A 554541

I
GENERAL LIBRARY
OF
University of Michigan
Presented by
Пражды
Rev. H. C. Granger..
..... November
Claas of 1871
поживек 1. 19.01.
:
THE
REAL PRESENCE
OF
1 0 7 3 8 0
THE BODY AND BLOOD
OF
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
IN
THE BLESSED EUCHARIST,
PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE.
BY HIS EMINENCE
THE LATE
Nicholas
CARDINAL WISEMAN.
A New Edition.
DUBLIN:
JAMES DUFFY, 15, WELLINGTON-QUAY;
AND
22, PATERNOSTER-ROW, LONDON.
1866.
DUBLIN:
Printed by J. W. O'Toole and Son,
6 AND 7, GT. BRUNSWICK-ST.
:
PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION.
$
THE Lectures here presented to the public, are
simply what the title-page describes them, a
portion of the theological course several times
delivered in the English College at Rome.
When the Author came over to this country,
he had not the remotest idea that he should
feel called upon to publish them; and he
brought the manuscript with him, solely for
the purpose of submitting it to the judgment
of a few friends, better versed, perhaps, than
he could be, in the controversial literature of
this country, so to satisfy himself of the pro-
priety of publishing it at some distant period.
iv
PREFACE.
But when he found it necessary to give a more
popular and compendious exposition of the
Catholic arguments for the Real Presence, in
his "Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and
Practices of the Catholic Church," he felt that
ample justice could not be done to the line of
argument which he had pursued, without the
publication of these Lectures, in which it is
more fully developed, and justified by proofs.
Under this impression, he has not hesitated
to send his manuscript to press.
The method pursued in these Lectures, and
the principles on which they are conducted, are
so amply detailed in the introductory Lecture,
that any remark upon them in this Preface
would be superfluous. Many will, perhaps, be
startled at the sight of an octavo devoted to
the Scriptural Proofs of our doctrine, which, in
general, occupy but a few pages of our contro-
versial works; and a prejudice will be naturally
excited, that the theme has been swelled to so
unusual a bulk by digressive disquisition, or by
matter of very secondary importance. If such
1
PREFACE.
V
His
an impression be produced, the writer has no
resource, but to throw himself on the justice
and candour of his readers, and entreat them
to peruse, before they thus condemn. He
flatters himself, that he will not be found, on
perusal, to have gone out of the question, or
overloaded it with extraneous matter.
studies have, perhaps, led him into a different
view of the arguments from what is popularly
taken, and he may be found to have sought
illustrations from sources not commonly con-
sulted; but he will leave it to his reader to
determine, whether he has thereby weakened
the cause which he has undertaken.
To him, this judgment cannot be a matter of
indifference. He has, within a few months,
been unexpectedly led to submit to the public
eye, two of the courses of Lectures prepared
and delivered by him, for the improvement of
those whose theological education has been
confided to his care; and he feels that he has
thus, however unintentionally, appealed to the
public, whether he have discharged his duty in
vi
PREFACE.
their regard. The "Lectures on the Connec-
tion between Science and Revealed Religion"
will explain the views which he has endea-
voured to inculcate, on the proper extent of
ecclesiastical education; the present course will
exhibit the system followed in every branch of
controversial theology. What is done in these
Lectures for the doctrine of the Eucharist, has
been done no less for the Christian Evidences,
the authority of the Church, Penance, the Mass,
and every other part of modern controversy.
On the study of Scripture, and the science of
its introduction, more care has been bestowed;
and from the reception with which the present
treatise may meet, the Author will form an
estimate of how far he may be justified in
troubling the public, further, with his acade-
mical instructions.
He will be perfectly satisfied, however, if he
shall appear not to have used less diligence and
application than beseems his office, in the pro-
moting of sound theological learning among
those whom it has been his duty to instruct.
PREFACE.
vii
The fate of this work becomes to him a matter
of deeper interest, from its connection with any
opinion which may thence be formed of the
value of an establishment, which many consi-
derations should render dear to the English
Catholics. As the lineal representative of the
Anglo-Saxon school founded by King Ina, as
the substitute for the English Hospital, which
once received the wearied pilgrim that went to
kiss the threshold of the Apostles, as the only
remnant of Catholic Church property which
has been left in our hands, from its wreck at
the Reformation, as a seminary which has sent
forth many martyrs into the vineyard of this
country, the College of Rome has a strong
claim upon the sympathies of all who bless
Providence for its watchfulness over God's holy
religion amongst us.
If Bellarmine, as he assures us in his preface,
* St. Philip Neri, who lived nearly opposite the
house, used to salute the students, as they passed his
door, in the words of the hymn for the Holy Inno-
cents: "Salvete flores martyrum."
viii
PREFACE.
wrote his magnificent "Controversies" chiefly
for the instruction of the students in that estab-
lishment, they who actually preside over it must
surely feel it their duty to contribute their
small abilities, to nourish in its members a
spirit of application, and a taste for solid learn-
ing. For this purpose, it indeed enjoyed, when
restored under the auspices of Pius VII. of
sacred memory, an advantage which it may
never again possess, in him whom the wisdom
of the Vicars-Apostolic chose for its first supe-
rior. They who had the happiness to be the
pupils, and consequently the friends of the late
venerable Dr. Gradwell, will ever love to dwell,
not only on his unaffected piety, his profuse
charity, and his unalterable kindness to all
around him, but likewise on his varied and
solid learning in every branch of sacred lite-
rature, on the warm encouragement which he
ever gave to application, and the sincere de-
light which he felt and expressed at the acade-
mical success of any under his charge. His
talents and virtues were not of that dazzling
☆
C
PREFACE.
ix
character which flash upon the public eye;
but they possessed the more genial and more
enviable property, of warming and cheering all
that approached.
The taste and principles which he introduced
and encouraged, have been carefully preserved
and nourished, since the duty of supporting
them has passed into less able hands; and the
following sheets, it is hoped, will attest some
diligence and assiduity, at least, in the prosecu-
tion of his views.
LONDON,
On the Assumption of our Lady, 1836.
حمه
CONTENTS.
LECTURE I.
PROPOSITION OF THE CATHOLIC BELIEF SYSTEMS
OF OTHER COMMUNIONS-METHOD OF CONDUCT-
ING THE EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT-
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM
OUR SAVIOUR'S DISCOURSE IN THE SIXTH
CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN-PROOF OF A TRANSI-
TION TO A NEW SECTION OF IT, AT THE FORTY-
EIGHTH VERSE, FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE
PASSAGE,
·
PAGE
13
LECTURE II.
FIRST ARGUMENT FOR THE REAL PRESENCE, FROM
THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL:
FROM THE CHANGE OF PHRASEOLOGY AFTER
THE FORTY-EIGHTH VERSE,
LECTURE III.
SECOND ARGUMENT FOR THE
THE REAL PRESENCE,
FROM THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN: FROM
THE PREJUDICES OF THE JEWS REGARDING
HUMAN FLESH AND BLOOD.-THIRD ARGUMENT;
FROM THE MANNER IN WHICH THE JEWS UN-
DERSTOOD OUR SAVIOUR'S WORDS, AND FROM
HIS REPLY: OBJECTIONS TO THIS PROOF AN-
SWERED,
•
60
104
•
ร
+
xii
CONTENTS.
LECTURE IV.
FOURTH ARGUMENT FOR THE REAL PRESENCE,
FROM THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN, FROM
THE ANALYSIS OF OUR SAVIOUR'S ANSWER TO
THE JEWS, AND THEIR INCREDULITY.-FIFTH
ARGUMENT; FROM HIS CONDUCT TO HIS DIS-
CIPLES AND APOSTLES-OBJECTIONS TO
TO THE
CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF THIS CHAPTER
ANSWERED,
PAGE
143
·
LECTURE V.
STATEMENT OF THE PROOF OF THE REAL PRE-
SENCE, FROM THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION, MATT.
XXVI. 26-29; MARK XIV. 22-25; LUKE XXII.
19, 20; 1 COR. XI. 23-26-STRONG DOGMATI-
CAL GROUND OF THIS ARGUMENT FROM THE
DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT-ONUS
PROBANDI THROWN UPON PROTESTANTS, WHO
ARE OBLIGED TO DEMONSTRATE TWO THINGS:
1. THAT THESE WORDS MAY BE TAKEN FIGU-
RATIVELY; 2. THAT WE ARE OBLIGED SO TO
TAKE THEM.-EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST
POINT,
•
189
LECTURE VI.
EXAMINATION OF THE SECOND POINT AT ISSUE
BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS, ON
THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION; ARE WE COM-
PELLED TO PREFER THE FIGURATIVE INTERPRE-
TATION IN ORDER TO ESCAPE FROM GREATER
DIFFICULTIES, SUCH AS CONTRADICTIONS AND
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF NATURE. —HER-
MENEUTICAL DISQUISITION ON THE SUBJECT.-
t
CONTENTS.
xiii
PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO IT.
STRONG CONFIRMATORY ARGUMENTS OF THE
CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION, FROM THE CON-
STRUCTION OF THE WORDS, AND FROM THE
-CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTITUTION,
LECTURE VII.
OBJECTIONS TO THE LITERAL
INTERPRETATION
OF THE WORDS OF
OF INSTITUTION ANSWERED.
FIRST: ORDINARY PRACTICE OF CALLING A
REPRESENTATION BY THE NAME OF THE THING
SIGNIFIED. SECONDLY: OBJECTIONS DRAWN
FROM THE CELEBRATION OF THE PASCHAL
FEAST; AND THIRDLY: FROM THE LANGUAGE
IN WHICH OUR SAVIOUR SPOKE. NOTICE OF
DR. LEE'S ALLEGATIONS,
•
LECTURE VIII.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE REAL PRESENCE, FROM THE
DOCTRINE OF ST. PAUL REGARDING THE USE
OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT.-GENERAL OBJEC-
TIONS AGAINST THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE FROM
SCRIPTURE.-REMARK ON THE CONNECTION BE-
TWEEN THE REAL PRESENCE AND TRANSUB-
STANTIATION,
•
PAGE
237
272
313
}
T
LECTURES
ON
THE REAL PRESENCE.
SECTION I.
EXAMINATION OF THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF
ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL.
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
FROM VERSE 26 TO ITS CONCLUSION.
GREEK TEXT.
26. Απεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰη
σοῦς καὶ εἶπεν· Αμὴν ἀμὴν
λέγω ὑμῖν· Ζητεῖτέ με, οὐχ
ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι
ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων, καὶ
ἐχορτάσθητε.
27. Εργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν
βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυμένην,
ἀλλὰ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν μέν.
ουσαν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἣν ὁ
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑμῖν δώσει·
τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγι-
σεν, ὁ Θεός.
VULGATE.
26. Respondit eis Jesus,
et dixit: Amen, amen dico
vobis : quæritis me, non
quia vidistis signa, sed
quia manducastis ex pani-
bus et saturati estis.
27. Operamini non ci-
bum qui perit, sed qui per-
manet in vitam æternam,
quem Filius hominis dabit
vobis. Hunc enim Pater
signavit Deus.
VERSION AUTHORIZED BY THE ENGLISH PROTESTANT
CHURCH.
26. 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.
27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth,
but for that meat which endureth unto ever-
lasting life, which the Son of man shall give
unto you: for him hath God the Father
sealed.
B
2
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
28. Εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν·
Τί ποιῶμεν, ἵνα ἐργαζώμεθα
τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῦ; Απεκρίθη
ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·
29. Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἔργον
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσητε εἰς
ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.
30. Εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ· Τί
οὖν ποιεῖς σὺ σημεῖον, ἵνα
ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμέν σοι;
τι ἐργάζῃ ;
31. Οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν τὸ
μάννα ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ,
καθώς ἐστι γεγραμμένον
῎Αρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν
αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν.
32. Εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰη
σοῦς· ᾿Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν
τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ·
ἀλλ᾽ ὁ πατὴρ μου δίδωσιν
ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρα-
νοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν.
28. Dixerunt ergo ad
eum: Quid faciemus ut
operemur opera Dei ?
29. Respondit Jesus, et
dixit eis : Hoc est opus
Dei, ut credatis in eum
quem misit ille.
30. Dixerunt ergo ei:
Quod ergo tu facis signum
ut videamus, et credamus
tibi? quid operaris?
31. Patres nostri man-
ducaverunt manna in de-
serto, sicut scriptum est:
Panem de cœlo dedit eis
manducare.
32. Dixit ergo eis Jesus :
Amen, amen dico vobis :
non Moyses dedit vobis
panem de cœlo, sed Pater
meus dat vobis panem de
cœlo verum.
28. Then said they unto him, What shall we
do, that we might work the works of God?
29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This
is the work of God, That ye believe on him
whom he hath sent.
30. They said therefore unto him, What sign
showest thou then, that we may see, and believe
thee? what dost thou work?
31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert;
as it is written, He gave them bread from
heaven to eat.
32. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,
say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
3
33. Ὁ γὰρ ἄρτος τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἐστιν ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ
κόσμῳ.
34. Εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν·
Κύριε, πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν
ἄρτον τοῦτον.
35. Εἶπε δὲ αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰη
σους· Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς
ζωῆς· ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρός με,
οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ· καὶ ὁ πιστε-
ύων εἰς ἐμὲ, οὐ μὴ διψήσῃ
πώποτε.
36. Αλλ᾽ εἶπον ὑμῖν, ὅτι
καὶ ἑωράκατέ με, καὶ οὐ πιστ
τεύετε.
37. Πᾶν ὃ δίδωσί μοι ὁ πα
τὴρ, πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει· καὶ τὸν
ἐρχόμενον πρός με, οὐ μὴ
ἐκβάλω ἔξω.
33. Panis enim Dei est,
qui de cœlo descendit, et
dat vitam mundo.
34. Dixerunt ergo ad
eum : Domine, semper da
nobis panem hunc.
35. Dixit autem eis Je-
sus : Ego sum panis vitæ :
qui venit ad me, non esu-
riet: et qui credit in me,
non sitiet unquam.
36. Sed dixi vobis, quia
et vidistis me, et non cre-
ditis.
37. Omne, quod dat
mihi Pater, ad me veniet :
et eum, qui venit ad me,
non ejiciam foras:
from heaven; but my Father giveth you the
true bread from heaven.
33. For the bread of God is he which cometh
down from heaven, and giveth life unto the
world.
34. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore
give us this bread.
35. And Jesus said unto them, I am the
bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never
hunger; and he that believeth on me shall
never thirst.
36. But I said unto you, that ye also have
seen me, and believe not.
37. All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no
wise cast out.
4
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
oF
38. Οτι καταβέβηκα ἐκ
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ
θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ
θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με.
39. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ θέλ
ημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με πατρὸς,
ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέ μοι, μὴ
ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ
ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ.
40. Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ
θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με,
ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν,
καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, ἔχῃ
ζωὴν αἰώνιον· καὶ ἀναστήσω
αὐτὸν ἐγὼ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
41. Ἐγόγγυζον οὖν οἱ Ιου-
δαῖοι περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι εἶπεν·
Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ·
42. Καὶ ἔλεγον· Οὐχ οὗ
38. Quia descendi de
cœlo, non ut faciam volun-
tatem meam, sed volunta-
tem ejus, qui misit me.
39. Hæc est autem vo-
luntas ejus, qui misit me,
Patris ; ut omne, quod de-
dit mihi, non perdam ex
eo, sed resuscitem illud in
novissimo die.
40. Hæc est autem vo-
luntas Patris mei, qui misit
me: ut omnis, qui vidit
Filium, et credit in eum,
habeat vitam æternam, et
ego resuscitabo eum in no-
vissimo die.
41. Murmurabant ergo
Judæi de illo, quia dixis-
set: Ego sum panis vivus,
qui de cœlo descendi.
42. Et dicebant: Nonne
38. For I came down from heaven, not to do
mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39. And this is the Father's will which hath
sent me, That of all which he hath given me I
should lose nothing, but should raise it up again
at the last day.
40. And this is the will of him that sent me,
That every one which seeth the Son, and believ-
eth on him, may have everlasting life: and I
will raise him up at the last day.
41. The Jews then murmured at him, because
he said, I am the bread which came down from
heaven.
42. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
5
τός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς
Ἰωσὴφ, οὗ ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν τὸν
πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα; Πῶς
οὖν λέγει οὗτος· ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ καταβέβηκα ;
43. Απεκρίθη οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Μὴ γογγύ-
ζετε μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων.
44. Οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν
πρός με, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ
πέμψας με, ἑλκύσῃ αὐτὸν,
καὶ ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν, ἐν
τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
45. Εστι γεγραμμένον ἐν
τοῖς προφήταις· Καὶ ἔσονται
πάντες διδακτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Πᾶς οὖν ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ
πατρὸς, καὶ μαθὼν, ἔρχεται
πρός με.
46. Οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα
τὶς ἑώρακεν· εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ
τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακε τὸν
πατέρα.
hic est Jesus filius Joseph,
cujus nos novimus patrem,
et matrem? Quomodo ergo
dicit hic: Quia de cœlo de-
scendi ?
43. Respondit ergo Jesus,
et dixit eis: Nolite mur-
murare in invicem.
44. Nemo potest venire
ad me, nisi Pater, qui misit
me, traxerit eum : et ego
resuscitabo eum in novis-
simo die.
45. Est scriptum in pro-
phetis: Et erunt omnes do-
cibiles Dei. Omnis, qui
audivit a Patre et didicit,
venit ad me.
46. Non quia Patrem vi-
dit quisquam, nisi is, qui
est a Deo, hic vidit Pa
trem.
of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
how is it then that he saith, I came down from
heaven ?
43. Jesus therefore answered and said unto
them, Murmur not among yourselves..
44. No man can come to me, except the
Father, which hath sent me, draw him : and I
will raise him up at the last day.
45. It is written in the prophets, And they
shall be all taught of God. Every man there-
fore that hath heard, and hath learned of the
Father, cometh unto me.
46. Not that any man hath seen the Father,
6
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
47. ᾿Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
ὁ πιστεύων εἰς, ἐμὲ, ἔχει ζωὴν
αἰώνιον.
48. Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς
ζωής.
49. b Οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἔφα-
γον τὸ μάννα ἐν τῇ
ἐρήμῳ. (cf. v. 31.)
Καὶ ἀπέθανον.
50. 2 Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος
b Ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
καταβαίνων
cἽνα τὶς ἐξ αὐτοῦ
φάγῃ, καὶ μὴ ἀπο-
θάνῃ.
51. 2 Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ
ζῶν,
bὉ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
καταβάς
47. Amen, amen dico vo-
bis: qui credit in me, ha-
bet vitam æternam.
48. a Ego sum panis vitæ.
49. b Patres vestri man-
ducaverunt man-
na in deserto. (cf.
v. 31.)
c Et mortui sunt.
50. a Hic est panis
b De cœlo descen-
dens :
c Ut si quis ex ipso
manducaverit, non
moriatur.
51. a Egosum panis vivus,
b Qui de cœlo de-
scendi.
save he which is of God; he hath seen the
Father.
47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48. a I am the bread of life.
49. b Your fathers did eat manna in the wil-
derness, (cf. v. 31.)
"and are dead.
50. a This is the bread
C
b Which cometh down from heaven,
That a man may eat thereof, and not
die.
51. "I am the living bread
b Which came down from heaven.
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
7
Εάν τις φάγῃ ἐκ
τούτου τοῦ ἄρτου,
εἰς τὸν
ζήσεται
αἰῶνα.
Καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω,
ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστὶν, ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω
ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς.
52. Ἐμάχοντο οὖν πρὸς
ἀλλήλους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, λέγον-
τες· Πῶς δύναται οὗτος ἡμῖν
δοῦναι τὴν σάρκα φαγεῖν ;
53. Εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰη
σους· Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ
υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ πίητε
αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε
ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
54. Ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν
C
52.* c Si quis manduca-
verit ex hoc pane,
vivet in æternum :
Et panis quem ego dabo,
caro mea est pro mundi
vita.
53. Litigabant ergo Ju-
dæi ad invicem, dicentes:
Quomodo potest hic nobis
carnem suam dare ad man-
ducandum?
54. Dixit ergo eis Jesus :
Αmen, amen dico vobis:
nisi manducaveritis car-
nem Filii hominis, et bibe-
ritis ejus sanguinem, non
habebitis vitam in vobis.
55. Qui manducat meam
If any man eat of this bread, he shall
live for ever :
And the bread that I will give is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among them-
selves, saying, How can this man give us his
flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,
I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
* The Vulgate here differs in its divisions from the
Greek, so as to have a verse more in the chapter. In
the Lectures, the texts are quoted according to the Vul-
gate numeration.
8
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
i
:
σάρκα, καὶ πίνων μου το
αἷμα, ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· καὶ
ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ
ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
55. Ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀλη
θῶς ἐστι βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμά
μου ἀληθῶς ἐστι πόσις.
56. Ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν
σάρκα, καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα,
ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει, κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ.
με
ὁ
57. Καθὼς ἀπέστειλέ
ζῶν πατὴρ, καγώ ζῷ διὰ τὸν
πατέρα· καὶ ὁ τρώγων με,
κακεῖνος ζήσεται δι᾽ ἐμέ·
58. Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς· οὐ
καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες
ὑμῶν τὸ μάννα, καὶ ἀπέθανον·
ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον,
ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
59. Ταῦτα εἶπεν ἐν συνα
carnem, et bibit meum
sanguinem, habet vitam
æternam: et ego resuscita-
bo eum in novissimo die.
56. Caro enim mea verè
est cibus ; et sanguis meus
verè est potus.
57. Qui manducat meam
carnem, et bibit meum san-
guinem, in me manet, et
ego in illo.
58. Sicut misit me vi-
vens Pater, et ego vivo
propter Patrem : et qui
manducat me, et ipse vivet
propter me.
59. Hic est panis, qui de
colo descendit. Non sicut
manducaverunt patres ves-
tri manna, et mortui sunt.
Qui manducat hunc panem,
vivet in æternum.
60. Hæc dixit in syna-
blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up
at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my
blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I
live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even
he shall live by me.
58. This is that bread which came down from hea-
ven not as your fathers did eat manna, and are
dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.
59. These things said he in the synagogue, as
he taught in Capernaum.
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
9
γωγῇ διδάσκων ἐν Καπερ- goga docens in Caphar
ναούμ.
60. Πολλοὶ οὖν ἀκούσαντες
ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, εἶπον·
Σκληρός ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ λόγος·
τίς δύναται αὐτοῦ ἀκούειν ;
61. Εἰδὼς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν
ἑαυτῷ, ὅτι γογγύζουσι περὶ
τούτου οἱ μαθηταὶ αὑτοῦ,
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·
62. Τοῦτο ὑμᾶς σκανδα
λίζει; Ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν
υἱὸν του ἀνθρώπου ανα-
βαίνοντα, ὅ πουἦν τὸ πρό-
τερον;
63. Τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ
ζωοποιοῦν, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ
οὐδέν. Τὰ ῥήματα, ἃ ἐγὼ
λαλῶ ὑμῖν, πνεῦμά ἐστι και
ζωή ἐστιν.
64. Αλλ' εἰσὶν ἐξ ὑμῶν
τινὲς οἳ οὐ πιστεύουσιν.
(Ηδει γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ
Ἰησοῦς, τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ
naum.
61. Multi ergo audientes
ex discipulis ejus, dixe-
runt : Durus est hic sermo,
et quis potest eum audire?
62. Sciens autem Jesus
apud semetipsum, quia
murmurarent de hoc disci-
puli ejus, dixit eis : Hoc
vos scandalizat ?
63. Si ergo videritis Fi-
lium hominis ascendentem
ubi erat prius ?
64. Spiritus est, qui vi-
vifcat: caro non prodest
quidquam. Verba, quæ
ego locutus sum vobis, spi-
ritus et vita sunt.
65 Sed sunt quidam ex
vobis, qui non credunt.
Sciebat enim ab initio Jesus
qui essent non credentes,
60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they
had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who
can hear it?
61. When Jesus knew in himself that his dis-
ciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth
this offend you ?
62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man
ascend up where he was before?
63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh
profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64. But there are some of you that believe
not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who
10
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
πιστεύοντες, καὶ τίς ἐστιν
ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν.)
65. Καὶ ἔλεγε· Διὰ τοῦτο
εἴρηκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὐδεὶς δύνα-
ται ἐλθεῖν πρός με, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ
δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πατ
ρός μου.
66. Ἐκ τούτου πολλοί
ἀπῆλθον τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ
εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, καὶ οὐκέτι μετ'
αὐτοῦ περιεπάτουν.
67. Εἶπεν οὖν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς
τοῖς δώδεκα· Μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς
θέλετε ὑπάγειν ;
68. ᾿Απεκρίθη οὖν αὐτῷ
Σίμων Πέτρος Κύριε, πρὸς
τίνα ἀπελευσόμεθα; ῥήματα
ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχεις
69. Καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκα-
μεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν, ὅτι σὺ εἶ
ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ
τοῦ ζῶντος.
et quis traditurus esset
eum.
66. Et dicebat: Prop-
terea dixi vobis, quia nemo
potest venire ad me, nisi
fuerit ei datum a Patre
meo.
67. Ex hoc multi disci-
pulorum ejus abierunt re-
tro: et jam non cum illo
ambulabant.
68. Dixit ergo Jesus ad
duodecim: Numquid et
vos vultis abire?
69. Respondit ergo ei
Simon Petrus: Domine,
ad quem ibimus ? verba
vitæ æternæ habes.
70. Et nos credidimus,
et cognovimus, quia tu es
Christus Filius Dei.
they were that believed not, and who should
betray hin.
65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you,
That no man can come unto me, except it were
given unto him of my Father.
66. From that time many of his disciples
went back, and walked no more with him.
67. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye
also go away?
68. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to
whom shall we go? thou hast the words of
eternal life.
69. And we believe and are sure that thou
art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN.
11
70. Απεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰη
σους· Οὐκ ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δώ-
δεκα ἐξελεξάμην, καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν
εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν;
71. Ελεγε δὲ τὸν Ἰούδαν
Σίμωνος Ισκαριώτην· Οὗτος
γὰρ ἤμελλεν αὐτὸν παραδιδό-
ναι, εἷς ὢν ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα.
71. Respondit eis Jesus :
Nonne ego vos duodecim
elegi : et ex vobis unus
diabolus est?
72. Dicebat autem Ju-
dam Simonis Iscariotem ;
hic enim erat traditurus
eum, cùm esset unus ex
duodecim.
70. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen
you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71. He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of
Simon: for he it was that should betray him,
being one of the twelve.
NOTE.-The above texts are given for facility of
reference. In the Lectures, the English texts are
quoted from the Douay version.
7
LECTURE I.
PROPOSITION OF THE CATHOLIC BELIEF
SYSTEMS OF
OF CONDUCTING THE
OTHER COMMUNIONS-METHOD
EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT-STATEMENT OF THE
ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM OUR SAVIOUR'S DISCOURSE
IN THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN-PROOF OF A
TRANSITION TO A NEW SECTION OF IT, AT THE
FORTY-EIGHTH VERSE, FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE
PASSAGE.
1
NUMEROUS as are the differences between
the Catholic and Protestant religions, we
may safely assert that not one is more fre-
quently discussed, or more frequently made
the touchstone of the two systems' respec-
tive claims, than their doctrine respecting
the sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist. The
unity and authority of the Church, or the
supremacy of the Pope, are subjects which
more directly affect the grounds of separa-
tion between us, and are better calculated to
reduce our many differences to one single
14
LECTURE I.
*
decision; yet we shall, I believe, find more
persons brought to the true faith, by satisfy-
ing their minds with the Catholic belief
respecting the Blessed Sacrament, than by
being convinced upon any of those subjects.*
Indeed, so essentially does this dogma seem to
involve the truth or falsehood of the entire
religion, that Transubstantiation was, until
within these few years, considered the test
whether one professed or rejected the entire
Catholic creed. These considerations will
alone sufficiently prove the necessity of seri-
ously studying the arguments whereon doth
rest the truth of our belief.
This belief is clearly defined by the
Council of Trent, in the following words:
Whereas, our Redeemer Christ did declare
""
* Dr. Whately has observed this connection, but drawn
the exactly opposite conclusion. "It is probable,'
he observes, "that many have been induced to admit
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, from its clear connec-
tion with the in fallibity of the Romish Church; and many
others, by the very same argument, have surrendered their
belief in that infallibility."—Elements of Rhetoric,
Oxford, 1828, p. 33. I apprehend that every one who
has had any experience, will have found the latter
member of this sentence totally inaccurate, and the first
not so generally correct as the observation in the text.
LECTURE I.
15
that to be truly his body which he offered
under the appearance of bread, therefore
hath it always been held in the Church of
God (and this holy Synod once more de-
clareth it), that by the consecration of the
bread and wine, a change is wrought of the
bread's whole substance into the substance
of Christ our Lord's body, and of the wine's
whole substance into substance of his blood's;
which change hath been, by the Holy Ca-
tholic Church, suitably and properly called
Transubstantiation."* Such is the dogma
which we have to prove against those who
assert, that in the Eucharist nothing more
is presented to the faithful than a type,
or figure, of our Redeemer's body and
blood.
But if the doctrine of the Catholic Church
is so clear and explicit, as these words tes-
tify, it is by no means easy to understand
the curious shades of difference observable
in the doctrines of the separated churches.
Luther started with the determination to
preserve the real corporal presence of the
body and blood of our Saviour in the
* Sess. xiii. c. iv. ; see also canon ii.
16
LECTURE I.
Eucharist; nay, he did not seem intention-
ally to abandon even the doctrine of Tran-
substantiation; for he does not so much
impugn it, as leave it aside, by adopting
phrases used accidentally by Petrus de Alliaco.
Hence, the tenth article of the Confession of
Augsburg, as presented to the Emperor
Charles V., in 1530, ran as follows:-
"De Cœnâ Domini docent, quod corpus
et sanguis Christi verè adsint et distribuantur
vescentibus, in coenâ Domini, sub specie panis
et vini, et improbant secus docentes." As the
history of this article is curious, I will con-
tinue to trace it for you. In the following
year Melancthon altered it, by striking out
the words "sub specie panis et vini;" thus
effacing the implied absence of their sub-
stance, or the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
After the disputes concerning the Eucharist
had become serious in the Reformers' camp,
and had involved them in a civil feud, the
same disciple of Luther, anxious to bring
about a conciliation, still farther modified
the article, both by erasure and by change.
For, in 1540, it was produced in the follow-
ing strangely disfigured form:-
“De cœna Domini docent, quod cum pane
LECTURE I.
17
et vino vere exhibeantur corpus, et sanguis
Christi, vescentibus in cœna Domini."
The clause condemnatory of those who
held a different doctrine is here suppressed;
the elements are introduced again into the
proposition, with the important change of
"sub specie" into "cum ;" and “adsint et dis-
tribuantur” dwindle into one equivocal verb,
“exhibeantur." And thus did consubstantia-
tion, or companation, come forth from the
chrysalis proposition, in which we must try
to suppose it originally contained!
But while this theory was thus going
through this curious process, others had
sprung up, as progressive modifications of
one another. Carlstadt first conceived the
idea of a purely spiritual presence, or, rather,
of a real absence of our Lord's body; but as
he had no arguments whereby to support his
opinion, he was obliged to yield the glory
of it to Zwingli and ŒŒcolampadius, whose
arguments we shall see in their proper place.
The former illustrates his system by this
comparison: "When the father of a family
travels abroad, he presents his wife with his
best ring, whereon his image is engraved,
saying, Behold me, your husband, whom
"
C
18
LECTURE I.
you must hold and cherish.' Now that
father of the family is the type of Christ.
For, departing, he gave to his spouse the
Church his image, in the sacrament of the
Supper."* Even these two, however, could
not agree upon the right interpretation of
the words of institution. Zwingli maintained
that in them or signified "represents;"
Ecolampadius asserted that the metaphor
was in oŵua, which meant "the figure of the
body"!
Between the two opposite opinions of the
literal and the figurative meaning of Christ's
expressions-in other words, of his presence
and absence in the Eucharist-there arose a
middle system, which pretended to hold both,
and reconcile the true receiving of our
Saviour's body, with the fact of its not being
there. This required a boldness unparalleled
perhaps in the annals of interpretation, except
among those Arians of old, who would call
Christ the Son of God, yet not allow him to
be consubstantial to the Father.
This attempt was made in two ways. The
first was Calvin's, who ingeniously supposed
* "Huldrichi Zwinglii Opera," tom. ii. p. 549.
LECTURE I.
19
that the body of Christ, present in heaven,
communicated such virtue to the elements,
when partaken of by the worthy receiver,
that he might be said to partake of the very
body. Capito and Bucer were content to
halt between the two opinions without any
explanatory theory, asserting at once the pre-
sence and the absence of Christ's body.*
From the latter, unfortunately, the Church
of England learnt her belief; and, accord-
ingly, we find it fraught with the contra-
dictions which it necessarily involves. A
modern writer thus expresses himself on this
subject:-"If the Roman (Catholic) and
Lutheran doctrines teemed with unmasked
absurdity" (this we shall see by-and-bye),
"this middle system (if, indeed, it is to be
considered a genuine opinion, and not, rather,
a political device)† had no advantage but in
* For this sketch of the sacramental history in Ger-
many, I am indebted to the golden book of my learned
friend, Professor Möhler, "Symbolik oder Darstellung
der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Pro-
testanten." Third edition, 1834, pp. 323-330.
† Author's note. "The truth is, that there were but
two opinions at bottom, as to this main point of the
controversy: nor in the nature of things was it possible
that there should be more; for what can be predicated
20
LECTURE I.
the disguise of unmeaning terms, while it
had the peculiar infelicity of departing as
much from the literal sense of the words of
institution, wherein the former triumphed, as
the Zwinglian interpretation itself. I know
not whether I can state, in language tolera-
bly perspicuous, this jargon of bad metaphy-
sical theology.
It can hardly fail
to strike every unprejudiced reader, that a
material substance can only in a very figura-
tive sense be said to be received through
faith; that there can be no real presence of
such a body, consistently with the proper use
of language, but by its local occupation of
space" (this observation is inaccurate); “and
that as the Romish (Catholic) tenet of Tran-
substantiation is the best, so this of the Cal-
vinists is the worst imagined of the three
that have been opposed to the simplicity of
the Helvetic explanation."
19%
Hence it was some time before the Estab-
concerning a body, in its relation to a given space, but
presence and absence ?"
* Hallam's "Constitutional History of England,” vol.
i. c. 2; vol. i. p. 119, ed. Par. 1827. I do not quote
this writer as an authority, but merely on account of
the correctness of most of the cited remarks.
LECTURE I.
21
lished Church made up her mind regarding
her belief upon this subject. In the first
liturgy, framed by some of her most zealous
Reformers, in 1548, it is stated that "the
whole body of Christ is received under each
particle of the sacrament." In 1552, the
same men-Cranmer, Ridley, and others-
produced their forty-two articles, in which
the real presence was clearly denied, and a
reason given for the denial, which allowed
no room for variety of opinion; namely, that
Christ, being in heaven, could not be in the
Eucharist. When the articles were reduced
to thirty-nine, under Elizabeth, this condem-
natory clause was omitted.* At present,
therefore, this Church, in her twenty-eighth
article, teaches that "Transubstantiation can-
not be proved by Holy Writ, but is repug-
nant to the plain words of Scripture, and
overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."
At the same time it is stated, that in the
Lord's Supper, "to such as rightly, worthily,
and with faith, receive the same, the bread.
which we break is a partaking of the body
* See Burnet, "Hist. of Reformation," b. ii. p. 105;
Strype, ii. 121, 208; Milner's "End of Controversy,"
let. xxxvii.
22
LECTURE I.
of Christ; and, likewise, the cup of bles-
sing is a partaking of the blood of Christ."
Farther, we are told that "the body of
Christ is given, taken, and eaten, only after
a heavenly and spiritual manner; and the
mean whereby the body of Christ is received.
and eaten in the Supper is faith." The
Catechism stands in the same form of uncer-
tain contradiction; for in it the child is
taught, that the "body and blood of Christ
are verily and indeed taken and received by
the faithful in the Lord's Supper."
