impart his heavenly doctrine? But the Jews, understanding him literally, are lost in astonishment at the extravagance of his discourse.

Ver. 52. "The Jews then debated among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Ver. 53-58. Jesus, knowing their mean and secular motives, and desirous of being forsaken by them, does not condescend to correct their mistake, but proceeds to express himself in language still more offensive and disgusting:

For my He who

"I say unto you, Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him again at the last day. flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. As the Father liveth who sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which descended from heaven. It is not like the manna which your fathers ate, for they died. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever."

It is universally agreed that the meaning of our Lord in this highly figurative passage is, that the man who receives, digests, and practically improves his divine and heavenly doctrine, shall be raised by him to everlasting life. This doctrine he compares to bread from heaven, from God, far excelling the manna which their fathers ate. He further compares it to his own person, his flesh, his blood; which bread, which person, which flesh and blood descending from heaven, will make those who eat and drink it immortal.

The Jews observing the seriousness and solemnity of our Lord's manner, and understanding his declarations in a strict literal sense, are more offended and disgusted than

ever, and resolve to forsake his society, probably conceiving him to be disordered in his mind 41 !

Ver. 60. "Many of his disciples having heard it, said This is hard doctrine, who can bear it?”

This is such extravagant unintelligible raving, that it is impossible to endure it any longer.

They did not speak out: but Jesus judged from their looks and whisperings what passed in their minds: and in order to fix them in their purpose of leaving him, he adds one more remark in the same strain, which served to confirm them in their former opinion:

Ver. 61, 62. “Does this offend you? What then, if you should see the Son of Man ascending thither where he was before4?"

q. d. Are you so disgusted with what I have said, as to be upon the point of deserting me, after all your professions

11 Our Lord's own friends and near relations suspected him at times to be beside himself. Mark iii. 21. See 2 Cor. v. 13. And his enemies repeatedly, publicly, and without any regard to decency, charged him with insanity. John viii. 48, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?" q. d. a blasphemer and a madman. John x. 20, Many said, He hath a demon and is mad, Why hear ye him?” q. d. Why do you listen to a man that is raving mad? Ver. 21: "Others said" more justly, "These are not the words of him that hath a demon," q. d. of a madman. "Can a demon," q. d. a madman, open the eyes of the blind?" See Improved Version, in loc.

66

This text has always been considered as the strong hold of Arianism, the palmary argument for the pre-existence of Jesus Christ; and the glosses as they are called, of the Socinians and Unitarians, by which they evade what is stated to be the plain obvious meaning of the text, are animadverted upon with no light degree of severity. And Unitarians themselves have appeared almost to despair of giving a satisfactory explanation of it.

Dr. Price, in the Appendix to his Sermons, p. 392, says: "" I must think this text as decisive a declaration of Christ's pre-existence by himself as words can well express. Were I, what some of my best friends wish to see me, a Socinian, I should probably in this case, instead of seeming to wrest a plain text, either give it up and own a difficulty, or with a magnanimous openness, like that of Dr. Priestley

fessions of regard: What then would you say, if, after having eaten my flesh and drunk my blood, you should see me in my own person ascending up to heaven again, from whence, as I told you, I the bread of life came down?

This language must have appeared to our Lord's selfish and ambitious followers, who understood it all in a literal sense, more absurd and extravagant than any thing which they had heard before; and would no doubt fix them in their resolution to renounce all connexion with him.

It is, however, highly probable that our Lord still intended the same thing by the same figurative expressions. By his person, the Son of Man, he still means his doctrine. By ascending up where he was before, i. e. to heaven, he still means the knowledge of sublime and mysterious truths, beyond the reach of common apprehension.

in objecting to the authority of Moses and Paul, question the propriety of building an article of faith, of such magnitude, upon the correctness of John's recollection and representation of our Lord's language."

But with the permission of this able and candid writer, our Lord's language by no means necessarily implies his pre-existence, even if it should be taken in its literal acceptation: for in this sense it better expresses the Socinian hypothesis of a personal ascent to heaven previously to his public appearance, than the Arian notion of a pre-existent Logos. It seems to have escaped the attention of the learned advocates for Arianism, that it is the Son of Man, not the Son of God, it is Jesus in his human form, that is spoken of as having been in heaven before. There is no occasion, therefore, at any rate, to have recourse to the supposition of a lapse of memory in the evangelist. The interpretation proposed above appears to me to explain the text satisfactorily without the supposition of a local ascent: but it is offered with diffidence to the candid and inquisitive reader, as the author does not recollect to have met with it before, though Le Clerc seems to hint at something similar. To the deeply prejudiced, and to those who are not accustomed to judge of the sense of a passage by the connexion and context, it will necessarily appear harsh and unnatural. To the judgement of the calm, serious, and impartial inquirer it is now submitted.

The

The sense then appears to be this: Are you offended at what I have already taught: What would you say if I were to reveal truths still more foreign to your conceptions, and more offensive to your prejudices?

Exactly corresponding with this is our Lord's remark to Nicodemus: John iii. 12, " If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?"

This will be called a forced interpretation. And it is certainly very different from the plain literal meaning of the words. But it is most agreeable to the connexion. It is nothing more than a continuation of the same allegory, in which, throughout, our Lord's doctrine is represented by him as bread from heaven,' as living or life-giving bread,' as himself,' as his own flesh and blood,' which must be eaten and drunk in order to secure immortal life.

Seeing the offence which his discourse had already given, what could be more suitable to his design than to add, What if I should speak truths which would be still more obscure and offensive? or, in the language of the allegory, What if you see me the Son of Man (i. e. my doctrine) ascend to heaven where I was before, i. e. go further out of your reach, and become still more perplexing and mysterious?

Thus the text appears not as an insulated remark unconnected with the context; but as an observation appropriate to the occasion, and couched in language similar to what he had already used; not more harsh than the tenor of the preceding discourse, but made purposely obscure and offensive, that "seeing they might see and not perceive, and hearing they might hear and not un derstand." Luke viii. 10.

It is obvious to remark that the words taken in this sense have no relation to the pre-existence of Jesus Christ. Also, if this be the true interpretation, there is no refe

rence

rence in the 62d verse to our Lord's local ascension; nor in the preceding discourse is there any allusion either to his death, or to his supposed atonement, or to the institution of the eucharist. The whole discourse relates to his divine and heavenly doctrine only.

At the conclusion, our Lord suggests a hint that his language was to be taken in a figurative and not in a literal sense.

Ver. 63. "It is the spirit that giveth life: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."

q. d. It is the hidden meaning of my ænigmatical discourse which alone is useful. If you could actually eat my flesh it would do you no good. The doctrine which I teach is that heavenly bread, that flesh and blood, which if received, digested, and reduced to a living principle of action, will lead to everlasting life.

This declaration of Christ is a key to the whole preceding discourse. But the selfish and ambitious persons who were in his train were too much disgusted with what they had already heard, to listen to any explanation. They found that Jesus was not the man to take the lead in a political revolution. Their ambitious projects were disappointed, and they abandoned his party.

Ver. 66. "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

This was what our Lord desired. He was now deserted by those who had followed him from mercenary and political motives only. He was no longer teased to assume a secular crown: and he was left in privacy with the apostles and a few others whom he had selected, and whom he gradually instructed and qualified to propagate his gospel in the world.

VI.

John viii. 42. "If God were your Father, ye would