"the terms flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other in the New Testament, have a definite meaning which never varies. The flesh signifies the corrupted dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature; and the spirit means the sentiments of men, as elevated and ennobled by grace." According, therefore, to Dr. W., the flesh profiteth nothing is equivalent to St. Paul's expression, the wisdom of the flesh is death: and, it is the spirit that quickeneth, is equivalent to the wisdom of the spirit is life. Dr. W. had before told us, "that the flesh could not be considered as equivalent to the letter, in a chapter wherein it has been used twenty times (according to my reckoning, six times) in its ordinary meaning." (p. 100.) Now, however, that it suits his purpose, he makes the word flesh, in the very same chapter, equivalent to the corrupted dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature. Bravo, Dr. W. Unless we suppose our Saviour to have intended to make a remark wholly irrelevant to all that he said before, it is impossible that this interpretation of the word flesh, in ver. 62, can be correct. But Dr. W. discovers further confirmation of the literal interpretation in ver. 67, 68. "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." In this passage, Dr. W. observes, "that Peter does not even allude to the doctrines taught, but throws himself entirely upon his belief in our Saviour's authority." He adds, "now when we consider that to them it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, it must appear extraordinary that even to them he should not have condescended to give any explanation of this singular enigma, which Protestants suppose him to have uttered." When a controversialist is at a loss for an argument, he frequently resorts to a sneer. Does Dr. W. mean to say that all the mysteries of the kingdom of God were made known by Christ to the apostles before his crucifixion? If so, how happened it that they knew not that he was to rise from the dead? In his last conversation with his apostles, Christ says expressly that he had hitherto spoken to them in proverbs, but that the time was approaching when he should shew them plainly of the Father, (John, xvi. 28,) language not altogether consistent with the supposition that they were then in possession of all the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Whether Christ spoke figuratively or literally in John, vi., he spoke, in the way of prophetic intimation, of a rite not yet instituted; his words must, therefore, have necessarily appeared obscure to the apostles. Still St. Peter's answer has a manifest reference to ver. 63. "Thou," he says, "hast the words of eternal life"-those words, which thou hast just described as the spirit and life; although, therefore, th emeaning of the words is hidden from us, we shall not be of the number of those who, receiving them literally, are offended, and refuse longer to be thy disciples.

Having concluded his comments on the chapter, Dr. W. proceeds to furnish us with another specimen of his acquaintance with the arts of controversy. He says, that "in order to condense and sum up the arguments which he has brought in favour of the (Roman) Catholic dogma, he will propose a very simple hypothesis, and deduce them all from its solution." He goes on, after an eloquent eulogium on the

66

beautiful consistency of our Saviour's character, to inquire whether the Protestant or Roman-catholic exposition of John, vi., will best harmonize with it. Without pretending to the gift of prescience, we may safely predict the result of the inquiry; but we may also be allowed to express our doubts respecting Dr. W.'s fairness and candour in conducting it, when we find him commencing his statement of the Protestant exposition in the following words :-"The Protestant would have to describe how this model of all meekness, condescension, and sweetness, upon a certain occasion, undertook to expound one of the most beautiful and consoling of his doctrines, to a crowd of ardent and enthusiastic hearers, who had just before followed him into the wilderness, and fasted three days in order to listen to his instructions." Ardent and enthusiastic hearers! How does Christ begin his exposition to them? What answer does he return to their first question, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?" Jesus answered them and said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." Was this reproof of their low desires and carnal thoughts the answer which he would have returned to ardent and enthusiastic hearers? No. He knew them to be cavillers; that they were so is apparent from the whole conversation. They came not in order to be instructed, and in consequence Christ did not instruct them. What, then, becomes of Dr. W.'s comparison of the Capharnaites to children who misunderstand words in their catechism? (p. 100;) or how are we to characterize Dr. W.'s attempt to mislead the unwary reader, by instituting such a comparison? The remainder of the fourth lecture is chiefly occupied in replying to those Protestant expositors who think that our Lord's discourse, in John, vi., cannot be referred to the eucharist. As I differ from them, I cannot be expected to undertake their defence; but some remarks made by Dr. W. appear to deserve notice. I referred, in my former letter, to a distinction drawn by him between understanding and comprehending. He now states that, "the former refers to the meaning of words, the latter to the nature of the doctrine. Christ was bound (a strong expression) to take care that the Jews understood his words, and they were bound to believe them, though they could not comprehend them;" that is, I suppose, though they could not comprehend in what manner the eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of his blood were to take place; though they could not anticipate that the substance of bread was to be actually changed into that of Christ's flesh, and that of wine into his blood. So much for Dr. W.'s distinction; but he must allow me to add another—a distinction between the meaning of single words, and of the same words combined in a sentence or passage. Christ used no words which were unintelligible to his hearers; but it is quite certain that they repeatedly put wrong constructions on what he said; that they understood literally what he spoke figuratively; and we, protestants, say that they fell into this error in John, vi.