This variation in the doctrine was neces-
sarily accompanied by a corresponding varia-
tion in the liturgy of the Establishment.
At the end of the Communion Service there.
is at present a declaration, which runs more.
like a magistrate's warrant than an ecclesias-
tical definition, that no adoration is intended
by the act of kneeling to receive the Lord's
Supper. This existed in the oldest liturgy
under Edward VI., but was expunged
under Elizabeth, and only restored under
Charles II,
With this curious vacillation and repeated
change of opinion in the English Church,
we cannot wonder that there should be as
LECTURE I.
23
great difference of theory in its teachers and
divines. In fact, many of them, in the
clearest terms, teach the real and corporal
presence, while others are violent against it.
The testimonies of the former have been so
often given in popular Catholic works, that
it would be foreign to my plan and purpose
to repeat them here. But the class which is
most worthy of our attention, is of those who
try to reconcile the two opinions, of absence
and presence, by pretending to admit a real,
to the exclusion of a corporal, presence. Of
these there will be, however, a proper place
to speak hereafter.
What I principally reprehend in most of
them is, that while they decry and abuse the
Catholic faith, and bring arguments to prove
it false, they never think of positively con-
structing their own, or establishing it on
Scripture proofs. And this point also will
be touched upon hereafter.
Having thus briefly reviewed the principal
opinions on this dogma, I do not intend to
trace its history at an earlier period, either
in the East or West; as this will be more pro-
perly treated of when we come to speak of
the tradition of the Church upon our dogma.
24
LECTURE I.
Instead of such a discussion, I will, this even-
ing, premise a brief and simple view of the
method in which our examination of the
Scriptural testimonies will be conducted.
To those who have already gone through
our biblical course, it will present nothing
new or unexpected; but its repetition will
still serve to prepare them more immediately
for the practical application of hermeneutical
principles. To such as have not yet studied
in detail the science of biblical hermeneutics,
the observations I am about to make will be
necessary for our present inquiry, and may
be useful as a compendium of what they will
hereafter have to study more at length.
1. I suppose you will immediately agree
that, when we speak of interpreting an
author, or speaker, we understand the dis-
covering of that sense which he meant to
convey, or, in other words, our conceiving
the same ideas, while we read him, which he
entertained when he wrote or spoke.* The
whole science of such interpretation, or, as it
* "Cum enim interpretari scriptorem aliquem, ipsa
rei natura declarante, nihil aliud sit, quam docere,
quamnam sententiam ille singulis libri sui verbis loquen-
dique formulis subjecerit, vel efficere, ut alter librum
LECTURE I.
25
is technically called, hermeneutics, whether ap-
plied to a sacred or profane author, depends
upon one simple and obvious principle:-
The true meaning of a word or phrase is that
which was attached to it at the time when the
person whom we interpret wrote or spoke.
Language is intended only to convey to our
hearers, as nearly as possible, the ideas which
pass in our own thought; and that person
possesses the best command of it who most
exactly transfuses, by his expressions, into
the minds of others, the impressions which
exist in his own. But, as words and phrases
have certain definite meanings at any given
period, it follows that the speaker necessarily
selects such, as his knowledge of their exact
force teaches him will represent precisely his
thoughts and feelings. From this we deduce,
that the impression naturally made by any
expressions upon the hearer, or, in other
words, the sense in which he must have
understood them, is, generally speaking, the
proper criterion of the sense intended by the
speaker. I have said generally speaking,
because words are occasionally misunder-
ejus legens eadem cogitet, quæ ipse scribens cogitavit.”
-Keilii Opuscula Academica, Lips. 1821, p. 85.
26
LECTURE I.
stood. But this is an extraordinary case-
it supposes a defect in the speaker or hearer;
and we always take it for granted that our
words are rightly understood, unless there is
a special reason to suppose the contrary.
Still, even this case does not affect my
obser-
vations, nor the principles of hermeneutics,
which are based upon them; because this
science does not decide by impressions
actually made, but by those which the words
were necessarily calculated to make at that
time, upon that audience; and this is the
sense in which the word impression is to be
understood. Whatever I say of speakers and
hearers, applies, with trifling modifications, to
writers and readers. These modifications
result from tone, countenance, gesture, inci-
dents proper to the former. Of course, when
I speak of our Saviour's discourses being
understood, I do not mean to say they were
comprehended.
To illustrate this criterion by a simple
comparison;-as, from the lines engraven
upon a copperplate, we can argue with
certainty to the exact representation which
will be made upon the paper, provided the
regular process of communication be pro-
LECTURE I.
27
perly gone through, so can we, vice versa,
from the printed engraving, reason conclu-
sively to the traces marked upon the plate
which produced them. In like manner,
therefore, as the speaker, from the thoughts
which he entertains, and from his possessing
the power of correctly communicating them,
can conclude what are the corresponding
ideas which will be produced in others; so
can we, from the knowledge of the impres-
sion necessarily made, argue conclusively
back to the ideas and intentions of the agent
who produced it. "For what is conversation
between man and man?" asks the philosophic
author of "Hermes." ""Tis a mutual inter-
course of speaking and hearing. To the
speaker 'tis to teach; to the hearer 'tis to learn.
To the speaker 'tis to descend from ideas to
words; to the hearer 'tis to ascend from words to
ideas. If the hearer, in this ascent, can arrive
at no ideas, then he is said not to understand;
if he ascend to ideas dissimilar and heteroge-
neous (from the speaker's), then he is said to
misunderstand. What, then, is requisite that
he may be said to understand? That he
should ascend to certain ideas, treasured up
within himself, correspondent and similar to
28
LECTURE I.
those within the speaker. The same may be
said of a writer and a reader."* Thus, there-
fore, the only true interpretation of any per-
son's words, is that which must necessarily
have been affixed to them by those whom he
addressed, and by whom he primarily desired
to be understood.
It is obvious that, in order to arrive at an
acquaintance with this interpretation, we
must analyze every word and phrase, if their
import be doubtful; or we must, at least, take
into calculation the exact meaning of each,
if simple and intelligible, before we can pre-
tend to understand the continuous sense of a
passage. Nothing is more common, and yet
nothing more pernicious to accuracy of judg-
ment, than the habit of reading an entire
context, and, seeing that a certain vague
meaning results from it, remaining content.
with that, though each of the expressions
which compose it is not distinctly understood.
How many, for instance, read the Epistles of
St. Paul, again and again, without ever per-
ceiving the necessity of accurately under-
standing the exact signification of many of
* Harris's "Hermes," b. iii. c. iv. p. 399, Lond. 1765.
LECTURE I.
29
his terms; as, the law, justification, calling,
election, the flesh, the spirit, and many others?
And yet, if every one of such terms does
not convey an exact idea to the mind, and,
moreover, if that idea be not precisely the
one mutually understood by St. Paul and
those to whom he wrote, it is evident that we
do not, and cannot, understand his doctrines
as he meant them to be understood; or, in
other words, that we do not understand them
at all. This exact determination, therefore,
of the meaning of words and phrases, which
is the basis and substance of all commentary,
is justly called the grammatical interpreta-
tion.*
2. But, then, words and phrases are vari-
able in their signification, according to time
and place. The course of a few centuries
alters the signification of words; and the
person who interprets an old writer, by the
meaning which his expressions bear in his
own times, will frequently fall into error and
absurdity. When, for instance, he finds in
some old English version of Scripture, the
Canticle of Canticles entitled the Ballad of
Ernesti, "Institutio Interpretis N. T." ed. Ammon,
Leipz. 1809, p. 26.
30
LECTURE I.
Ballads,* he must perceive that the word
ballad once bore a very different signification.
from that which it bears at present. If he
lost sight of this reflection, he would charge
the author, most unjustly, with a gross im-
piety, and misinterpret his words. But we
need not go so far back to see the variable
nature of signification. Many terms common
in Shakspeare, and the writers of his age,
have now a totally different, sometimes an
opposite meaning, to what they have in older
writers. To let, for instance, then signified
to impede, instead of to permit. Even the
writers in Queen Anne's age employed words
in a very different sense from what we now
attach to them. Thus the term wit has, in
their writings, a much nobler and wider sig-
nification than with us, as it there signifies
genius or abilities. It is evident, that in
reading authors of these different ages, we
shall not understand them aright, unless we
know the exact meaning of their words as
then used; in other words, unless, upon read-
ing them, they make the same impression
upon us, and convey to us the same idea, as
* D'Israeli's "Curiosities of Literature," second series
2nd edit. 1824, vol. i. p. 395.
LECTURE I.
31
they did to those whom, as contemporaries,
they especially addressed.
In languages now dead, the same variations
took place, while they were vernacular; and
hence we should misunderstand and misin-
terpret an ancient author, if we calculated
not the chronological vicissitudes of his
terms. And, though oriental idioms vary
less in this manner than the languages of the
West, yet, even in them, this attention must
not be neglected. For example, the Hebrew
word (i), in the later period of Hebrew
literature, undoubtedly signified an island.*
Hence, the translators who learnt the lan-
guage when it was in this stage, as the
authors of the Alexandrine and Syriac ver-
sions, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Aquila,
did not reflect that the word might have
changed from its ancient signification; and
so translated it by island in the older books,
where it has no such meaning, and where
*
* In Daniel, xi. 18, Antiochus is said to invade and
subdue many, and we know from history that he
so dealt with Samos, Rhodes, and many other islands.
In Esther, x. 1, the king of Persia is said to have imposed
tribute upon the land, and the islands of the sea; where
this word is used.
32
LECTURE I.
such a rendering produces the most glaring
absurdities.*
The conclusion, therefore, is, that it is not
sufficient to understand the meaning of
words and phrases in general, but that it is
necessary to ascertain it precisely for the
time when they were written or spoken.
This is called by hermeneutists the usus lo-
quendi, which is considered by them the true
test of an author's meaning.
3. But this grammatical meaning may have
to undergo considerable modifications, in
consequence of local or individual circum-
stances. I. The manners and habits of a
nation, the peculiar character of its political
or social constitution, the influence of acci-
dental agents, may cause the idea attached
to a term to differ greatly from what its
corresponding one will represent in our own
language. Thus, the words which we are
obliged to translate by harvest and sowing-
*For instance (Is. xlii. 15), "the islands shall be
converted into rivers."-Septuag. Targ. Syr. Gen. x. 5.
The same versions make Greece, Thrace, and Media to
be islands! See the interesting dissertation upon this
word in Michaelis's "Spicilegium Geographiæ Hebræ-
orum exteræ," Götting. 1769, pars prima, p. 136.
LECTURE. I.
33
time, point out in Hebrew different seasons
of the year from what are suggested to us
by those words. How complicated is the
idea of a bed to a European conception! An
ingenious framework to support multiplied
mattresses and pillows, sheets and blankets,
and coverlets to compose, with curtains and
hangings to adorn it-such is the image
which the word suggests to us. How dif-
ferent from the simple mat or carpet, or at
most mattress spread upon the floor, which
the corresponding Hebrew word represented
to the Jew! When, therefore, we hear our
Saviour say to a sick man, "Arise, take up
thy bed," we should be much mistaken if
we fancied to ourselves the cumbrous piece
of furniture which we designate by that
name, and might justly consider the order,
in that case, rather a severe test, even of a
miraculously restored health. So, likewise,
when we hear the royal prophet protest that
he will not ascend his bed,† we may be
tempted to imagine something still more
magnificent and lofty, in the form of a state
couch, instead of the divan or elevated
* Matt. ix. 6.
† Ps. cxxxii. 3.
D
!
t
34
LECTURE I.
platform at the upper end of an oriental
chamber, on which the couch is spread for
the night's repose.
cumstances.
II. Besides such local modifications as
these, in the signification of words or forms,
I said others might arise from personal cir-
For instance, every teacher
has his own peculiar method of conveying
instruction, resulting from his character,
his intention, his principles, his situation;
and it is obvious, that any explanation of
his words, at variance with his well-known
methods and character, cannot for a moment
be admitted. Any interpretation of a pas-
sage in Plato, which supposed him to aban-
don his inductive and discursive method,
and argue in a synthetical and formal manner,
or which made him represent Socrates as a
haughty, overbearing despot in discussion,
would be instantly rejected, as incompatible
with the known character and principles of
that philosopher. In like manner, any explana-
tion of words spoken by our Blessed Saviour,
which should be at variance with his usual
and constant method of instructing, or which
should suppose him to be aught but meek,
LECTURE I.
35
humble, conciliating, and charitable, must be
unhesitatingly rejected.
III. These considerations will necessarily
lead us also to take into account such data
as may be presented by the circumstances
in which the words were spoken-the feel-
ings, the habits, the very prejudices of the
audience addressed. For Burke has well
observed, that "in all bodies, those who will
lead, must also, in a considerable degree,
follow: they must conform their propositions
to the taste, talent, and disposition of those
whom they wish to conduct."*
Of course,
you will not for a moment confound this
supposition with the doctrine of the ra-
tionalists, that our Saviour framed his dogma
so as to accord with the errors and preju-
dices of the Jews-an opinion as unherme-
neutical and absurd, as it is blasphemous. I
speak of the manner, and not the matter, of
his instructions. It is evident that a kind
and skilful teacher will ever select words and
phrases which, while they are most intelli-
gible, may, at the same time, least shock the
natural feelings and just prejudices of his
* "Reflections on the Revolution in France," 11th
edit. Lond. 1791, p. 59.
36
LECTURE I.
audience; he will never study to make his
doctrines as repulsive and odious as possible;
he will, on the contrary, divest them of these
qualities, if they appear to have them, so far
as is compatible with their substance. In
like manner he will address himself very
differently to friends or to enemies, to those
who are hearkening in order to learn, or
those who are listening only to find fault. He
will reason in a different strain with a learned
or an uninstructed auditory; he will never
argue with the latter from principles of which
he knows them to be completely ignorant,
or which he is aware could not recur to their
minds at that moment, as criterions for in-
terpreting his expressions.
It is thus evident, that the inquiry into
the meaning of words and phrases at any
given period, and also into the local or per-
sonal circumstances which modify them, is
an inquiry into a matter of fact, and conse-
quently partakes, especially as to the latter
research, of an historical character.* Hence,
*"Scire autem et docere, quid cogitaverit aliquis,
verbisque significaverit, nonne erit rem facti intelligere?
Summa igitur similitudine cum historici munere con-
junctum est interpretis munus."—Keil, ubi sup. p. 86.
LECTURE I.
37
the learned Keil proposed to modify the
term which I used above, of sensus gramma-
ticus, and adopt that of sensus historicus, in-
terpretatio historica.* In order, however, to
explain his meaning more clearly, he com-
pounded the two terms, and called it the
historico-grammatical interpretation.†
The sum of all these remarks is, that,
if we wish to understand an author-for
instance, the New Testament—we must tran-
sport ourselves from our age and country,
* Tittman had justly observed, that the terms histori-
cal and grammatical, when applied to interpretation,
mean precisely the same.-Opuscula Theologica, Lips.
1803, p. 661.
† "Hinc eadem (historico-grammatica interpretatio)
primum omnium postulat hoc, ut verba quibus auctor
mentem expressit, adcurate examinentur, quo non solum
significatio et sensus singularum vocum et enuncia-
tionum, sed earum invicem junctarum nexus etiam et
ambitus singulis locis obtinens recte constituatur.
Deinde animum advertere illa jubet ad genus orationis
item ad consilium
necnon ad argumen-
tum libri explicandi . . . . Denique eadem etiam inter-
pretem graviter monet, ut ad Scriptoris a se explicandi
omnem indolem et rationem, quantum eam noverit,
semper respiciat, neque in enucleando ejus libro de eo
quærere negligat, qua ille scientia, ingenio, animo, mori-
bus, quo loco, qua conditione, quibus hominibus usus
sit."-Keil, p. 380.
•
38
LECTURE I.
and place ourselves in the position of those
whom our Saviour or his disciples addressed.
We must understand each phrase just as
they must have done; we must invest our-
selves with their knowledge, their feelings,
habits, opinions, if we wish to understand
the discourses which were addressed pri-
marily and immediately to them. This we
will attempt in the lectures which will be
addressed to you on the real Presence. We
will sift every phrase, when necessary, till we
discover the exact ideas which it must have
conveyed to the Jews or the Apostles; and
for this purpose, we must enter into minute
and detailed reasoning-from parallel pas-
sages, from the genius of the language used,
from the context, and every other philolo-
gical source within our reach. We will
study diligently and exactly our Saviour's
character, and discover his constant line of
conduct; and we will pry, too, into the
habits and character of those whom he ad-
dressed.
1. Proceeding thus by a perfectly analy-
tical method, when we have discovered a
signification for a text, which alone can be
reconciled with all these data, I shall feel
LECTURE I.
39
justified in concluding that signification to
be the only true one.
2. We will apply the same principles as a
test to try the validity of objections. We
shall simply have to ask the question, Could
the hearers of Christ, or the readers of St.
Paul, have understood him in that manner?
If not, we shall be authorized to conclude,
that such interpretations are of no value
whatsoever. This method of proceeding
will strip from our researches much of their
controversial form, and reduce them to a
literary and impartial inquiry.
But, at the same time, I must entreat you
not to be discouraged by the apparent pro-
spect of barren verbal disquisition, or the
idea of having to discuss words or passages
of languages unknown to you. I flatter
myself, that you will find our inquiry in-
teresting and satisfactory, in a sufficient
degree to compensate any difficulties which
may at first sight appear to encumber it;
and I even dare to hope, that such diffi-
culties will, as we proceed, be discovered to
be merely imaginary.
Before, however, proceeding to our theo-
logical discussion, I feel it prudent to notice
40
LECTURE I.
two objections, which may occur to you upon
the method I have promised to pursue. Your
own reflection will, I dare say, anticipate
my reply the moment I state the difficulties.
