closed with these remarkable words: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." His disciples then said unto him, “Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb."... How opposed is this gradual developement of divine truth, even to the disciples themselves, to an undeviating adherence to Dr Wiseman's rule-of rectifying all misapprehensions, even of the people at large, at the moment. I do not mean to assert that our Saviour did not occasionally convict gainsayers of their perverse interpretations of his words. This he did, in the two following instances, adduced by Dr Wiseman, from the eighth chapter of St John. When the Jews (John viii. 33) said, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.... If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."....When, again, (John viii. 41) the Jews, in reply to his censures, retorted that they were "not born of fornication"—our Lord "explains his meaning," as Dr Wiseman expresses it, by giving them to understand that "they were of their father, the devil," and that "the lusts of their father they would do." The difference between Dr Wiseman and myself, in this matter, consists in thisthat what he conceives to be removing misappre

hension, I believe to be the application of the severest reproof....Before I quit this part of the subject, I will point out another inaccuracy, on the part of the learned author. He adduces the case of John viii. 32 as follows: "He tells the Jews, that the truth should make them free. They take the words literally, and raise an objection accordingly." Now the Evangelist is careful to state that "Jesus said to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." It appears, indeed, as if the unbelieving Jews had laid hold of expressions not intended for them; and had raised the objection, that they "were never in bondage to any man:"-for our Lord (v. 37) speaks of them as "seeking to kill him, because his word had no place in them." The effect of these inaccuracies, small as well as great, of Dr Wiseman, is, an utter want of confidence in any thing that is asserted-without the most vigilant enquiry into the matter. I have, however, the satisfaction of agreeing with the learned author, in his view of John vi. 33; where, the people having understood "the bread of God" literally, our Lord explained it figuratively....After examining our Lord's different treatment of the mistakes of his hearers, whether the people at large or his own disciples-a treatment manifestly depending not upon any general rule, but upon

a perfect knowledge of the dispositions of men, and all other circumstances at the time-I deem it impossible that any one can receive what Dr Wiseman has laid down, "as a very certain corollary or canon" from the whole; namely, "that whenever our Saviour's expressions were erroneously taken in their literal sense, and he meant them to be figurative, it was his constant practice instantly to explain himself, and let his audience understand, that his words were to be taken figuratively*."

I had nearly overlooked two references, given in a note (p. 100), in illustration of this part of the subject. The first is to John viii. 13; which, in Dr Wiseman's opinion, affords "another example of our Saviour's unwearied and meek attention to remove the misapprehension of his hearers." We there read, that "The Pharisees said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.” To denominate this a "misapprehension," on the part of his hearers, is a strange use of language. It was manifestly one of those malevolent objections already pointed out, as marking the character of the audience then present. Our Lord, however, condescended to reply; and showed them that, on the principles of their own law, his record was true: "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Now, a person anxious to have stated things fairly would not have stopped short, as Dr Wiseman has * Lectures, p. 99.

done. Such a person would have seen that the perverseness of the Pharisees was not abated; for, we are informed, "then said they unto him, Where is thy Father?" In this case, as before—according to Dr Wiseman's notions-we should be warranted in expecting an endeavour to remove "the misapprehension" of the Pharisees. But our Lord disregarded the question, and adverted only to their evil dispositions: "Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." Such is Dr Wiseman's infatuation, with regard to passages intended to support his hypothesis that there is scarcely one of them which is not sufficient to overthrow it entirely.... The other reference is to John xvi. 18-22; with respect to which the reader has already had some observations in a preceding page (145). I need only say, that the learned author, in this instance, fully maintains whatever character he may have established, with the reader, for marvellous infelicity of reference.

Our next business is to enquire into those cases in which our Lord's words "were rightly understood in their literal sense, and by that correct interpretation gave rise to murmurs or objections;" in which cases Dr Wiseman affirms that "it was his custom to stand to his words, and repeat again the very sentiment which had given the offence." The first instance, designed to establish this rule, is the following:

"Matt. ix. 2. Jesus said to the man sick of the palsy, Son, be of good heart, thy sins are forgiven thee.' The hearers took these words in their literal meaning, and were right in doing so; still they expressed their displeasure with them, saying, 'this man blasphemeth.' Our Lord does not abate the least in the expression, which, being rightly understood, had caused the objections, but in his answer repeats it again and again. 'Which is easier to say, thy sins are forgiven thee, or to say, rise up and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,' &c." (p. 100.)

Any thing less to the purpose than this can scarcely be imagined. It tends, however, to prove, by another example, that, from some motive or other, Dr Wiseman, in drawing up his lectures, must have intended never to quote correctly. From the preceding account, the reader would naturally suppose that the 9th chapter of St Matthew presents a regular statement of objections and replies. But what is the fact? "Certain of the Scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?" Our Lord's reproof, therefore, was not drawn forth by the popular statement of objections, whether on principles right or wrong-nor, to use Dr Wiseman's turn of phrase, because the hearers "expressed their displeasure saying, This man blasphemeth"-but by the knowledge that "certain of the Scribes" thought "evil in their hearts."... But I have yet some remarks to offer upon the case before us in which our Lord deigned to notice the "evil