something closely resembling" it, would immediately flow out. They maintain, therefore, that there was nothing supernatural in the circumstance recorded.
(6) Others, as most of the Fathers, Brentius, Musculus, Calo- vius, Lampe, Lightfoot, Rollock, Jansenius, Bengel, Horsley, and Hengstenberg, hold that this issue of blood and water was supernatural, extraordinary, unusual, and contrary to all expe- rience ; and they maintain that it was a special miracle.
The question is one of those which will probably never be settled. We are not in possession of sufficiently precise infor- mation to justify a very positive opinion. We do not know for a certainty that the left side of our Lord was pierced and not the right. We do not know exactly how much blood and wa- ter flowed out, whether a large quantity or a very little. That a miracle might take place at such a death, on such an occa- sion, and in the body of such a Person, we have no right to de- ny. The mere facts that, when our Lord hung on the cross, the sun was darkened, and, when He gave up the ghost, the veil of the temple was rent in twain, and the rocks rent, and the earth quaked, might well prepare our minds to see nothing extraordinary in a miracle taking place, and almost to expect it. Perhaps the safest line to adopt is to combine both views. The thrust of the spear into the side caused blood to flow, and proved that the seat of vitality in the body was pierced. The extraordinary and unusual flow of blood and water was a su- pernatural event, and meant to teach spiritual lessons.
I may be allowed to say that three eminent medical men in large practice, whom I have ventured to consult on this verse, are all of one mind, — that any large flow of blood and water from a dead body is contrary to all ordinary experience. Each of them, singularly enough, has expressed this opinion inde- pendently, and without any communication with the other two.
Concerning the symbolical meaning of this flow of " blood and water " from our Lord's side much has been written in every age of the Church. That it had a deep spiriti:al sense appears almost certain from St. John's words in his first Epis- tle. (1 John V. 6 — 8.) But what the real symbolical meaning was, is a very disputable question.
(a) The common opinion is, that the blood and water symbol- ized the two sacraments of baptipm and the Lord's Supper, both given by Christ and emanating from Him, and both symbols of atonement, cleansing, and forgiveness. This is the view of Chrysostom, Augustine, Andrews, and a large body of divines, both ancient and modern. I cannot myself receive this opinion. In matters like this I dare not call any man master, or endorse an interpretation of Scripture, when I do not feel convinced that it is true. I cannot see the necessity of dragging in the sacra-