The first is, Do I mean to say that the
method which has been followed by contro-
vertists is not sufficiently exact, or that their
arguments have not satisfactorily demon-
strated the real Presence? Most assuredly
not. The texts whereby any dogma is
proved may be so clear, that they demonstrate
it at first sight, yet may consistently be sub-
mitted to the most rigid examination. For
instance, is not the Divinity of our Lord so
clear in Scripture, that an unprejudiced mind
is satisfied with the simple recital of the texts
relating to it; yet, who has ever blamed the
learned treatises which submit them to a
more rigid analysis? Several properties of
mathematical figures might be pointed out,
which strike the mind almost immediately
upon inspecting the diagram, or which may
be proved by the most simple methods; still
who has ever criticised the mathematical
course which makes them the subject of
severe and minute demonstration? Our case
is precisely similar. If the text for the real
LECTURE I.
41
Presence appear to you to be intuitively con-
vincing, this arises, as in the instances ad-
duced, from the internal evidence of their
truth, and is of itself an indication that they
will bear the severest scrutiny: nor does the
attempt to bestow this here, any more than
in those cases, imply the slightest denial of
that primary evidence, nor any censure upon
those who have so ably displayed it. Not a
single argument which I shall adduce will
tend to contradict or weaken the views which
others have taken. As, however, we have
seen that these views have not always pro-
duced conviction upon others, it is only fair
to try what the more rigid course of exege-
tical discussion may effect, especially upon
those who are learned, and able to appre-
ciate it.
But I am far from believing that this
method can have weight only with these men.
There is a natural logic in every mind, which
will enable it to seize the most rigid form of
demonstration, when presented in a simple
and progressive manner. The principles of
hermeneutics, which I have laid down, are
obvious and intelligible to the very lowest
capacity, and all that will follow may be
•
42
LECTURE I.
rendered the same.
I may say, that I have
more than once tried to reduce the arguments
which I shall deliver to a popular form in
private conference, and have been perfectly
satisfied that they were fully understood.*
A second objection may be brought to the
method I have proposed to adopt: Does it
not tend to diminish the divine authority of
the Church and of Tradition, by making the
interpretation of Scripture depend upon
human ingenuity and learning, rather than
upon the authority of an infallible guide.
Undoubtedly not. Before replying to this
objection, I must observe that I willingly
make the two following concessions:-First,
I fully subscribe to the sentiment of an acute
and amiable Protestant philosopher, who
says: "Luther treated Christianity in the
most capricious manner, misunderstood its
spirit, and introduced a new alphabet and a
new religion—namely, the holy all-available-
ness (Allgemeingültigkeit) of the Bible; and
thereby, came unfortunately to be mixed up
* These words were written long before I thought an
opportunity would ever be afforded me, of trying this
method upon so large an audience as attended the lec-
tures at Moorfields Chapel.
LECTURE I.
43
with the concerns of religion another per-
fectly foreign and earthly science—philology,
whose destructive influence cannot but be re-
cognized from that moment."* I fully agree,
therefore, that this philological method of
learning religion is one of the most pernicious
evils we owe to the Reformation, and that
far better would it have been, had the plain
and only true rule of Church authority con-
tinued in its legitimate force. Secondly, I
will acknowledge the truth of what a modern
French divine has convincingly proved, that
Catholic controvertists, especially in England
and Germany, have greatly erred by allow-
ing themselves to be led by Protestants into
a war of detail, meeting them, as they de-
sired, in partial combats for particular dog-
mas, instead of steadily fixing them to one
fundamental discussion, and resolving all
compound inquiries into their one simple
element-Church authority. But fully and
cordially as I make these concessious, the
state of controversy at the present day ren-
ders it necessary to treat these questions
separately, and expedient to treat them
philologically
* Novalis, Schriften, 2 Th. s. 195, 4 Ausgabe.
44
LECTURE I.
#
And therefore, in reply, I would first ob-
serve, that all our controvertists treat the
arguments from Scripture distinctly from
Tradition; that they corroborate them from
all the sources of interpretation, and do not
even allude to their basing that interpreta-
tion upon the next argument, which will
follow from the Fathers. But, in the second
place, the Church decides the dogma, and in
some, though few instances, has decided the
meaning of texts; but, generally speaking,
it leaves the discussion of individual passages
to the care of theologians, who are not at
liberty to adopt any interpretation which is
not strictly conformable to the dogmas de-
fined. Farther, and principally, I would
add, that as I can never consider it possible
for a proposition to be theologically true and
logically false, so can I never allow that a
dogma can be drawn from a text by a mere
theological argument of authority, but that
it must be, at the same time, the only inter-
pretation which sound hermeneutical prin-
ciples can give. It is the property of truth
to be able to resist the action of the most
varied tests. When, therefore, I find the
signification of a text definitively settled by
LECTURE I.
45
the Church, upon the authority of Tradition,
I am at once fully satisfied that the decision
must be correct; but then I am so much the
more fully satisfied in consequence, that the
text will give the same result after the
strictest investigation. Hence, we may ap
prove the axiom of Melancthon, one, of all
the Reformers, whose deviation from truth
excites most our compassion and regret,
non potest Scriptura intelligi theologice,
nisi ante intellecta sit grammatice."*
Having premised thus much on the method
which I intend to follow, I proceed to state
the first argument in favour of the Ca-
tholic belief of a real Presence of the Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Blessed
Eucharist.
The first passage which every Protestant
must acknowledge to favour, at least at first.
sight, our doctrine, is the latter portion of
the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel. You are
aware that most Catholics divide the chapter
into three portions, while most Protestants
consider the two last portions as only com-
posing one whole. From the first to the
* Ernesti Institutio, p. 29.
46
LECTURE I.
twenty-sixth verse, we have an historical de-
tail of the splendid miracle whereby our
Saviour fed five thousand persons with five
loaves, and of his subsequent occupation
until next day, when the crowd once more
gathered around him. At the twenty-sixth
verse his discourse to them commences, and
with its consequences occupies the rest of
this long chapter, consisting of seventy-two
The discourse is a striking counter-
part to the whole of our Redeemer's life: it
opened amidst the wonder, the admiration,
the reverence of multitudes; it closed with
the scoffs and persecution of the Jews, the
desertion of his disciples, and the vacating
perplexity of his chosen twelve.
verses.
It was a practice with our Saviour and his
Apostles to adapt their discourses to the cir-
cumstances in which they were placed, and
more especially to draw them from the
miracles which they had wrought. Thus,
Christ opens his conference with the Sama-
ritan women at the well, by allusions to his
request that she would allow him to drink.*
Thus, in the fifth chapter of St. John, he
* John, iv. 10.
LECTURE I.
47
takes occasion to teach the doctrine of the
resurrection, from the miracle he had
wrought in the cure of a long-languishing
man.* In the twelfth of St. Matthew (v. 43),
he borrows his figures and lessons from the
miracle he had previously performed, in
casting out a devil. In the same manner, he
reproves the blindness of the Pharisees, after
having restored sight to a man who had been
born blind.f
Conformably to his Master's practice, St.
Peter preached the efficacy of the name of
Christ, and the consequent necessity of belief
in him, upon having wrought a miracle,
through the invocation of that name. It
will be acknowledged at once, that if our
Saviour ever intended to propound the
doctrine of the real Presence, a more appro-
priate and favourable opportunity never
occurred, in the course of his entire ministry,
than the one exhibited in the sixth chapter
of St. John.
* John, v. 24.
+ John, ix. 39. See Bp. Newcome's "Observations
on our Lord's Conduct as a Divine Instructor," 3rd
edit. Lond. 1820, pp. 101, seqq.
Acts, iii. 6-16.
48
LECTURE I.
The introduction of the whole discourse,
and of this topic in particular, becomes still
more natural, when we consider that, accord-
ing to a tradition believed by the Jews, the
Messiah, among other points of resemblance
to Moses, was, like him, to bring down manna
from heaven. The Midrasch Coheleth, or
exposition of Ecclesiastes, thus expresses it:
"Rabbi Berechiah said, in the name of R.
Isaac: As the first Goel (deliverer) so shall
the second be. The first Goel brought down
manna, as it is written, 'I will cause bread
to rain upon you from heaven.' So, likewise,
will the later Goel cause manna to descend."*
As the Jews, therefore, demanded a sign of
his mission (v. 29), similar to that which
proved the divine legation of Moses, who
brought down manna from heaven (vv. 30,
31), our Saviour was naturally led to show
that he was the second Goel who could rival
that miracle, by giving a food which really
came down from heaven.
On the signification of his discourse as far
as the forty-eighth or fifty-first verse, Pro-
testants and Catholics are equally agreed, it
"Hora Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ,"
Dresd. et Lips. 1733, tom. i. p. 359.
* Schoettgen,
1
LECTURE I.
49
refers entirely to believing in him. It is at
one of the verses just mentioned, that we
begin to differ most materially upon the sub-
ject of his doctrine.
The Catholic maintains that, at this point,
a total, though natural change of subject
takes place, and a perfect transition is made
from believing in Christ, to a real eating of
his body and drinking of his blood in the
sacrament of the Eucharist. The generality
of Protestants maintain that no such trans-
ition takes place, but that our Saviour really
continues to discourse upon the same subject
as before, that is, on faith. I have said the
generality of Protestants, because there is a
variety of opinion among them. Not only
Calixtus, Hackspan, Grünenberg, and others
abroad, but several distinguished Anglican
divines, have referred the latter part to the
Eucharist, though they do not allow the real
Presence, at least in clear terms. Dr. Jeremy
Taylor takes it quite for granted, and reasons
upon texts from this part of the chapter, as
proving points connected with the Lord's
*
* See Wolff's "Curæ philologicæ et criticæ in IV. SS.
Evangelia," ed. 3a, Hamburg, 1739, p. 864.
E
50
LECTURE I.
*
Supper.* Dr. Sherlock goes farther, and
undertakes to demonstrate that it can refer
to no other subject.+ On the other hand,
many Protestant expositors suppose the latter
portion of the chapter to relate more specifi-
cally than the preceding part to belief in the
passion or atonement of our Saviour.‡
The point at issue, therefore, between us
and our adversaries, is twofold. First, is
there a change of subject at the forty-eighth
verse? Secondly, is the transition to a real
eating of the body of Christ? The double
affirmative reply which we give is a fair and
obvious point of hermeneutical inquiry, and
as such I shall proceed to treat it in our next
lectures.
It will appear from what I have said, that
I am not satisfied with the transition being
placed, as it usually is, at the fifty-first verse.
Before closing this lecture, therefore, it is
proper that I clear up this point, the more
* "Worthy Communicant," Lond. 1660, pp. 27, 37,
&c.
† "Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies,” 3rd
ed. Lond. 1700, p. 364.
As Dr. Waterland, "Review of the Doctrine of the
Eucharist," in the Collection of his Works by Dr. Van
Mildert, Oxf. 1823, vol. vii. p. 105.
LECTURE I.
51
so, as the determination of such a transition
must materially advance the strength of the
arguments which I shall bring forward at our
next meeting. For if it shall be shown that
the portion of the discourse comprised be-
tween the forty-eighth and fifty-second verses
is a complete section of itself, we shall not
unreasonably conclude that a new subject
may likewise be therein treated. I have no
hesitation in placing the transition at the
forty-eighth; and my reasons are the follow-
ing:-
1. Verse 47 seems to me to form an appro-
priate close to a division of discourse, by the
emphatic asseveration amen prefixed to a
manifest summary and epilogue of all the
preceding doctrine. "Amen, amen, I say
unto you, he that believeth in me hath ever-
lasting life." Compare vv. 35, 37, 45. Verse
48 lays down a clear proposition: "I am the
bread of life," suggested by the preceding
words, and just suited for the opening of a
new discourse.
2. But these words are exactly the same
as open the first part of our Saviour's lecture,
at v. 35. Now, I find it an ordinary form of
transition with him, when he applies the same
52
LECTURE I.
66
I
images to different purposes, to repeat the
very words by which he originally com-
menced his discourse. I will give two or
three instances. In John, x. 11, he says, "I
am the good shepherd;" and he then expa-
tiates upon this character, as it regards himself,
contrasting himself with the hireling, and
expressing himself ready to die for his sheep.
At v. 14, he repeats the words once more,
am the good shepherd;" and explains them
with reference to the sheep, how they hear and
obey him, and how his flock will be increased.
Again, John, xv. 1, he commences his dis-
course by "I am the true vine," and applies
the figure negatively to the consequences of
not being united to him. Then, at v. 5, he
repeats the same words, and explains them
positively of the fruits produced by those
who do abide in him.* Exactly in the same
* I consider the latter clause of v. 15, of the first pas-
sage, and v. 6, with the last member of v. 5, in the
second, as merely incidental and parenthetic; as I think
it will be allowed that the division, which I have sug-
gested of each parable, is manifest and natural. In this
remark, I have joined the last member of v. 5 (John, xv.)
with v. 6, because it has long struck me that the com-
mon division of the verses there is not correct. The
reasoning seems hardly conclusive: "He that abideth in
LECTURE I.
53
manner, in our passage, our Saviour, having
spoken of himself as bread, "I am the living
bread," and expatiated on this thought, in
respect to his being the spiritual nourishment
of the soul by faith, makes the same form of
transition, to treat of himself as bread in
another sense, inasmuch as his flesh is our
real sustenance.
3. The motive, however, which principally
induces me to see a clear separation between
vv. 47 and 48, and which forbids me to allow
any other transition or break in the dis-
course, till its complete interruption at v. 53,
is the connection of the entire passage in
what is known by the name of the poetical
parallelism. This is not the place to enter
into an explanation of this system; for that
I must refer you to Dr. Jebb's interesting
me
beareth much fruit, because without me ye
can do nothing" (v. 5). But if we put the stop after
"much fruit," and join what follows to the next verse,
we have a most expressive argument. "Because with-
out me ye can do nothing; if any one remain not in
me, he shall be cast forth as a worthless branch," &c.
Of course I need not remind my readers that we owe
our present division into verses to the elder Ste-
phanus, who made it for his relaxation inter equitan-
dum.
54
LECTURE I.
¥
work upon the subject.* Suffice it to say,
that he has extended to the structure of the
New Testament, the principle which Lowth
and Herder had laid down as characteristic
of Hebrew poetry, that a sentence or a por-
tion of a discourse is arranged in parallel
members, to any number, and in varied
order, but always on a symmetrical struc-
ture. Now, nothing to me can be more
striking than the regular arrangement of
this discourse from v. 48 to v. 52, inclu-
sively; and whoever understands the prin-
ciple, and is accustomed to its application,
will, immediately upon inspecting the passage,
as I have transcribed it, in the original and
the version, acknowledge that it stands wholly
detached from what precedes down to v. 47,
and that no transition can be allowed at any
point but that. The following is the whole
section of our Saviour's discourse, versicu-
larly arranged:-
(a) I am the bread of life.
(b) Your fathers did eat manna (bread
from heaven, see vv. 31, 32) in the
desert,
(c) And are dead.
"Sacred Literature," London, 1820.
LECTURE I.
55
(a) This is the bread
(b) Descending from heaven (such),
(c) That if any one eat of it he may
not die.
(a) I am the living bread
(b) Which came down from heaven.
(c) If any man eat of this bread, he
shall live for ever.
And the bread which I will give is my flesh
for the life of the world.*
You cannot avoid remarking the nice ba-
lance of these lines. All those marked (a)
contain the same ideas of bread and generally
of life; the second ones (b) speak of the
descent of this bread from heaven, contrasted
with the manna; the third (c) impress its
worth in the same comparative view. The
last clause sums up and embodies the sub-
stance of the preceding. That repetition of
the same idea and phrase, which at first sight
appears superfluous in this passage, entirely
vanishes upon viewing this arrangement, and
· there is a beautiful progression of sentiment,
* See the sixth chapter, as prefixed to this lecture.
†The passage given by Dr. Jebb, which has an ar-
rangement most resembling this, is Matt. xxiii. 16-22,
which is explained by him at p. 356.
56
LECTURE I.
鳶
​which gives a value to every repetition. Not
to detain you with too many remarks, I will
only instance the progressive character of the
lines marked (c). The first speaks of the
want of an immortalizing quality in the
manna; the second attributes such a quality
to the manna of the new Covenant, but in
negative terms, "that if any one eat of it,
he may not die;" the third expresses the same
sentiment in a positive and energetic form:
"If any man eat of this bread he shall live
for ever."
This attempt to prove-I trust not unsuc-
cessfully that there is a marked division of
the discourse at verse the forty-eighth, is not, -
as I before observed, of mean importance in
our researches. It removes an objection
made in limine by our adversaries, that it is
doing a violence to our Saviour's discourse,
to suppose that he passes from one subject to
another where there is nothing to indicate
such a transition.* I have shown that the
structure of this portion of the passage de-
taches it from the preceding; and my next
* See Bishop Porteus's "Lectures on St. Matthew,"
London, 1823, pp. 342, 383.
LECTURE I.
57
lectures will demonstrate the remarkable
change of phraseology which takes place at
the same time.
To remove that preliminary objection still
farther, I will refer you to a perfectly pa-
rallel instance of such a transition. I allude
to the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chap-
ters of St. Matthew. In treating of the
evidences of Christianity, I proved to you
that the first part of the discourse contained
in those chapters referred entirely to the de-
struction of Jerusalem; it is acknowledged.
that its concluding portion is referable
only to the final judgment:† now where
does the transition between the two occur?
Why, some of the best commentators, as
Kuinoel, and after him Bloomfield, place it
at the forty-third verse of the twenty-fourth
chapter. Now, if you read that passage atten-
* St. Matthew, xxv. 31.
*
"Commentarius in Libros N. T. historicos," vol. i.
ed. tert. Lips. 1823, p. 653.
+
"Recensio Synoptica Annotationis Sacræ," Lond.
1826, vol. i. p. 396. Rosenmüller, whom Mr. Bloom-
field quotes as coinciding in opinion with Kuinoel,
differs essentially from him. His words are: "Equidem
omnia, quæ a cap. xxiv. 42, usque ad c. xxv. 30, dicun-
58
LECTURE I.
tively, you will be struck with the similarity
of this transition to the one I have laid down
for the sixth chapter of St. John. In the
preceding verse (42) our Lord sums up the
substance of the foregoing instruction, just
as he does in John, vi. 47: "Watch ye, there-
fore, because ye know not at what hour
your Lord will come." Amen, amen, I say
unto you, he that believeth in me hath ever-
lasting life." He then resumes, apparently,
the same figure drawn from the necessity of
watching a house, as he does that of bread
in our case; but then the conclusion of the
discourse points out, that the "coming of
the Son of man" now mentioned (v. 44) is
no longer the moral and invisible one spoken
of in the preceding section (vv. 30, 37), but
a real and substantial advent in the body
(xxv. 31).
