner, I said of a warrior chief that he was a tiger, nobody would ever understand me, if thereby I intended to describe his strong limbs, or his soft gait, or his amazing power of leaping and running. For, although these

* As an instance of the utility of recurring to the ideas of a peculiar country, in order to understand figures of this sort, we may refer to Cant. i. 9, (al. 8,) which may be rendered more literally than in the Vulgate, by "Equabus in curribus Pharaonis assimilabo te." In what does the comparison consist? Lowth illustrates it from Theocritus, Idyll xviii. 30, (De Sacra Poesi, Ox. 1810, vol. i. p. 397;) and then it only expresses loftiness of stature. Rosenmuller thinks it refers to the caparisons worn by the horse, as compared to the trinkets which adorned the bride. (Solomonis regis et sapientis quæ perhibentur scripta. Lips. 1830. p. 314.) But the poetry of the east, even at the present day, uses the figure, though in neither of these senses. Among the images under which female charms are yet described in the pastoral poetry of the Bedouins, all bearing a striking resemblance to the expressions in the Canticle, we have this very one:-"Il n'omet ni sa démarche légère comme celle d'une jeune pouline," &e. (Volney, Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie, cinquième éd. Paris. 1822, tome i. p. 373.)