CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. CHRIST'S DISCOURSE WITH THE CAPERNAITES AND HIS DISCIPLES AS RECORDED BY ST. JOHN. p. 1. Christ's Discourse at Capernaum, when viewed as bearing upon the Sacrament of the Eucharist, has, thence, often formed the basis of a disputation relative to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. p. 1. I. Matter recorded, as introductory to the Discourse at II.The Discourse, or rather Conversation, divided, agreeably III. A brief introductory statement of the matters to be discussed in the Discourse. p. 9. CHAPTER II. RESPECTING THE STRUCTURE OF CHRIST'S DISCOURSE AT CAPERNAUM. p. 10. Diversity of opinions, among both Roman-Catholics and Reformed-Catholics, touching the Structure of Christ's Dis I. Before any thing can be attempted in the way of Exposition, its abstract mechanical Structure must be settled. p. 12. II. The Discourse bears no definite marks of any division: whether the point of division be placed at the end of the 47th verse of the chapter or at the end of the 50th verse. p. 14. 1. Neither of these two proposed points of division is (1.) The selected interlocution, as undivided. p. 24. (3.) Remarks on the project of a division. p. 27. 2. Our want of confidence in the hypothesis of a division is further increased by the management of the phraseology throughout the entire Discourse. p. 29. III. A brief summary of the Discourse, with its result. p. 32. CHAPTER III. RESPECTING THE IMPORT OF THE DISCOURSE NEGATIVELY. p. 36. Since the Discourse relates throughout to a single subject and not to two distinct subjects, either the one or the other of the two interpretations, which have been severally given of its earlier part and its later part, must be rejected. On this principle, it is asserted negatively: that The subject of the Discourse is NOT the subsequently instituted Sacrament of the Eucharist. p. 36. I. The reasons of this assertion are taken from various particulars specified in the Discourse itself. p. 45. 1. First reason. The Bread, repeatedly mentioned throughout the entire Discourse, is said to be Bread from Heaven. p. 45. 2. Second reason. nal life. p. 45. 3. Third reason. The Eating of the Bread confers eter The Flesh and the Blood have the same potency ascribed to the circumstance of their being eaten and drunken. p. 46. 4. Fourth reason. The Eating of the Flesh and the Drinking of the Blood is said to produce a mutual indwelling of Christ and the believer. p. 46. 5. Fifth reason. The not Eating of the Flesh and the not Drinking of the Blood is declared to leave persons without life in them. p. 47. II. The general result, from these various specified particulars, is that The characteristics, associated in the Discourse with the Bread and the Flesh and the Blood, forbid their proleptical reference to the Eucharist viewed as a SACRAMENT: for, however they may relate to what was subsequently made the Inward Spiritual Grace of the Eucharist, they cannot relate also to its then not ordained Outward Visible Sign. p. 48. CHAPTER IV. RESPECTING THE IMPORT OF THE DISCOURSE POSITIVELY. p. 50. From what is not the import of our Lord's Discourse, we may proceed to what is its import. p. 50. I. Though the Discourse cannot proleptically relate to the complete Sacrament of the Eucharist, there is no paradox in saying, that the Sacrament, when instituted and indeed at the very time of its institution, referred retrospectively to the Discourse. p. 50. II. We have now obtained a clue, which, with the aid of the Discourse itself, cannot fail of conducting us to the 3. Determination of the import of the allied phrases. p. 71. III. With this key in our hands, the whole, both of Christ's Discourse at Capernaum, and of his subsequent Insti- tution of the Eucharist, will be perfectly intelligible. 1. The language of the Discourse. p. 73. 2. It must not be viewed, as confining the universal ne- cessity of Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood of the Lord to the Outward Reception of the then not in- 3. Congruity of our Lord's two declarations, negative 4. Import and intention of the prophetic reference to the 5. Establishment of the interpretation, both from what immediately follows, and from what had immediately |