Such are the grounds which I conceive
not merely authorize, but convincingly
oblige, us to suppose a transition to a new
tur, ad utrumque Christi adventum referenda esse
puto.”—(D. Jo. Geor. Rosenmülleri Scholia in N. T.
ed. 6ta, Norimb. 1815, vol. i. p. 495.) So that he con-
siders this portion of the discourse as intermediate and
common to both the others.
LECTURE I.
59
section of our Lord's discourse at the forty-
eighth verse. I may remark, in conclusion,
that a learned and acute modern Protestant
commentator has observed, that it is manifest
that our Saviour cannot have been under-
stood to continue the same subject at verse
fifty-one.*
*
* "Leitet darauf, dass Christus hier nicht dasselbe,
was in Vorhergehenden, sagen wolle." Tholuck,
“Commentar zu dem Evangelio Johannis," Hamb.
1828, p. 129.
*
LECTURE II,
FIRST ARGUMENT FOR THE REAL PRESENCE, FROM THE
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL: FROM THE
CHANGE OF PHRASEOLOGY AFTER THE FORTY-EIGHTH
VERSE.
I CLOSED my last lecture by resolving the
controversy between ourselves and Protes-
tants, upon the sixth chapter of St. John,
into a proposition strictly within the limits.
of hermeneutical investigation; and I endea-
voured to show, from the construction of the
discourse, after the forty-eighth verse, from
the practice of our Saviour, and from parallel
instances, that there were sufficient indica-
tions of a new section of the discourse com-
mencing at that point. I have now to
demonstrate that a complete change of topic.
also takes place, and that our Lord, who had
hitherto spoken of believing in him, now
treats of receiving his flesh and blood.
LECTURE II.
61
The first argument which I shall bring, and
which will fully occupy this evening's lecture,
may be simply stated thus. The phrases
which occur in the first part of the discourse
were calculated to convey to the minds of
those who heard our Saviour, the idea of
listening to his doctrines and believing in
him; the more so, as he positively explained
them in that sense. But after the transition
I have pointed out, a totally different phrase-
ology occurs, which to his hearers could not
possibly convey that meaning, nor any other
save that of a real eating of his flesh and
drinking of his blood. In order to prove
these assertions, we shall have to descend
into a minute examination of the forms of
expression employed, respectively, in the
two parts of the discourse.
In the first part, our Saviour speaks of
himself as bread which came down from
heaven (vv. 32-35). The figurative appli-
cation of bread or food to wisdom or doc-
trines, by which the mind is nourished, was
one in ordinary use among the Jews and
other Orientals; consequently, it could pre-
sent no difficulty here. The figure is used
by Isaiah (lv. 1, 2): "All you that thirst,
62
LECTURE II.
come to the waters; and you that have no
money, make haste, buy, and eat. Why do
you spend your money for that which is not
bread, and your labour for that which doth
not satisfy you? Hearken diligently to me,
and eat that which is good." Perhaps the
passage from Deuteronomy (viii. 3), quoted
by our Saviour (Matt. iv. 4), contains the
same idea: "Not on bread alone doth man
live, but on every word that proceedeth from
the mouth of God."* Jeremiah (xv. 16)
has the same image: "Thy words were found,
and I did eat them." Hence, also, in Amos
(viii. 11), the Almighty places these two ideas
in a striking contrast, when he says that he
"will send forth a famine into the land, not
a famine of bread, nor a thirst (drought) of
water, but of hearing the word of God."
The same figure occurs still more strikingly
in the sapiential books. Solomon represents.
to us Wisdom as thus addressing herself to
all men: "Come, eat my bread, and drink
the wine which I have mingled for you."t
The book of Ecclesiasticus (xv. 3) has pre-
cisely the same image: "With the bread of
* Compare Ecclus. xxiv. 5.
† Prov. ix. 5.
LECTURE II.
63
life and understanding she shall feed him, and
give him the water of wholesome wisdom to
drink."
All these passages show that this was an
ordinary phraseology to the Jews, as it is an
obvious one to all men, to represent wisdom,
the word of God, or heavenly doctrines, as
food, or more specifically, according to the
Hebrew idiom, bread for the soul.* But
among the later Jews this figure had become
a regular and admitted form of speech.
Philotells us τὸ γὰρ φαγεῖν σύμβολόν ἐστι τροφῆς
yuxuîs.† The Talmud and Rabbins teach
ψυχικής.†
the same. The Midrasch Coheleth says, that
whenever eating and drinking are mentioned
in the book of Ecclesiastes, they are to be
understood of the law and good works. In
the treatise Hagigah, the words of Isaiah
(iii. 1), "the whole strength of bread,” are
thus commented upon:-"These are the
* Bread is used for any enjoyment. See Prov. iv. 17;
ix. 17 (col. Ecclus. xxiii. 17); xx. 17, etc. Comp. Osee,
x. 13. See "Sal. Glassii Philologia Sacra his temporibus
accommodata, a D. Jo. Aug. Dathe," tom. i. Lips. 1776,
pp. 1185, 1256.
+ Allegor. lib. i. tom. i. p. 63, ed. Mangey. Cf. p. 120, .
Ορᾷς τῆς ψυχῆς τροφὴν οἵα εστί; λόγος Θεοῦ.
64
LECTURE II.
masters of doctrine, as it is said, 'Come, eat
my bread."" Again, the Glossa on the trea-
tise Succah: "Feed him with bread; that is,
make him labour in the battle of the law."*
In fine, the same image occurs in other
oriental languages, and especially in one,
from whose philosophy numerous expres-
sions in the later Hebrew literature may be
happily illustrated. In a Sanscrit hymn to
the sun, translated by Colebrooke, we have
the following remarkable expressions:-"Let
usmeditate on the adorable light of the divine
ruler; may it guide our intellects. Desirous
of food, we solicit the gift of the splendid
sun, who should be studiously worshipped."†
These examples demonstrate that to the
Jews it was no unusual image, no harsh
phrase, to speak of doctrines under the form
* Apud Lightfoot, "Horæ Hebraicæ," Oper. tom. ii.
Roterd. 1686, p. 626. Maimonides says the same of
the book of Proverbs.-More Nevoch. p. i. c. 30.
† Colebrooke on the Vedas, "Asiat. Researches,"
vol. viii. Lond. 1808, p. 408. Guigneaut ("Religions de
l'Antiquité," tom. i. pa. ii. Paris, 1825, p. 600) translates
food by pain de vie, and so produces a stronger analogy.
Bopp ("Ueber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskrit-
sprache," Frankf. 1816, p. 272) has given the sense more
accurately.
LECTURE II.
65
of bread or food. But the figure could not
be pushed farther than that. Jeremiah or
Isaiah could not have been represented in
the passage quoted from them, as saying,
"Come and eat me." The only passage
which could for a moment be compared
with this form of expression, is Ecclus.
xxiv. 29, where Wisdom is supposed to say,
"They that eat me shall yet hunger, and
they that drink me shall yet thirst;" which
is paraphrased literally of hearing in the
following verse. But there is a twofold
difference between this passage and our
Saviour's expressions: 1. Wisdom is speaking
as an abstract personage, an allegorical be-
ing, to which imaginary life is given; and
consequently to whom the terms could not,
by possibility, be literally applied. 2. Even
this ideal person speaks of herself under
the image of a plant: "As the vine, I
have brought forth a pleasant odour; and
my flowers are the fruit of honour and
riches.... Come over to me all ye that
desire me, and be filled with my fruits" (vv.
23; 26; cf. 16-20). The figure is thus
manifest, and in perfect harmony with the
context.
•
F
66
LECTURE II.
Now mark well, that thus it is in the first
part of Christ's discourse. Our Saviour, the
Word and Wisdom of the Father, identify-
ing himself with his doctrines, calls himself
the bread of life; but it is very remarkable
that never once, through this part of the
discourse, does he suffer the idea of eating
him to escape his lips. On the contrary,
so careful is he to avoid it, that when the
current of his discourse seemed almost to
force him to use it, he breaks through
the proprieties of figurative language, and
mingles literal with metaphorical expres-
sions, rather than employ so unusual and so
harsh a phrase. "And Jesus said to them,
I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me
(not he that eateth me) shall not hunger; and
he that believeth on me (not he that drinketh
of me) shall never thirst" (v. 31). This care
in avoiding, even at the expense of rheto-
rical propriety, any mention of eating him
throughout this portion of our Lord's dis-
course, is an important circumstance, and
will form a strong point of contrast when we
examine the phraseology of the second; and
it demonstrates how completely our Re-
deemer kept within the bounds of the usual
LECTURE II.
67
metaphor, which I have illustrated from the
Old Testament and other sources.
Nay, I must notice a still more remark-
able reserve in our Saviour's phraseology.
Not once, through this section of the dis-
course, does he use the expression to eat
even the bread of life, or the spiritual food
which came down from heaven. He simply
says, that the Father gave them the true
bread from heaven (v. 32), and that the
bread of God giveth life to the world (v. 33).
But even if the expressions, hitherto used
by our Saviour, had not been so consonant
with customary language, the pains which
he takes to explain his words must have
removed any possible obscurity. In the verse
which I have just quoted (v. 31), this ex-
planation is given in terms so clear, as to
preclude all danger of misunderstanding.
The expression coming to Christ, being de-
termined by the parallelism in that verse to be
the same as the believing in him of its second
member, almost every verse from that to the
forty-eighth, now speaks of this doctrine.
under one or the other of these phrases.
(See vv. 36, 37, 40, 44, 45, 47.) The last
of these verses contains, as I last evening
68
LECTURE II.
•
observed, a complete and striking compen-
dium and epilogue of the whole passage. And
it must be remarked, that from the moment
he begins to explain his words by literal
phrases at v. 35, until he has made that
summary at v. 47, after which I have be-
fore proved that a new section of his dis-
course commences, he does not once return
to the figure of bread, nor make use of
any other such metaphorical expression, but
always speaks clearly and simply of belief.
We are therefore authorized to conclude,
that whether we consider the customary
meaning of the phrases as in use among the
Jews of our Saviour's time, or the clear and
decisive explanation which he himself gave.
to them, those who heard him could not pos-
sibly misunderstand this portion of his dis-
course, nor give any other interpretation to
the figure there used, than that of being
spiritually nourished by the doctrines which
he brought down from heaven.
Let us now proceed to examine the phraseo-
logy which occurs in the remaining portion
of the discourse, that is, from verse 48 to the
conclusion of the chapter, in order to dis-
cover whether the expressions therein used
LECTURE II.
69
}
!
are such as could possibly continue, in the
minds of the hearers, the same ideas as were
excited by the first, or must not rather have
been calculated necessarily to suggest one
totally distinct. I assert, therefore, that if
we accurately consider the phraseology of
this portion of the chapter, according to the
only manner in which it could possibly be
understood by the Jews whom Christ addressed,
we must conclude that they would neces-
sarily infer a change of topic in it, and be
convinced that the doctrine now delivered
was of a real eating of the flesh and drink-
ing of the blood of him who addressed
them.
For our Saviour does now, in fact, say to
them, "and the bread which I will give is
my flesh, for the life of the world" (v. 52).
After this verse, he again and again repeats
this extraordinary phraseology, in even more
marked terms. "Amen, amen, I say unto
you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have
life in you. He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life; and
I will raise him up at the last day. For my
flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
70
LECTURE II.
As
indeed; he that eateth my flesh and drinketh
my blood, abideth in me and I in him.
the living Father hath sent me, and I live
by the Father, so he that eateth me, the same
also shall live by me. This is the bread that
came down from heaven. Not as your
fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are
dead;
he that eateth this bread shall live for
ever" (vv. 54-60).
There are various peculiarities in this
phraseology which oblige us to consider the
topic which it treats, as totally distinct from
that which occupies the former portion of
the chapter.
1. We have seen above, that after our
Saviour, in consequence of difficulties found
by the Jews, had commenced, at verse 35, to
explain his sentiments literally, he never re-
turns again to the figurative expression,
until after he closes that section at verse 47.
If we suppose him to continue the same
topic after this verse, we must believe him,
after having spent thirteen verses in doing
away with the obscurity of his parabolic
expressions, and in giving the explana-
tion of its figures, to return again to
his obscure phrases, and to take up once
ļ
LECTURE II.
71
more the use of the same parable, which
he had so long abandoned for its literal ex-
planation.
2. We have seen, likewise, how carefully
our Lord avoids, throughout the first part,
the harsh expression to eat him, even where
the turn of his phrase seemed to invite him.
to use it; on the contrary, in the latter sec-
tion, he employs it without scruple, and even
repeats it again and again. This is a re-
markable difference of phraseology between
the two sections.
3. So long as Christ speaks of himself as
the object of faith, under the image of a
spiritual food, he represents this food as
given by the Father (vv. 32, 33, 39, 40, 44);
but after verse 47, he speaks of the food,
which he now describes as to be given by
himself. "The bread which I will give, is
my flesh for the life of the world" (v. 52).
"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
(v. 53). This marked difference in the giver
of the two communications, proposed in the
two divisions of the discourse, points out that
a different gift is likewise promised. If faith
is the gift in both, there is no ground for
the distinction made in them; if there is a
72
LECTURE II.
transition to a real eating, the whole is clear.
While we consider Jesus Christ and his doc-
trines as the object of our faith, he is justly
described as sent and presented to us by the
Father; when we view him as giving his
flesh to eat, it is by the precious bounty of
his own love towards us.
4. The difference here discernable between
the givers, is no less marked regarding the
effects of the gift. To both are attributed
the having everlasting life, and being raised
up
at the last day (vv. 40, 44, 47, 52, 55, 59).
But beyond this, there is a marked distinction.
In the first part of the discourse, our Blessed
Saviour always speaks of our coming to him,
through the attraction or drawing of the
Father (vv. 35, 36, 44, 45). Now, this ex-
pression is ever used when speaking of faith,
to which we apply that part of his discourse.
For example:-" Come unto me, all you that
labour" (Matt. xi. 28; cf. 27);—“ Every one
that cometh to me, and heareth my words,
and doth them, I will show you to whom he
is like" (Luke, vi. 47);—" Search the Scrip-
tures, for you think in them to have ever-
lasting life; and the same are they that give
testimony of me; and ye will not come to me,
►
I
}
LECTURE II.
73
that ye may have life" (John, v. 40);—“ If
any man thirst, let him come unto me and
drink. He that believeth in me," &c.
(vii. 37)-where the same image is used as
in the first part of the discourse in the sixth
chapter. Hence, our Redeemer, at the con-
clusion of his discourse, says, "But there
are some of you that believe not .
that believe not . . . . therefore
did I say to you, that no man can come unto
me, unless it be given him by the Father."
In this manner, the qualities of the first
method of receiving Christ's food are pre-
cisely what we should expect if he treated
of belief.
But, after the place where we suppose the
transition made, he speaks no longer of our
coming to him, but of our abiding in him, and
he in us (vv. 57, 58). And this is a phrase
which always intimates union by love. Thus
(John, xiv. 23), "If any one love me, he will
keep my word, and my Father will love him,
and we will come to him, and will make our
abode with him." In the 15th chapter (vv.
4-9), the figure drawn from the necessity of
the branches being united to the vine, gives
the same result. "As the branch cannot bear
fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine; so
74,
LECTURE II.
neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Abide in my love." In the First Epistle of
St. John, it is distinguished from faith, as
an effect from the cause. "If that abide in
you which you have heard from the begin-
ning (the word of faith), you shall also abide
in the Son and in the Father" (ii. 24). "And
now, little children, abide in him, that when
he shall come, we may have confidence, and
not be confounded by him at his coming."
These words are more clearly explained in
the 4th chapter (vv. 16,17): "He that abideth
in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.
In this is the charity of God perfected within
us, that we may have confidence in the day
of judgment." In addition, compare iii. 24;
iv. 12, 13.
Thus, we have the effects of the doctrine
inculcated after the 48th verse, given as quite
different from those before rehearsed; and
as the latter apply to faith, these are such as
describe a union with Christ through love.
Something, therefore, is here delivered or
instituted, which tends to nourish and per-
fect this virtue, and not faith; the topic,
therefore, is changed, and a transition has
taken place.
And what institution more
1
LECTURE II.
75
suited to answer this end than the Blessed
Eucharist? What could be more truly an
instrument or means for our abiding in Christ
and Christ in us?
5. Our opponents suppose the phrases in
the two portions of the discourse to be pa-
rallel, and to refer equally to faith. By this
reasoning it follows, that to eat his flesh (vv.
54, 55, 56, 57), means the same as to possess
the bread of life mentioned in the former
section (vv. 32, 33, 35). I will not revert to
the observations already made, that in it our
Saviour never once uses the word to eat, as
applied either to himself or his doctrines;
but will allow, for a moment, that the ex-
pressions there used are equivalent to a decla-
ration, that the bread of life, which he iden-
tifies with himself, is to be eaten; in other
words, that he is our food, and that by this
is signified, that we must believe in him.
But, if to feed on Christ mean to believe in
Christ, then, to eat the flesh of Christ (if the
phrase has to be considered parallel) must
signify to believe in the flesh of Christ. This
is absurd; for the flesh and blood of Christ
was not an object of faith to those who really
sinned by believing him too literally to be
76
LECTURE II.
only a man; nor can our belief in them be
the source of eternal life. Protestants say,
that as to feed on Christ signifies to believe
in him, so to eat his flesh, and drink his blood,
means to believe in his passion. But they do
not bring a single argument to show that such
a phrase was in use, or could have been in-
telligible to his hearers. The expressions,
therefore, used in the second part of our
Lord's discourse, are in nowise parallel to
those of the first, nor can they bear the same
meaning. In fact, the only one they will
bear is the literal signification.
