in the Proverbs-"Come eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled." To the same effect are the passages derived from Philo, the Talmud, the Rabbins and the Sanscrit. Why, then, should the learned author attribute to our Lord a "remarkable reserve" in this matter -when the turn of expression, being "one in ordinary use among the Jews and other orientals" -could "present no difficulty"? His authorities are not stronger for bread in its metaphorical sense, than for eating in its metaphorical sense. This notion of "reserve" is, moreover, at variance with what we know of our Lord's language in other instances. Thus, in John vii. 37, he declared, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink; and that the drinking then spoken of was, not to be literally understood, is apparent from our Lord's subsequent expressions-" He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water"-and still more, from the comment of the Evangelist-"But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified."-Even when conversing with the woman of Samaria (John iv. 13, 14)—whose perception of the meaning of words Dr Wiseman will not attribute to the sources of intelligence already mentioned our Lord employed without scruple the same mode of expression: "Jesus answered

and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." And yet, the drinking of that water is undoubtedly to be understood figuratively. These observations are offered, less for the purpose of obviating the difficulty which the learned lecturer is willing to raise, than with the design of removing one among the almost innumerable misrepresentations of Scripture which are found in the volume under review.

I conclude, from all that has been stated, that the first section of the discourse was "calculated to convey," to the Jews, the idea of hearing and believing; but that, if they really had an impression that they were so required to hear and believe, it must, in the main, have been on different grounds from those alleged by Dr Wiseman. We are thus introduced to another subject of enquiry: —namely, what, in point of fact, were the impressions on the minds of the Jews, in consequence of the first section of the discourse.

Although Dr Wiseman, at the outset of his second lecture, professed to be showing that "the phrases which occur in the first part of our Lord's discourse were calculated to convey the idea of listening to the doctrines of our Lord and believing in him"-he thinks himself "authorized to

conclude" that "those who heard him could not possibly misunderstand that portion, nor give any other interpretation to the figure there used, than that of being spiritually nourished by the doctrines which he brought down from heaven*." My hope is, that I "cannot possibly misunderstand" the learned author, when I suppose him thus to affirm, that the Jews actually did give a spiritual interpretation to the first part. Such then is Dr Wiseman's plan of operation. He enunciates one proposition, as about to be established; and, at the end of the process, he enunciates another, as actually proved. The discourse "was calculated" to produce a certain effect upon the Jews-therefore it did produce that effect; on the principle, I suppose, that to point out, in any case, what ought to have been the conduct of men, is only another method of ascertaining what it really was. A strange principle this, under any circumstances; but above all strange, when applied to the occurrences which attended our Lord's earthly existence. Whatever Dr Wiseman may imagine, as to the impossibility of misunderstanding the purport of our Lord's discourse; the people undoubtedly did misunderstand it, from first to last. Their thoughts and expectations were wholly carnal throughout. They recollected that they had eaten of the loaves and had been filled; and were intent upon similar manifestations of power in their favour. I cannot * Lectures, p. 55.

imagine any intelligent person reading the chapter, without perceiving that such were their feelings. What is their language?" What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat."—And when our Lord informed them that "the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world"—their reply-(v. 34) "Lord, evermore give us this bread (Κύριε, πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν aρTOV TOÛTOV)”—as surely indicates temporal views, as did the reply of the Samaritan woman in the fourth chapter (v. 15)—"Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw (Κύριε, δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἵνα μὴ διψῶ, μηδὲ iva ἔρχομαι ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν).”The same gross views were still present to their minds, when they afterwards (v. 41) "murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven;" and their disappointment and discontent were roused to the uttermost when (v. 52) they "strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" For my own part, I cannot discover the slightest intimation of a single idea, in their minds, save that of obtaining a supply of food, similar to that of the preceding day.... On this part of the subject, it would be useless to add more than a single concluding remark— which is this: To commence an investigation, with

a division of discourse, at once opposed to reason and disapproved by every thing that can be deemed authority-subsequently to engage in the hopeless attempt to prove a fact, not by evidence but by argument such, so far as we have yet had an opportunity to observe, are the peculiar characteristics of Dr Wiseman's undertaking.

On proceeding to Dr Wiseman's remarks on the latter portion of the discourse-that is, from v. 48 to the end-we find him asserting, " that if we accurately consider the phraseology of this 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*." That the Jews understood the latter part of the discourse, as they had understood the former, in the very grossest sense which the words admittedthere can be no doubt; but whether they ought so to have understood it, is another matter, the consideration of which will chiefly occupy the remainder of this section. To that consideration I shall request the reader's attention, after a few words on that total change of subject, so strenuously insisted upon by the learned author.

In v. 48, we find, "I am the bread of life

*Lectures, p. 56.