rant of the true character of Christ, of the great end for which he came into the world, and of the means by which he was to accomplish it, as it was well possible for men to be; who understood well enough what it was to have their stomachs filled with loaves and fishes, but for the spiritual bread which feeds the soul, had, as Augustin saith, "the jaws of the heart languid; with open ears, were nevertheless deaf, and though they saw, yet remained blind."* Credat Judæus Apella-non ego. Jesus Christ was a judicious teacher. He always chose his topics, as well as the style of treating them, in reference to the character of his auditors. And it is worthy of note that, save the place here alledged, there is not in the whole four Gospels another allusion to this ordinance discoverable, till its final institution at the close of our Lord's earthly career. It is commonly imagined that the early fathers of the church take the sacramental view of John vi; and, further, that this view is definitely declared by them in the form of set expositions. Now such is not the fact. The fathers have left no formal treatises on the chapter-like this of Dr. Wiseman, for example; they never handle it dogmatically, or controversially; and, moreover, what they do say favors the Protestant rather than the Papal interpretation. To say the least, their verdict is so far from being decisive in itself, that "modern theologians differ in their views of the exposition given by these fathers of the chapter under consideration; some contending that they understood it directly of the eucharist, while others maintain that they only apply part of its language to this sacrament." In this opposition stand Johnson and Waterland, two of the most eminent divines of the English Church; the former, "conceiving that the fathers never doubted but that the mystical, or sacramental, sense was that which the Saviour primarily intended; while the latter held, that they only sometimes applied what our Saviour there says to the sacrament, having first interpreted it, in its original designation, of faith. This distinction he thinks important." "For example, the words, 'except ye eat the flesh,' &c., 'you have no life in you,' do not mean directly, that you have no life without the eucharist, but that you have no life in you without participating in our Lord's passion. Nevertheless, since the eucharist is one way of participating in the passion, and a very considerable one, it was very pertinent and proper to urge the doctrine of that chapter, both for the clearer understanding of the beneficial nature of the eucharist, and for the Quoted in the Essay, p. 46. exciting of Christians to a frequent and devout reception of it. Such was the use which some of the early fathers made of John vi." But we are not left in this matter to the representations of others. Dr. Turner, whose philological studies have evidently not been pursued at the expense of patristic researches, has hunted up everything written on this chapter by the most celebrated fathers of the first four centuries; and having translated the extracts, has incorporated them in Part III of his Essay, accompanied by their originals; so that the reader can form his own opinion on the point. Most probably, however, nearly every one will acquiesce in the conclusion which he himself has drawn :-"That the obscurity of the inspired page is not always removed by the expositions of even the best of these writers;. and that the interpretation may chance to be no clearer than the text, and equally to require philological investigation and antiquarian research." The following passage from Ignatius, with the remarks of our essayist thereon, we think worthy of quotation : "Let no one deceive himself; unless any one be within the altar he is deprived of the bread of God."* It is assumed by Johnson as. undeniable that Ignatius uses this language of the Lord's supper: By calling the eucharist the bread of God he clearly refers to John vi, 33; it is certain that by that phrase he means the eucharist.' But so far is this from being certain, that it does not appear even probable. The language is used in the same sense as in the verse referred to; that is to say, of Christ himself, who came from God to be the author and sustainer of spiritual life to us. This alone would be sufficient reason for applying to him such figurative language; but inasmuch as the phrase is frequently used of sacrifices under the law,f it, doubtless, is chosen with the intention of representing him as also the great sacrifice whereby alone God is propitiated. In John vi, 33, our Saviour calls himself, and afterward Ignatius calls him,' the bread of God,' as he was a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and to be mysteriously eaten as such. Some will no doubt think that Johnson's opinion is favored by the word 'altar.' But it is a mistake to suppose that Ignatius intends this word to designate the Lord's table. That author understands it of the altar-room,' by being called up into which, and there eating the sacrifice,' he says, that 'Christian people are dignified beyond the old peculium,' (the Jews,) and within which all communicants did unquestionably, in Ignatius's time, go, in order to receive the eucharist:' although afterward, they were prohibited from entering the altar-room.' He avoids the absurdity of the literal meaning of persons being within an altar, by giving a sense to the word which is wholly unfounded, and by adhering to a literal meaning of the whole clause, alike unworthy of the martyr and * Epistle to Ephesians. Μηδεις πλανάσθω ἐὰνμητ.κλ. 6 his subject, and inconsistent with the peculiar circumstances under which he wrote. There is hardly any reason to doubt that here, and in the three other places in which the term occurs, Ignatius uses it in a figurative sense for the church, or for Christ himself, in connection with whom, as around an altar or in a temple, all spiritual blessings do, as it were, cluster. That in the place just cited he means the church, is evident from the preceding context, and from that which immediately follows. The whole passage runs thus: How must I esteem you happy who are so intimately united with him, (the bishop,) as the church is with Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ with the Father, that all things may accord in unity! Let no one deceive himself. Unless any one be within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God.' To the Magnesians he says, 'There is one Lord Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Run together, therefore, all as to one temple, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ.' Cap. vii. To the Trallians' He that is within the altar is pure.' Cap. vii. In both these places the meaning is also plain. In the only remaining one in which the word occurs, in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, it might be understoood of the Lord's table, and has often been so explained. See Suicer's Thesaurus, under dvocaσrηpiov, ii, 1, d; Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, No. II, and Tholuck on Heb. xiii, 10. The words are these: There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for