6. But all the differences which I have
hitherto pointed out are mere præludia to the
real, and, I trust, decisive examination of
the point which yet remains. By discussing
the meaning which the Jews attached to the
phrases employed by our Saviour in the first
part of this discourse, we found that he kept
perfectly within the limits of established lan-
guage, that the expressions which he used
were sufficiently ordinary and intelligible.
We must now descend to a similar investiga-
tion of the phrases used in the second part,
and discover what was the only meaning
which the persons whom he addressed could
5
+
***
1
LECTURE II.
77
attach to his words. The line I intend to
pursue is simply this:-
Protestants say, that the expression "to eat
the flesh of Christ," is to be taken figuratively.
I will therefore inquire if ever it bore a figu-
rative meaning. If I discover that, among
the persons whom Jesus addressed, it did bear
a figurative signification, besides its literal
sense, then I must conclude, that those
per-
sons could only select between that established
figurative sense, and the literal import of the
words.
To place the strength of this course of in-
quiry in its clearest light, I will indulge in a
few brief remarks. The explanation of tro-
pical phraseology, as Jahn has well remarked,
must depend entirely upon the usus loquendi,
or the sense attached to it by the persons to
whom it was addressed.* In fact, there is
no style of language in which we are less at
liberty in attaching signification to phrases,
*
* "Quemadmodum omnis interpretatio, ita quoque
et agnitio et interpretatio troporum, ab usu loquendi
tropico, qui cuilibet nationi, instituto, ætati, etc. proprius
est, pendet." "Sicuti omnis sermonis, ita etiam, tro-
pici, suprema lex est usus consuetudo loquendi !”—
Enchiridion Hermeneut. generalis, Vien. 1812, pp. 106,
107.
}
اللمعة الدم
78
LECTURE II.
than in employing metaphorical terms which
are in daily use. Take, for instance, the
word lion. So long as by it we describe ob-
jects which fall under the senses, we apply it
to things of very different forms; the animal
of that name, or its Egyptian, Chinese, or
heraldic representation, though differing
equally from their prototype, and from one
another, all these are equally called by the
saihe name. But when you come to the
figure, and say that "such a man is a lion,"
you have no choice of meaning; and though
the lion might be justly distinguished for his
agility, his lofty gait, his generous disposition,
and his noble instincts, yet would no one ever
understand the figure of any of these; but
only of that overpowering strength, joined
to unyielding courage, of which he is the
emblem. And if, in like manner, I said of
* As an instance of the utility of recurring to the ideas
of a peculiar country, in order to understand figures of
this sort, we may refer to Cant. i. 9 (al. 8), which may
be rendered more literally than in the Vulgate, by
Equabus in curribus Pharaonis assimilabo te." In
what does the comparison consist? Lowth illustrates
it from Theocritus, Idyll xviii. 30 ("De Sacra Poesi,"
Oxf. 1810, vol. i. p. 397); and then it only expresses
loftiness of stature. Rosenmüller thinks it refers to the
LECTURE II.
79
a warrior chief that he was a tiger, nobody
would ever understand me, if thereby I in-
tended to describe his strong limbs, or his
soft gait, or his amazing power of leaping and
running. For, although these are all quali-
ties of that animal, usage has attached an
invariable meaning to the metaphor, which
we all understand at once, and from which
no one who wishes to be understood may
lawfully depart. The same must be said of
all established figurative phrases; besides
their literal signification, they can only bear
that metaphorical one which use has given
them; and the moment we give them another
totally new, we must cease to be understood.
You may verify this remark, by trying it
upon any proverbial metaphor.
caparisons worn by the horse, as compared to the trin-
kets which adorned the bride.—(“Solomonis Regis et
Sapientis quæ perhibentur Scripta," Lips. 1830, p. 314.)
But the poetry of the East, even at the present day,
uses the figure, though in neither of these senses.
Among the images under which female charms are yet
described in the pastoral poetry of the Bedouins, all
bearing a striking resemblance to the expressions in the
Canticle, we have this very one:-"Il n'omet ni sa
démarche légère comme celle d'une jeune pouline,” &c.—
Volney, "Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie," cinquième
éd. Paris, 1822, tom. i. p. 373.)
{
1
80
LECTURE II.
Once more, then, if the phrase to eat the
flesh of a person, besides its literal sense, bore
among the people whom Jesus addressed a
fixed, proverbial, unvarying metaphorical
signification, then, if he meant to use it
metaphorically, I say, that he could use it
only in that one sense; and hence, our choice
can only lie between the literal sense and
that usual figure. Now, I do assert that,
whether we examine (1) the phraseology of
the Bible, (2) the ordinary language of the
people who still inhabit the same country,
and have inherited the same ideas, or (3), in
fine, the very language in which our Saviour.
addressed the Jews, we shall find the ex-
pression to eat the flesh of a person signifying,
invariably, when used metaphorically, to
attempt to do him some serious injury princi-
pally by calumny or false accusation. Such,
therefore, was the only figurative meaning
which the phrases could present to the au-
dience at Capharnaum.
1. It is so in Hebrew. "While the
wicked," says the Psalmist, "draw near
against me, to eat my flesh."* This expres-
* Ps. xxvii. (Heb.) 2.
LECTURE II.
81
sion, as commentators have remarked, de-
scribes the violent rage of his enemies, and
the lengths to which they were ready to go
against him. Job, xix. 22, is the same
phrase, but spoken of calumniators: "Why
do you persecute me, and are not satisfied
with (eating) my flesh?† Again, Micheas,
iii. 3, we have, "Who also eat the flesh of my
people." Ecclesiastes, iv. 5, we find the mis-
chief which a foolish man does to himself
described by the same figurative phrase:
"The fool foldeth his arms together, and
eateth his own flesh." These are the only
passages in which we meet this expression
Rosenmüller, "Psalmi,” 2a ed. Lips. 1822, vol. ii. p.
724.-Gesenius's "Heb. Lexicon," translated by Leo.
Camb. 1825, p. 35. Michaelis understood the phrase of
calumny.
† Allusion is made to the same idea (xiv. 10): "They
widen their jaws against me, they fill themselves with
me." Job, xxxi. 31, "The men of my tabernacle have said,
who will give us of his flesh, that we may be filled," must
not be compared ; as Schultens has satisfactorily proved,
after Ikenius, that the pronoun is not personal, but pos-
sessive; and that the phrase is more correctly rendered,
"quis dabit de carne ejus non saturatum ;". "where is
the man who is not filled with his meat?” —(“Liber
Jobi cum nova Versione," Ludg. Batav. 1737, tom. ii.
p. 875.) Rosenmüller approves of this interpretation.
G
82
LECTURE II.
throughout the Old Testament, in its figura-
tive sense; and in all, the idea of inflicting
grievous injury, under different forms, and
specifically by calumny, is strongly and de-
cidedly marked.
In the New Testament, the expression is
used by St. James in the same sense, though
it seems to me that it rather bears the more
limited import of accusation, which, I will
presently show you, it subsequently acquired.
The parallelism between the members of the
sentence seems to indicate this: "Your gold
and silver are rusted; and the rust of them
shall be for a testimony against you, and shall
eat your flesh as [destructively as] fire." St.
Paul undoubtedly alludes to this common
figure, when he says to the Galatians, then
involved in party quarrels, "But if you bite,
and eat one another."*
2. The language and literature of the
Arabs form one of the most fruitful sources
of Scriptural illustration. Words and phrases,
are still in current use among them, which
occur in the sacred writings, for their lan-
guage is but a dialect of that which the
Jews spoke; and the tenacity in eastern
* Gal. v. 15.
LECTURE II
83
nations of customs and ideas, preserves
them through ages, almost unalterable and
fresh. Among the Arabs to this day, and
from time immemorial, to eat the flesh of a
person means figuratively to calumniate him.
This strong expression takes its rise clearly
from the horror which the Orientals entertain
for calumny and detraction.
This idea is expressed most strikingly in
the Koran, where the sentiment occurs as
follows:
- C
ވ
وون
بعض ايجب احدكم ان ياكل لحم
ޒވ ވ ވ
And speak ،، أخيه ميتا فكرهتموه أولا يعتب بعضكم
not ill one of the other in his absence. Should
any of you like to eat the flesh of his brother
[neighbour] when dead ! Truly, you would
abhor it.' The inference is clear. "In the
same manner you ought to abhor calumny."
The poet Nawabig uses the same expression:
91%
لهم اخيك سايم تقول انا مايم وانت في
"Thou sayest, I am fasting, and thou art
eating the flesh of thy brother."†. In the Ha-
"I
I am ، لا نرقا للماء ولا اللحوم صديقي اكولا masa
* "Koran," Sura, xlix. 12, ed. Maracci, p. 667.
† Elnawabig, No. 146, ed. Schultens. There is a
81
LECTURE II.
not given to detraction, and to eating the
flesh of my friend."* Again,
ونيرب من موالي السو ذيحسد
يقتات لحمي ولا يشغيه من قرم
"The rich calumniator, who is allied to the
envious, has taken my flesh for food, and has
not been cured of his appetite for flesh."†
The eighth proverb of Meidant contains, I
believe, the same expression, but I have not
the work within my reach. The poet Schan-
fari, too, expresses the same idea.
طريد جنایات تیاسرن لحمه
passage remarkably resembling this of Nawabig, in the
elegant and pious Lewis of Granada; and it might be
interesting to inquire whether this phraseology passed
from the Arabs into Spanish literature. His words are
as follows:-"Y otros hallereis que por todo el mundo
no comeràn carne el miercoles, y con esto murmuran y
deguellan crudelissimamente los proximos. Demanera
que siendo muy escrupulosos en no comer carne de ani-
males, ningun escrupulo tienen de comer carne y vidas
de hombres."-Obras del Ven. P. M. Fray Luis de Gra-
nada, tom. i. Barcel. 1701, p. 174.
Ap. Schultens, Com. in Job, p. 480.
•
+ Excerpta Hamase in Schultens's Anthology, at the
end of his Erpennius, Ludg. Batav. 1748, p. 591. See
also Michaelis's "Crestomathia Arab." p. 133.
"Meidani Proverb." Ludg. Batav. 1795, p. 7.
LECTURE II.
85
"He has been persecuted by falsehoods,
which have divided his flesh among them for
food." In fine, not to multiply examples,
the thirtieth fable of Lokman the Wise con
tains the same sentiment, where the dog that
gnaws the dead lion is made the emblem of
the calumniator of the dead.†
I must observe, in reference to these ex-
pressions, that they clearly do not belong to
the verbal idioms of the language, but that
their meaning descends from the ideas and
feelings of the people. For they are not
like our own corresponding term backbite,
which, however figurative in its origin, could
not warrant us in now expressing calumny
by any other term similarly compounded, nor
by any phrase equivalent to it. The Arabic
figure, on the contrary, exists not in the terms.
or body, but in the spirit of the language.
The verbs employed, as well as the turn of
the phrase, differ in almost every one of the
examples I have given; but the same idea
Sacy, "Chrestomathie Arabe," tom. i. Paris, 1806.
P. MA.
+"Fabulæ Locmani Sapientis," at the end of Erpen-
nius's Grammar, Roma, 1829, p. 165.
86
LECTURE II.
Į
prevails in all, and warrants us in concluding,
that to eat or feed upon the flesh of another,
means figuratively, among the Arabs, to
calumniate or falsely accuse that person.
There are passages in Martial which bear
a striking resemblance to the phrases I have
given you from oriental poets. They are
generally in epigrams expressly entitled in
Detractorem. For instance-
"Vacua dentes in pelle fatiges
Et tacitam quæras quam possis rodere carnem."*
Again,
"Non deerunt tamen hac in urbe forsan,
Unus vel duo, tresve, quatuorve,
Pellem rodere qui vellent caninam. †
In fine,
"Quid dentem dente juvabit
Rodere? carne opus est, si satur esse velis."+
† Lib. v. epig. 50, v. 8.
* Lib. vi. epig. 64, v. 31.
‡ Lib. xiii, epig. 2. Martial's meaning is simply that
it is folly for the detractors to attack him, who has been
as severe a critic on himself; whence, to attack him,
was like one tooth trying to gnaw another, which was,
of course, foolish and vain. The figure is, therefore,
used in another sense from the Arabic expression, as
flesh in Martial only serves to indicate a softer material
in opposition to the tooth. The idea, however, of gnaw-
!
}
LECTURE II.
87
The resemblance, however, is more in the
words than in the sentiment.
3. Let us now pass to the language which
our Saviour himself spoke, and which was
vernacular among the Jews whom he ad-
dressed. In Chaldaic, the most common
expression for to accuse falsely, calumniate,
is to eat a morsel, or the flesh of a person,
;* and in Syriac, exactly the same,
•
.ܐܟܥ ܟܪܨܐ
Hence the name daßolos is
translated throughout the Syriac version of
the New Testament, by Igia, Ochel
Kartzo, the eater of flesh. The older philolo-
gists, probably from not being acquainted
ing, biting, &c., is applied to calumny in most languages.
So Horace (Ep. lib. ii. ep. i. 150),
"doluere cruento
Dente lacessiti."
And again (Sat. I. lib. i. v. 81), "absentem qui rodit
amicum;" St. Isidore (Offic. lib. ii. cap. 5), "Cujus præ
ceteris officium est. . . . . cum fratribus pacem habere,
nec quemquam de membris suis discerpere." The Italians
use the term to devour a person by calumnies. The
Greeks use, in like manner, the verb evdaтovμal.—
Æschyl. Sep. adv. Theb. 580. Sophocl. Trachin. 788,
ed. Lond. 1819, tom. i. p. 326-where see the Scho-
liast.
* Dan. iii. 8; vi. 24.
88
LECTURE II.
with the expression as preserved in the Arabic
idioms, gave to this phrase a most forced and
unwarrantable interpretation. They ren-
dered the word to eat, by proclaim (as
edo in Latin), and a morsel cut out by
calumny,* without any authority, etymology,
or reason, except the necessity of accounting
for the meaning of everything, whether they
understood it or not.
Aben Ezra, however, had long since seen
the true meaning of the expression, observing
that the calumniator was the same as one
who eats the flesh of his neighbour.† Modern
philology has totally exploded the old inter-
pretation, and established the one, which,
while it gives to each word its natural signi-
fication, coincides so strongly with the He-
See Buxtorf's Lexicon, "Rabbin," Basil, 1639, p.
85; Castell, sub voce, Parkhurst, Lond. 1813, p.
661, where his etymological reasoning is a fair specimen
of his usual taste and judgment. What an idea, that
a language should draw its usual expression for an accu-
sation, from the winks and nods which might occasionally
accompany such an action! Only the imagination of a
Hutchinsonian in philology could make this leap.
+ Gesenius, "Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ
Hebrææ et Chaldææ," tom. i. fascic. i. Lips. 1829, p. 91.
No doubt can exist of the literal meaning of the
!
体
​LECTURE II.
89
brew, and more especially the Arabic, idioms
already quoted. I shall content myself with
citing the authority of some of the most emi-
nent philologers in the Semetic languages of
the present age. Michaelis, on more than one
occasion, gives this explanation of the phrase,
which he considers fully warranted by the
analogy of the Arabic language.* Jahn gives
the same as perfectly established "1070zin
ooor cum comederent frusta seu
carnem ejus, i.e. eum accusarent, calumnia-
rentur, Mat. xxvii. 12. Hebræi id exprimunt
per
comedit carnem alterius."†
קרץ
verb which always means to eat. The
word is a double root; for in Arabic, we have two
corresponding ones, compressit, whence to press
the lips (Prov. xvi. 30), the eyelids (ib. x. 10; Ps. xxxv.
9), clay, so as to shape it (Job, xxxiii. 6). The other is
resecuit, excidit, obsolete in Heb. but found in
its derivative (Jer. xlvi. 20), and the Chald.
a morsel cut out. See Winer's "Lexicon Manuale
Hebr. et Chald." Lips. 1828, p. 874. His words will
be found in the text.
* 6
Beurtheilung der Mittel die Hebräische Sprache
zu verstehen," p. 230, and in his edition of "Castell's
Syriac Lexicon," Götting. 1788, p. 35.
† Johannis Jahn "Elementa Aramaicæ seu Chaldæo-
Syriacæ Linguæ," Vienna, 1820, p. 173.
90
LECTURE II.
Î
Ammon, the annotator of Ernesti, without
any hesitation, renders the phrase in the
same manner :- "Difficilius expediuntur
tropi ex translatione rhetorica orti, verbi
causa diußodos, Izio comedens carnem."*
Winer, perhaps the most complete sacred
philologist of the present day, agrees in the
same explanation. These are his words:
"Hinc tropice, b, alicujus frusta
comedere; qua phrasi, etiam in Targum, et in
N. T. Syriaco, frequentata obtrectatio et ca-
lumnia exprimitur. Assimilantur, scilicet,
calumniatores, obtrectatores, et sycophantæ
canibus rabidis, qui frusta corporibus avulsa
avide devorant."
I will close this list of authorities by that
of Gesenius, the most learned Hebrew scho-
lar, and perhaps the most sagacious in
penetrating the spirit of the Semitic lan-
guages, whenever his peculiarly free doc-
*
Ernesti, "Institutio Interp. N. T.” p. 42.
† Ubi supra. He repeats his interpretation in another
work, as follows:- "Die Stücken jem. fressen, d. h.
jem. verleumden, denunciren."-Erklärendes Wortre-
gister, in his "Chaldäisches Lesebuch," Leipz. 1825,
p. 75.
T
Į
'I
LECTURE II.
91
trines do not prejudice him in his inter-
pretation. Both in his first and second
Hebrew Lexicons, he agrees with the in-
terpretation of the philologers whom I have
quoted. In his first work he renders the
phrase by "to eat pieces of any one, a
metaphorical expression for to calumniate,
to bring to trial."* In his last work he re-
peats his opinion:-" Veram formulæ rati-
onem dudum recte intellexit Aben Esra,
eum qui clam alterius famam lacerat, instar
ejus esse monens, qui carnem ejus arrodit ; ac
sane non erat, cur alias rationes, ingrede-
rentur interpretes, ex parte plane åπpoodiovv-
σους.”