I said, in a former part of this letter, that I should have occasion to offer some remarks on Christ's conversation with Nicodemus, in John, iii. Dr. W. says, in my opinion correctly, that this conversation

stands in the same relation to the institution of baptism, as the discourse in John, vi., to the institution of the eucharist. (p. 134.) Christ in the two cases referred to the respective rites by anticipation. Dr. W. has quoted John, iii., as an instance to prove that, whenever Christ's hearers objected to his words, from taking them in their literal sense, it was his custom to explain them immediately in a figurative manner. Nicodemus understood the words, born again, literally, and Christ lost no time in telling him that they were to be understood figuratively, of a birth of water and the spirit; adding, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." Now, as it appears to me, if we take into account that Christ was in one case speaking to Nicodemus, a person sincerely desirous of instruction in the other, to persons anxiously looking out for occasions to cavil at his words; and if we make due allowance for the different degrees of explicitness with which he was likely to address parties so differently disposed, John, vi. 63, is an exact parallel to John, iii. 5, 6. In both cases he means to reprove his hearers for the low and carnal signification which they had attached to his words.

I have only two more observations to make on the fourth lecture. I wish to draw the reader's attention to the coolness with which Dr. W. assumes (p. 135) the inquiry, whether the words in John, vi., are to be understood of the eucharist or not, to be identical with the inquiry, whether they are to be taken literally or not; and shortly afterwards charges others with making daring and unproved assertions.

The second observation relates to a quotation from Dr. Hampden's inaugural discourse, in which he states the distinction drawn by our church between a real and a corporal presence of Christ in the eucharist. On this quotation Dr. W. makes several, as I must deem them, quibbling remarks, of which the last is, "Where, in scripture, is this nice distinction drawn between a real, vital presence, and a corporal presence?" If I mistake not, Christ has promised that, where two or three of his faithful followers are gathered together in his name, there will he be in the midst of them. Is not this an assertion of a real, distinct from a corporal, presence?

I am, &c.,

PHILALETHES CANTABRIGIENSIS.

SACRED POETRY.

ON DECORATING THE HOUSE OF GOD.

THE King of heaven's angelic bands
Dwells not in temples made with hands:
The heaven of heavens cannot contain
The boundless glories of his reign.

Yet he in pity condescends,

And to our weak conceptions bends;
His special presence stoops to grace
Of prayer and praise the hallowed place.

Since then, O God our Saviour, HERE
Our holiest thoughts to thee draw near,
We love to deck, with pious care,
Thine altar, and thy house of prayer.

Accept, Almighty Lord, we pray,
These tributes of our zeal this day;
And, whilst we humbly bow the knee,
Inspire us with THE LOVE OF THEE.

J. H. B. M.

"And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till ye go thence."*-Matt. 10, 11.

Hæc, ut secundum litteram de hospitii religione venerabilis est forma præcepti : ita etiam de mysterio sententia cœlestis arridet. Et enim cum domus eligitur, dignus hospes inquiritur, videamus igitur ne forte ecclesia præferenda designetur et Christus. Quæ enim dignior domus apostolicæ prædicationis ingressu quam sancta ecclesia, aut qui præferendus magis omnibus videtur esse quam Christus qui pede sui lavare consuevit hospitibus et quoscumque suâ receperit domo, pollutis non patiatur habitare vestigiis; sed maculosos licet vitæ prioris, in reliquum tamen dignetur mundare processus? Hic est igitur solus, quem nemo debet deserere, nemo mutare: cui benè dicitur domine, ad quam ibimus? Verba vitæ eternæ habes, et nos credimus.—Ambrose, in cap. 9, Lucæ.

TO A ROBIN REDBREAST, SINGING IN EARLY WINTER.