unity in his blood, one altar.' Cap. iv. Still I cannot but think that a careful attention to the context, and particularly the chapter next preceding, will satisfy the reader that the meaning already suggested is preferable. The apostolic man is urging those to whom he writes to unity, and the term altar may with as much propriety be understood of the church as of the Lord's table; and the probability that such is its meaning here is strengthened by the fact that such is the undoubted sense of it elsewhere. The context is as follows:-'As many as shall repent and come to the unity of the church, these shall be God's, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Be not deceived, my brethren. If any one follow a schismatic, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any walk after a different opinion, he is not in harmony with Christ's passion. Be careful, therefore, to use one eucharist; for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for unity in his blood, one altar.' It is very surprising that any one should wish to give to these places a meaning which refers chiefly to what is material or local."-Essay, pp. 112, 113. -- Let the reader also mark well the language of the following, extracted from the writings of Augustin:-"They said to him, 'What shall we do that we may work the work of God?' For he had said to them, 'Work for the food that doth not perish, but endureth to eternal life.' 'What shall we do? say they; 'by observing what shall we be able fully to perform this precept? Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.' This, therefore, is to eat the meat which doth not perish, but endureth to everlasting life. Why do you pre -no one pare the teeth and stomach? Believe and thou hast eaten fulfills the law but he who is aided by grace, that is, the bread which comes down from heaven. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the compendium of it, as the apostle says; love, not of money, but of God-love, not of earth, not of heaven, but of him who made heaven and earth. Whence is this love to man? Let us hear him: The love of God, says he, is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom he hath given us. The Lord being about to give the Holy Spirit, called himself the bread which came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in him. For to believe in him, this is to eat the living bread. He who believes, is invisibly nourished, (literally, fattened,) because he is invisibly born again." That the sacramental interpretation of John vi should become prominent was, of course, to be expected, just in proportion as the religious condition of the church tended to the external and ceremonial, in contradistinction to the inward, and the condition signified by the typical adumbration. And such was really the fact. Yet, even in those periods of comparative ignorance, which we have probably been too apt to turn away from with disgust, as the dark ages, unworthy of notice, in which nothing is expected to be found which will repay the trouble of search, glimpses of the pure ray may be seen, proving that the "holy light" was far from being quenched; and that the same blessed Spirit who beamed upon the soul of the beloved disciple, still "shone inward," and taught the hearts of his faithful people. Let any one read the commentary of the venerable Bede, of the eighth century, on our Lord's discourse at Capernaum, and while he will recognize the sacramental interpretation, he cannot fail to perceive also, that the leading current of the author's mind sets toward the spiritual: "Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. That manna was significant of the imperishable meat, and all those signs were of me. My signs ye loved; what was signified thereby ye despise.-And the bread which I will give is my flesh, &c. Whosoever will live, let him believe in Christ, let him eat spiritually the spiritual food, and become incorporated with the body of Christ, and let him not be a corrupt member meriting excision; let him be fair and sound, fit for his Head." Then he proceeds, in the words of St. Augustin, "to eat that food and to drink that drink is this, to abide in Christ and to have Christ abiding in us. He, therefore, who does not abide in Christ and in whom Christ does not abide, beyond a doubt, does not spiritually *Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede et manducasti. In Johan. Evang. eat his flesh, although carnally and visibly he may press with his teeth the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, but rather eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a thing to his judgment, because, impure, he presumes to approach to Christ's sacraments, of which no one but the pure can worthily partake."" In another place he explains the last-cited verse both of the eucharist and of the atonement on the cross: "This bread the Lord then gave when he delivered the mystery of his body and blood to the disciples, and when he offered himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross."t The sacramental view is prominent in the exposition of the Bulgarian metropolitan of the eleventh century, Theophylact, although he does not entirely lose sight of the spiritual and higher sense: "The bread which I will give, &c. Here he evidently speaks of the mystical reception of his body. But indicating his right,-for not as a slave (servant, dovλoç) and inferior to his Father, he was crucified, but willingly,-he says, 'I will give my flesh for the life of the world,' &c. But consider that the bread which is eaten by us in the mysteries is not a type of the Lord's flesh, but the flesh itself: for he did not say, the bread which I will give is the type of my flesh,-but, is my flesh. For, through the mystical blessing and the addition of the Holy Spirit, it is transformed by inexplicable (literally, ineffable, droppýτois) words to the flesh of the Lord. And now, therefore, the bread is changed into the Lord's body." But still he does not forget the necessity of an inward character correspondent with the holiness of the sacramental elements. "When, therefore, we hear the words, 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son ye have no life,' it becomes us, in receiving the divine mysteries, to have unwavering faith, and not to inquire into the manner: for the animal man, that is, he who is led by human and carnal, or natural reasonings, doth 'not receive what is supernatural and spiritual,' and therefore has no conception of what the spiritual food of the Lord's flesh means." Let us look now at the language of the celebrated abbot of Clairvaulx in the twelfth century. St. Bernard speaks of "a three-fold reception of the body and blood of the Lord. The first is both sacramental and spiritual, of which the Lord says, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood Breviarium Evangelii D. Joannis, cap. vi; Opera, Colon., tom. v, col. 509, 510. †D. Thomæ Aquinatis Doct. Angel. Ord. Præd. Opera, Venet. 1775, 4to., tom. iv, p. 429; Super Joannis Evangelium Catena, cap. vi. Commentarius in Joannem, cap. vi. Opera, Venet. 1754, tom. i, pp. 593–595. |