The conclusion, from all that I have said,
is obvious. Whether we consult the phrase-
ology of Scripture, the spirit and ideas of the
Semitic nations, or the current use of the
language employed by our Saviour, the ex-
pression to eat the flesh of a person, had
an established metaphorical meaning. The
phrase, therefore, could not be used meta-
phorically, in any other sense; so that if the
* Hebräiches und Chaldäisches Handwörterbuch," zw.
Augs. Leipz. 1823, p. 677.
†Thesaurus, loc. cit.
92
LECTURE II.
hearers found themselves compelled to fly
from its literal meaning, and take refuge in
a figurative interpretation; so long as they
had to interpret words and phrases by the
only meanings which they had ever heard
given to them, they could only recur to
this. Nor is it consistent with the first
elements of civilized society, of good in-
tentions, nay, of common sense, for any
speaker to use forms of language, having
established and conventional significations,
in a sense never before heard, noways in-
telligible from the nature of the phrases,
and unattainable by any conjecture which
might be expected from the habits, feel-
ings, or ideas of those to whom they are
addressed.
While, therefore, upon a minute analysis
of the expressions used in the former part
of the discourse, we discovered that every
phrase, as in common use among the Jews,
was adapted to convey the doctrine there
taught, and so our Saviour explained him-
self, we have no less discovered, that the
phrases used in the second portion never
could have the same meaning; consequently,
that a transition must have taken place to
I
Į
I
LECTURE II.
93
another subject. Furthermore, we have seen
that the phrases used in the latter portion
were such as left the hearers, and conse-
quently us, no choice between the literal
sense and an established metaphorical one of
calumniating our Saviour. This must in-
stantly be rejected, nor has any one ever
so much as thought of it; and we must
therefore conclude, that our Lord, after
the forty-eighth verse, teaches the neces-
sity of really eating his body and drinking
his blood.
In order to complete this first argument in
favour of the Catholic interpretation of this
passage, it will be necessary to examine an
objection which may be brought against it;
I mean the attempt made to find expressions
among the Jews, tending to show that they
might have well understood our Saviour in
a figurative sense. And I will introduce the
objection by the words of an adversary,
which will serve to show how correct
principles may be perversely or ignorantly
brought to produce false conclusions. After
having noticed the passages of the Rabbins
where food is used for doctrine, Mr. Towns-
end, the writer to whom I allude, proceeds
94
LECTURE II.
as follows:-"It may be observed here, that
an acquaintance with the Jewish traditions
would materially assist the theological stu
dent to form a more accurate notion of
many subjects of controversy between the
Church of Rome and the Protestants. This
discourse of our Lord in John, vi., has been
much insisted upon by the Romanists, as
defending and supporting the doctrine of
transubstantiation. This notion originated
in the sixth century, and is founded on the
literal interpretation of passages which were
commonly used by the Jews, to whom the
Scriptures were addressed, and by the inspired
writers who primarily wrote for their use, in
a metaphorical sense. Now this principle of
examining the meaning of scriptural phrases,
only in reference to the time when they were
written, and the persons to whom they were
addressed, is exactly the one whereon I have
proceeded in all this investigation. So far,
therefore, I agree with Mr. Townsend: great
light will be thrown upon the controversy,
""*
"The New Testament arranged in Chronological
and Historical Order, with Copious Notes," Lond. 1825,
vol. i. p. 268. The words printed in italics are so in
the original.
LECTURE II.
95
by the theological student's attending to the
Jewish traditions.
But now, mark the bold assertion, that
Catholics err by interpreting, in a literal
sense, passages which the original writers
and readers of Scripture commonly used in a
metaphorical one. For, has Mr. Townsend,
or any other Protestant writer, brought a
single passage from them to prove this?
Will he argue from the former part of the
chapter, where Christ calls himself the food
of life? But, then, he must prove that to
eat the flesh of Christ means the same thing.
And, in language, which is purely conven-
tional, and more so in figurative language,
which is only intelligible inasmuch as it is
conventional, such extraordinary substitu-
tions must be proved. That this one cannot,
has been sufficiently evinced by this lecture,
which has shown that the two phrases had con-
ventional meanings essentially distinct: and
I have already shown the passages, for which
he refers the theological student to Light-
foot, to belong to the illustration of the first
part of the discourse.
But while Mr. Townsend thus refers to ima-
ginary passages which nowhere exist, but by
96
LECTURE II.
which he wishes to make his readers believe
that the figurative sense of our Redeemer's
words would be established, and the Catholic
interpretation confuted, and while Dr. Light-
foot, as you will see later, endeavours, but
feebly, to supply some such; more learned
or more candid Protestants acknowledge,
that this discourse, as explained by them, is
interpreted contrary to the usus loquendi; or,
in other words, that the sense put on our
Lord's words by Protestants, is not the one
which his hearers could apply to them.
Tittmann, for instance, rejects all the attempts
to illustrate them by similar phrases in clas-
sical writers; but the conclusions which he
draws are general, and apply to all other
authors, sacred and profane.
"The appeal," he writes, "to the usus lo-
quendi of profane authors, who use the words
to eat and drink, speaking of a person who is
imbued with the doctrines of any one, so as
to receive and approve of them. It is, indeed,
true, that Greek and Latin writers use the
words to eat and drink in this sense; but that
they so used the phrases to eat the flesh and
drink the blood of any one, cannot be proved
by a single example. These forms of
A
LECTURE I.
97
expression were clearly unheard of by any
authors, and are peculiar to our Lord alone;
therefore can we nowise appeal to their cus-
tom of speech."* This candid admission
from such an authority must more than coun-
terbalance the unsupported assertions of the
English divine.
There is, in fact, only one passage brought
from Jewish writings, any way calculated to
establish a parallelism with the expressions
in the latter part of our Saviour's discourse.f
* "Provocant ad usum loquendi scriptorum profan-
orum, qui usi fuerint verbis edere et bibere de eo qui
imbuitur alicujus doctrina, ut eam suscipiat et probet.
Atque id quidem verissimum est, scriptores græcos et
latinos usurpasse verba edere et bibere hoc significatu;
eos vero hoc tali modo usos fuisse formulis edere carnem
et bibere sanguinem alicujus id doceri potest ne uno qui-
dem exemplo. Ista formulæ plane inauditæ fuerunt
scriptoribus omnibus, et tantum uni Domino propriæ;
quare adeo ad illorum loquendi consuetudinem provo-
cari nullo modo protest."-Meletemata Sacra, Lips.
1816, p. 274.
"I presume I shall not be expected to examine the
ridiculous passage given by Meuschen, or rather Scheid,
as illustrative of John vi. 51. It is as follows:-" What,
is there such a thing as flesh descending from heaven?
Yes; for behold, when R. Chilpetha was journeying, he
was met by some lions, which, by their roar, seemed
going to devour him. Upon his reciting Ps. civ. 21,
H
}
98
LECTURE II.
It is a saying of Hillel's, mentioned more
than once in the Talmud, in the following
הזקיה אין משיה להס לישראל שכבר :words
"Israel will have no Messiah,
because they eat him, in the days of Eze-
chiah," These words Lightfoot quotes in a
tone of triumph. "Behold, eating the Mes-
siah, and yet no complaints upon the phra-
seology. Hillel is indeed blamed " (in the
commentary which I will quote just now)
"for saying, that the Messiah was so eaten
that he will no longer be for Israel: but on
the form of speech not the slightest scruple
is expressed. For they clearly understood
what was meant by the eating of the Mes-
siah; that is, that in the days of Ezechias,
two thighs came down to him, one whereof the lions eat,
the other they left to him. Upon relating this event to the
school, the scholars asked him, Was that clean or not?
Whereupon he replied: Nothing unclean comes down
from heaven. R. Zira asked R. Abhu: If the apparition
of an ass descended to him, what would he say of that?
To which he answered: Thou foolish dragon, behold it
has been said to thee, that nothing unclean descends
from heaven."-("Novum Test. ex Talmude illustra-
tum," Lips. 1736, p. 152.) If the word of God can be
said to receive illustration from such profane nonsense
as this, I would say it should have been rather placed
as a commentary on Acts x. 15, than on Jo. vi. 51.
LECTURE II.
99
they became partakers of the Messiah, re-
ceived him with avidity, embraced him joy-
fully, and, as it were, absorbed him; whence,
he was not to be expected at any future
period."*
The least that can be said of the phrase of
Hillel is, that it is so obscure as to be unin-
telligible, and in this respect forms a good
commentary upon our controversy: for it
demonstrates that words cannot be under-
stood, the moment we apply them differently
from their usual determinate meaning. But
in order to demonstrate the fallacy of Light-
foot's argument, it will be sufficient to show
that the celebrated passage of Hillel does
not bear the meaning which he gives it, nor
any other which can render it parallel to the
phrases in John vi.
1. The words of Hillel expressly say, that
the Messiah was so eaten in the day of
Ezechiah, that he cannot appear again; in
other words, he was destroyed or consumed
at that time. This could not be by receiving
him, embracing him, &c., as Lightfoot would
have it. For it would be absurd to reason
* Lightfoot, supra cit. p. 626.
Uor M
+
100
LECTURE II.
jou
that the Messiah, promised solemnly by God
was to be withheld, because persons loved,
embraced, and absorbed him spiritually before
his coming.
2. The Jewish doctors themselves did not
understand the words of Hillel in Lightfoot's
sense; and from their reply, who were cer-
tainly the best judges, it follows that either
they did not understand Hillel's expression,
so that he must be said to have departed
from the usus loquendi, or intelligible forms
of speech, or else that their meaning was one.
every way inapplicable to John vi. In either
cases the passage can have no weight against
us. These are the words of the Talmud:-
“Rab said, Israel will eat the years of the
Messiah [the gloss explains this by the
abundance of the times of the Messiah will
belong to Israel!]; Rab Joseph said truly,
but who will eat of Ir? [the abundance].
Will Chillek and Billek eat of IT? This was
said to meet the saying of Hillel," &c.*
The Rabbins, therefore, understood the
words of this doctor, not as applying to the
Messiah, but to the abundance of his times;
Sanhedrim, fol. 98. 2. Apud Lightfoot, ibid.
LECTURE II.
101
and then the figure is not in the eating, but
in the word Messiah. Did they understand
him rightly? Then Lightfoot's interpreta-
tion is totally wrong, and no parallelism
exists between these words and those of our
Saviour. For he certainly did not mean to
inculcate the necessity of eating the abun-
dance of his times. Did they misunderstand
Hillel, and was it only Dr. Lightfoot who
first arrived at his meaning? Then it follows
that Hillel, in these phrases, departed from
the intelligible use of language, and conse-
quently ceases to be a criterion for explain-
ing it. Add to this, that even allowing that
Hillel could have meant, by eating the
Messiah, receiving and embracing him, the
expression to eat the flesh of the Messiah, is
totally different. For I have already ob-
served repeatedly, that, in conventional
metaphors, the least departure from estab-
lished phraseology plunges us into obscurity
and nonsense. Take a parallel instance which
comes across my mind. When Pope says-
"He kept the money, so the rogue was bit,”
we understand immediately what to bite
means in this passage, for it is a conventional
'E
102
LECTURE II.
metaphor; but had he made here the altera-
tion above supposed, and said the "rogue's
flesh was bit," would the phrase have been
any longer vernacular or intelligible? In
like manner, if to eat the Messiah could have
been understood by Hillel and his Rabbins,
in Lightfoot's sense, because it was a con-
ventional phrase, the addition of "eating the
flesh of the Messiah," would totally change
the phrase, and make it no longer compre-
hensible. I have, in fact, demonstrated,
that to eat the flesh of a person had its own
determinate, invariable, and conventional
figurative signification; and from this, if you
turn to figures, you have no right to depart.
If I had to give an opinion upon the words
of Hillel, I should say that they belong to
that class of inexplicable things wherewith
the Talmud abounds, most aptly indeed con-
trived for amazing, mystifying, and utterly
confounding its readers, but not much cal-
culated to instruct or to enlighten them. It
is one of those hard shells which the Rabbins
seem to delight in throwing into their
scholars' laps, so hard, indeed, that they can-
not by any possibility be cracked; and con-
sequently there is no danger of their ever
LECTURE II.
103
bringing it to a decision, whether they con-
tain a kernel,-
"For true, no meaning puzzles more than wit.'
For us, it suffices that we can prove them
utterly worthless, when used against us by
even such powerful men as Dr. Lightfoot.
!
LECTURE III.
SECOND ARGUMENT FOR THE REAL PRESENCE, FROM
THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN FROM THE PREJU-
DICES OF THE JEWS REGARDING HUMAN FLESH AND
BLOOD. THIRD ARGUMENT; FROM THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE JEWS UNDERSTOOD OUR SAVIOUR'S WORDS,
AND FROM HIS REPLY: OBJECTIONS TO THIS PROOF
ANSWERED.
IN
In my last lecture, I analyzed the phrases.
used by our divine Saviour in the two
divisions of his discourse, in order to dis-
cover the ideas which they could convey
to his hearers; and the result was, that
while the expressions used in the first part
were well selected to teach the necessity
and advantages of listening to his doctrines,
those of the second must have led the Jews
astray, if they were meant to convey any doc-
trine but that of the Real Presence.
The second argument, which I now pro-
ceed to treat, is founded upon a reflection
I
LECTURE III.
105
•
which you will remember in my first lecture,
and the justness whereof I believe no one
will deny. I quoted to you the remark
of Burke, that in addressing popular assem-
blies it is necessary, in some respect, to adapt
ourselves to the weaknesses and prejudices.
of those who hear us. * "The preacher,"
says an able writer, whom I have before
had occasion to quote, "who is intent upon
carrying his point, should use all such pre-
cautions as are not inconsistent with it, to
avoid raising unfavourable impressions in his
hearers."†
Our Saviour's object in his discourses to the
Jews, was to gain them over to the doctrines
of Christianity; and he, therefore, must be
supposed to propose those doctrines in the
manner most likely to gain their attention,
and conciliate their esteem. At least, it is
repugnant to suppose him selecting the most
revolting images, wherein to clothe hist
dogmas, disguising his most amiable institu-
tions under the semblance of things the
most wicked and abominable in the opinion
* Page 35.
+ Dr. Whateley's "Elements of Rhetoric, p. 152.
106
LECTURE III.
of his hearers, and inculcating his most
saving and most beautiful principles by the
most impious and horrible illustrations. Yet,
in such manner must we consider him to
have acted, if we deny him to have been
teaching the doctrine of the Real Presence,
and suppose him to have been simply in-
culcating the necessity of faith.
For the ideas of drinking blood and eating
human flesh, presented something so frightful
to a Jew, that we cannot allow our Saviour,
if a sincere teacher, to have used them as
images for consoling and cheering doctrines;
nor, in fact, to have used them at all, under
any other circumstances than an absolute
necessity of recurring to them, as the most
literal method of representing his doctrines.
1. Drinking blood, even though of a clean
animal, was, in the Jews' idea, a weighty
transgression of a divine precept, given
originally to Noah,* and frequently repeated
in the law of Moses.† Indeed, the most
awful form of threatening ever employed
* Gen. ix. 4.
+ Levit. iii. 17; vii. 26; xix. 26; Deut. xii. 16
xv. 23.
LECTURE III.
107
by God, is uttered against those who eat
blood:-"If any man whosoever of the
house of Israel, and of the strangers that
sojourn among them, eat blood, I will set my
face against his soul, and will cut him off
from among his people."* Hence, we find
the drinking of blood, or the eating of meat
with which blood was mixed, ever mentioned
in Scripture as a most heinous crime. When
the army of Saul slaughtered their cattle
on the ground, it was reported to him "that
the people had sinned against the Lord, eat-
ing with the blood."† Ezechiel is commanded
to proclaim—“ Thus saith the Lord God:
that eat with the blood.... shall you
possess the land by inheritance?" Indeed,
no necessity was supposed to justify the
drinking of the blood of an animal, as ap-
pears from a passage in Judith:
Judith: "For
drought of water they are already to be
counted among the dead. And they have a
design even to kill their cattle, and to drink
the blood of them.... therefore, because they
do these things, it is certain they will be
you
* Levit. xvii. 10.
† 1 Reg. (Sam.) xiv. 33.
Ezech. xxxiii. 25.
1
108
LECTURE III.
given up to destruction."* If, then, it was
reckoned so guilty among the Jews to taste.
the blood of even a clean animal, in a case of
necessity, how impious must it have seemed
to them to drink the blood of man?
2. The drinking of blood, and, more espe-
cially, the feeding upon human flesh and
blood, is always mentioned in Scripture as
the last and most dreadful curse which the
Almighty could possibly inflict upon his
enemies:-"For, instead of a fountain of
an ever-running river, thou gavest human
blood to the unjust," says the book of
Wisdom. The same is mentioned in the
Apocalypse: "Thou hast given them blood
to drink, for they have deserved it." In
Isaiah, we have the eating of flesh joined to
the drinking of blood:-"I will feed them
that oppress thee with their own flesh; and
they shall be drunk with their own blood!"§
that is, with the flesh and blood of one
another. The fourth book of Esdras, though
apocryphal, bears unexceptionable testimony
to the same idea:- "They shall eat their
* Judith, xi. 10, 11, 12.
Apoc. xvi. 6.
+ Wisd. xi. 7.
§ Is. xlix. 26.
f
LECTURE III.
109
own flesh, and drink their own blood, for
hunger of bread and thirst of water."* In
fine, Jeremiah mentions as a plague which
should astonish all men, that the citizens
should be obliged to "eat, every man the
flesh of his friend."+
While the Jews attached two such dread-
ful ideas as these to the eating of human
flesh and the drinking of human blood,
while they considered them a crime and a
curse, it is repugnant to suppose, that our
Blessed Saviour, anxious to draw them all to
himself, should have clothed doctrines, no-
ways repulsive, under imagery drawn from
such an odious source. As well might we
suppose him inculcating the necessity of be-
lief in his death, by figures drawn from
murder; and imagine him saying, “ Amen,
amen, I say unto you, unless you slay or
murder the son of man, you shall not have
life in you," as suppose him to clothe the
same doctrine under the figure of eating his
flesh and drinking his blood. For, as to the
correctness of the metaphor, the revolting
one which I have just given would have
4 Esd. xv. 58.
+ Jer. xix. 8, 9.
110
LECTURE III.
been equally appropriate, or much more
so; while the one he used was as repugnant
to Jewish feelings, as the other would be to
ours. As, therefore, we could not have sup-
posed him, or any other sincere teacher, to
usė imagery so revolting as this, if address-
ing us, so neither can we allow Jesus to have
used the other when addressing the Jews.
Nothing, consequently, but the absolute ne-
cessity of using such phrases, could justify
the recurrence to them. Now, there could
be no necessity, save their being the most
simple way of conveying his doctrine. But
any other doctrine, except that of receiving
as food the body and blood of Christ, could
have been literally expressed in other terms;
or, if a figure was to be preferred, a thou-
sand other metaphors were at hand, which
might have been adopted; and therefore we
must conclude, that our Lord used these
expressions, because it was his wish to teach
the doctrine which they literally convey-
that of the Real Presence.
It may be objected to this line of reason-
ing, that our Saviour, on other occasions,
clothed his lessons in figures almost equally
odious to his hearers.
LECTURE III.
111
For instance, how frequently does he in-
culcate the necessity of patient suffering,
under the repulsive image of carrying the
cross,*-an instrument used in the execution
of the meanest culprits, and intimately con-
nected with hateful bondage to strangers.
But I must deny all parallel between the
cases. 1. The cross might be ignominious,
and as such, odious, but it was not necessa-
rily criminal. To eat blood was considered.
essentially wicked; and to teach a doctrine
figuratively, by ordering a person to commit
what he deems a heinous crime, is very
different from telling him to submit to what
is merely disgraceful. 2. I have never said
that our Saviour was bound to soften his
doctrines in teaching them to the Jews, only
that he could not consistently render repul-
sive by his expressions such as were not so in
themselves. Now, the doctrine of mortifica-
tion is necessarily and essentially harsh, dis-
agreeable, humiliating, and painful. Our
Redeemer, therefore, must represent it as
such; nor could he have selected a metaphor
which so exactly comprised all these qualities,
as did that of the cross, which, at the same
*Mat. x. 38, xvi. 24; Mar. viii. 24; Lu. ix. 23, xiv. 27.
112
LECTURE III.
time, would include in it the encouragement
of his own example. But then, the same sin-
cerity which made him "extenuate nought"
in the asperity of his severe doctrines, would
not allow him to "set aught down in malice,"
or give an air of revolting harshness to those
which were, in themselves, amiable and at-
tractive. And of all the principles of Chris-
tianity, faith in the death of its Divine
Author and Finisher is considered by Pro-
testants as the most cheering and most
delightful.
I proceed now to the third, and most im-
portant proof of the Real Presence, drawn
from the sixth chapter of St. John. Our
inquiries are entirely directed to discover
what was the meaning which our Saviour's
audience must necessarily have attached to
his words. Now, it seldom happens that
similar investigations can be carried on, with
the singular advantages which we enjoy in
this instance. For, generally, we must be
content to proceed, as we have hitherto done,
by seeking indirect evidence of the meaning.
of words and phrases, together with collateral
historical attestations of the circumstances
under which they were uttered. But here,
LECTURE III.
113
we have it in our power to advance a step,
and an important step, farther. We have
the direct testimony of those addressed, to
how they understood our Saviour, and we
have his warrant for the correctness of their
interpretation. Such is the argument on
which I am about to enter: and I beg of you
to follow me with your most earnest atten-
tion.
We have before seen, that, upon the Jews
misunderstanding our Saviour's metaphorical
expressions, in the former part of his dis
course, he clearly explained them, at v. 35,
as relative to faith; and that after this, he
continues in a literal train of instruction
through the rest of that discourse. Hence
we find, that on this head the Jews were
satisfied, for they now only object to his say-
ing that he came down from Heaven (vv. 41,
42). It is evident, that if the audience had
understood him, after v. 48, to continue the
same topic as before, they could have had no
farther objections to make; or, at least, that
they could not have returned to the same
difficulties.
Yet we find, that no sooner had our
Saviour mentioned the eating of his flesh (v.
I
114
LECTURE III.
52), than they again raise a third objection
(v. 53)-"How can this man give us his
flesh to eat?" From these words, we must
necessarily draw two conclusions.
First, that the Jews considered the expres-
sions just used, as totally different from those
in the first portion of the discourse. For if
they had understood, by eating his flesh, the
the same as having him, the bread of life,—
this having been already explained by him-
self, of believing in him,-they could not
ask in what manner this manducation was to
take place. We have, therefore, the testi-
mony of the very persons addressed, that a
transition had taken place in our Lord's dis-
course.
Secondly, we must conclude that the Jews
understood the transition to be to the doc-
trine literally expressed, of feeding upon
Christ; for their objection supposes him to
be teaching a doctrine impossible to be prac-
tised:"How can this man give us his flesh
to eat?" Now, no other but the literal sig-
nification could possibly have given rise to
this objection. But, in fact, this requires
no proof. Most commentators agree that
the Capharnaites took our Saviour's words in
LECTURE III.
115
their literal sense:* and, in fact, the common
outcry against the Catholic interpretation,
that it is carnal like that of the Jews, and
the popular explanation of our Lord's words
from his expression, "the flesh profiteth
nothing," are concurrent testimonies that the
Capharnaites took them literally.
Thus far, then, we have the strongest tes-
timony we can require, to our Saviour's
having passed, in his discourse, to the literal
eating of his flesh, One thing now only
remains to decide the question finally: Were
the Jews right in so understanding him, or
* See Rosenmüll. in loc. p. 417. Kuinoel, however,
(sup. cit. p. 370), has imagined a very pretty scene;
for he has given us an account of the different senti-
ments which formed the dispute of the Jews (éµáxovto,
v. 53), as accurately as a writer of romance could have
done it. I am surprised that a sober English commen-
tator, like Bloomfield, should have copied this fiction
(p. 217); for he ought to have been aware, that it is by
this psychological method of interpretation, as it is
called in Germany, or, in other words, by supplying
from imagination facts and conversations supposed to
have been omitted by the Evangelists, that such men
as Paulus Gabler, Schuster, and others of the Rationalist
school, pretend to overthrow every miracle in the Gos-
pels. Verses 61, 71, form the best, and a complete
confutation of this imagined scene.
116
LECTURE III.
were they wrong? If they were right, then
so are the Catholics, who likewise take his
words literally; if wrong, then Protestants
are right, when they understand him figura-
tively.
•
In order to decide this important point,
now become the hinge of the question
between the two religions, we will have re-
course to a very simple process. First, we
will collect and examine all passages where
the hearers of our Saviour erroneously take
his figurative expressions in the literal sense,
and raise objections in consequence of it, and
see what is his conduct upon such occasions.
Secondly, we will examine instances where
the Jews rightly understand his words in their
literal sense, and object to them, and see how
he acts in such circumstances. We will then
apply the rules thus drawn from our Master's
usual conduct, to the instance before us, and
see to which of the two classes this belongs-
to that where the audience was wrong, or
where it was right, in understanding him
literally. Once more I entreat your most
earnest attention.
1. I say, then, that whenever our Lord's
hearers found difficulties, or raised objec-
LECTURE III.
117
tions to his words, from taking them in their
literal sense, while he intended them to be
taken figuratively, his constant practice was
to explain them instantly, in a figurative
manner, even though no great error could
result from their being misunderstood. The
first example which I will give, is a well-
known conversation between our Saviour and
Nicodemus. "Jesus answered and said to
him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a
man be born again, he cannot enter the king-
dom of God." This expression was one in
ordinary use among the Jewish doctors, to
express proselytism.* Nicodemus, whether
from wilfulness or error, took the words in
their literal import, and made an objection
precisely similar in form to that of the Jews:
"How can a man be born when he is old?"
Our Saviour instantly explains the words in
their figurative meaning to him, by repeating
them with such a modification as could leave
no farther doubt of the sense in which he
* See Lightfoot, ubi. sup. p. 610; Schoetgen, on
2 Cor. v. 17, vol. i. p. 704; Selden, "De Jure Nat. et
Gent.," lib. ii. c. 4. The Brahmans are said to use the
same expression of persons who come over to their sect.
See Creutzer, or Guigneaut, ubi. sup. 2e partie, p. 585.
118
LECTURE III.
spoke them. "Amen, amen, I say to thee,
unless a man be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the king-
dom of God.*
Matt. xvi. 6. Jesus said to his disciples,
"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees." They took his
words literally; "but they thought within
themselves, saying, Because we have taken
no bread." But Jesus lost no time in cor-
recting the mistake (v. 11): "Why do you
not understand that it is not concerning
bread I said to you, beware," &c. "Then
they understood that he said not that they
should beware of the leaven of bread, but of
the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
This remarkable example of our Saviour's
care not to be misunderstood becomes much
more interesting when we view it in reference
to another passage in St. Luke (c. xii. 1).
There we have a discourse of our Lord,
* John, iii. 3-5. Compare the following expression
of the Jalkut Rubeni (fol. 101, 1), win by
s
By means of * כרייה הכהן נעשה המשחה שמן
the oil of unction, the priest is made a new creature."
So the priests are called (Zac. iv. 14) MY “Sons
of oil." This, however, is a common Semitit idiom.
J
}
LECTURE III.
119
which all the harmonists agree in placing
long after that of St. Matthew.* Our Divine
Master wished to employ before the crowds
the same figure as we have just heard; but
he had perceived that it was not easily un-
derstood, and he therefore adds the expla-
nation, "Beware ye of the leaven of the
Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."
John, xv. 32. Jesus said to his disciples,
"I have food to eat which you know not."
They erroneously took his words literally;
and he lost no time in explaining them
figuratively. "The disciples, therefore, said
to one another, Hath any man brought him
anything to eat? Jesus saith to them: My
food is to do the will of him that sent me."
John, xi. 11, is a similar instance, and im-
portant, because our Saviour is not even
engaged upon doctrinal matters. He said to
the apostles: "Lazarus, our frieud, sleepeth."
Mistaking his meaning, by understanding
him literally, they reply: Lord, if he sleepeth,
he will do well. But Jesus spoke of his
* See Townsend's New Testament. The passage of
St. Matt. is p. 277, chap. iv. sec. 13; that of St. Luke,
p. 328, chap. v. sec. 13. Also De Wette and Lucke,
'Synopsis Evangeliorum,” Berlin, 1818, pp. 84, 211.
↓
i
*
1
120
LECTURE III.
death, and they thought that he spoke of
the repose of sleep. Then, therefore, Jesus
said to them plainly, Lazarus is dead."
Matt. xix. 24. The disciples understood
literally his words, that it is easier for a
camel to pass through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven," so as to conclude that salvation was
absolutely incompatible with wealth. Jesus
loses no time in removing their error, by
telling them that, "With men this is im-
possible, but with God all things are possible."
John, viii. 21. Jesus said: "Whither I
go, you cannot come. The Jews took his
words in a gross material sense, and asked,
"Will he kill himself, because he said,
Whither I go, you cannot come?" Jesus,
with the greatest meekness, removes this
absurd interpretation of his words: "You
are from beneath, I am from above; you are
of this world, I am not of this world."
11
Ibid. v. 32. He tells the Jews, that the
truth should make them free. They take
his words literally, and raise an objection
accordingly:-"We are the seed of Abra-
ham, and we have never been slaves to any
man; how sayest thou, You shall be free?"
LECTURE III.
121
He once more interrupts his discourse to
contradict this erroneous interpretation, by
replying, that he spoke of a spiritual slavery.
"Amen, amen, I say unto you, that who-
soever comitteth sin, is the servant of sin:
if, therefore, the son shall make you free
(of sin), ye shall be free indeed."
Ibid. v. 40. Jesus observes, that if the
Jews were children of Abraham, they would
do the works of Abraham; but that, instead
of this, they acted in a totally opposite
manner, and thereby did the deeds of their
father. They understand him to say lite-
rally, that they were not the legitimate
descendants of their patriarch, and replied
accordingly: "We are not born of fornica-
tion." Jesus, without hesitation, explains
his meaning of their spiritual descent, how-
ever harsh it might appear (v. 44): "You
are of your father, the devil, and the desires
of your father you will do."
John, vi. 33. In fine, in the very dis-
course which forms the subject of all our
inquiries, we have another, and a striking
instance of our Saviour's constant practice.
Jesus having said, that "the bread of God is
that which cometh down from heaven, and
1
122
LECTURE III.
giveth light to the world;" his hearers take
his words literally, contrary to his inten-
tions, and say to him: "Lord, give us
always this bread." True to his rule of
action, Jesus explains himself spiritually:
"I am the bread of life; he that cometh
to me shall not hunger; and he that be-
lieveth in me shall not thirst."
From these examples, three whereof, like
that under discussion, refer to images drawn
from food, we may, I think, deduce a very
certain corollary or canon; 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. The eight chapter
of St. John, from which I have quoted three
examples,* is a striking proof, that even
when malice and perverseness were the.
sources of misinterpretation, he was not to be
wearied out by its repeated recurrence, but
undeviatingly adhered to this mild, prudent,
* V. 13. is another example of our Saviour's un-
wearied and meek attention to remove the misappre-
hension of his hearers. See also John, xvi. 18-22.
LECTURE III.
123
and conciliating rule, of ever correcting the
misapprehensions of his audience.
2. Let us now examine our Saviour's prac-
tice in the opposite case. Secondly, there-
fore, I say, that when his words were rightly
understood in their literal sense, and by that
correct interpretation gave rise to murmurs
or objections, it was his custom to stand to
his words, and repeat again the very senti-
ment which had given the offence. The
following instances well demonstrate this
rule:-
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 ex-
pressed 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.
!
124
LECTURE III.
John, viii. 56. Our Redeemer said to the
Jews: "Abraham your father rejoiced that
he might see my day: he saw it, and was
glad." His auditors correctly took his words.
in their literal import, as equivalent to an
assertion that he was coeval with Abraham,
and they murmured accordingly.
"The
Jews then said to him: Thou art not yet
fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra-
ham ?" Our Saviour, though he foresaw
that personal violenee would be the con-
sequence of his conduct, did not seek to
modify his words, but exactly repeated, with
his usual intrepidity, the very sentiment
which had caused so much offence. "Jesus
said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you,
before Abraham was made, I am." Thus
does the eighth chapter of St. John afford
us marked exemplification of our blessed
Redeemer's manner of acting in both cases,
when rightly and when erroneously under-
stood to speak in the literal sense.
John, vi. 42. Once more, the very chapter
under discussion affords us a striking exam-
ple of this rule. Our Saviour having said
that he had come down from heaven, is cor-
rectly understood, yet murmured against.
LECTURE III.
125
"And they said: Is not this Jesus, whose
father and mother we know? How then
saith he, I came down from heaven?" He
acts in his usual manner. As they had un-
derstood him rightly, he cares not for the
objection; but having promised the reasons
why they did not believe in him, goes on, in
the second part of his discourse, to repeat
again and again the very phrase which had
caused complaint, by saying that he came
down from heaven (vv. 50, 51, 59).
The two rules, then, are sufficiently clear;
when his hearers, misunderstanding his words,
raise objections, Jesus explains them; when
understanding them right, they find fault, he
repeats them. In order, therefore, to dis-
cover whether the Jews understood our
Saviour wrong or right in our case, we have
only to look at his answer to their objection,
and see whether he explains his previous
words, as in the eleven instances I first
brought, or repeats the obnoxious expres-
sions, as in the three last cases which I
quoted. The answer to this question is suffi-
ciently clear. In his answer our Saviour
repeats the same words five times, and, as we
shall clearly see next evening, in phrases
+
126
LECTURE III.
which add energy to his previous expressions.
In order to bring the passage under consi-
deration into more immediate contact with
the two canons I have laid down, I will trans-
cribe it in parallel columns, with a text of
each class.
John, iii. 3-5.
1. Unless a man
be born again, he
cannot see the
kingdom of God.
John, vi. 52-54.
1. If any man eat
of this bread, he
shall live for
ever; and the
bread which I
will give, is my
flesh for the life
of the world.
John, viii. 56-58.
1. Abraham your
father rejoiced
that he might
:
see my day he
saw it, and was
glad.
2. Nicodemus 2. The Jews there- 2. The Jews then
saith to him:
How can a man
be born again
when he is old?
3. Jesus anwered:
Amen, amen, I
say to you, unless
a man be born
again of water
and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot
enter into the
kingdom of God.
fore, debated a-
mong themselves,
saying: How can
this man give us
his flesh to eat?
said to him: Thou
art not yet fifty
years old, and
hast thou seen
Abraham?
I say
to
3. Then Jesus said 3. Jesus said to
to them: Amen, them: Amen, a-
amen, I say to men,
you, unless you you, before Abra-
eat the flesh of ham was made, I
the Son of man
and drink his
blood, you shall
not have life in
you.
L
am.
•
127
LECTURE III.
A slight inspection of the three passages
will leave no doubt regarding the class to
which our text is to be referred. Thus,
therefore, the objection of the Jews proves
that they understood our Redeemer's words
in their literal sense, of a real eating of his
flesh; his answer, illustrated by his invariable
practice, demonstrates that they were right
in so understanding. We, therefore, who
understand them as they did, are right also.
I must detain you a little longer, in order
to reply to some objections which may be
brought against the train of argument I have
been pursuing. It may be said that I have
laid down as a rule, that it was our Saviour's
constant practice to explain himself when,
his meaning being mistaken, objections were
raised against his doctrines; and if this rule
be erroneous, all my reasoning falls to the
ground. Now we have many instances in
the New Testament, where our Lord, far
from giving such explanations, seems to be
desirous rather of keeping his hearers in the
dark.
In order to prove this, the method of
teaching by parable was once pointed out to
me by a controversial antagonist, as suffi-
1
128
LECTURE III.
1
ciently indicative of our Lord's desire to
enwrap his doctrines in mysterious obscurity.
This objection is, in reality, so indirect, that
I should not consider myself bound to be
diffuse in answering it, even if I had not
done so fully elsewhere. In our course of
hermeneutics, and in a voluminous essay
which I once delivered to you, I have proved,
that teaching in parables, so far from being
a course selected by Jesus for the purpose of
concealing his real dogmas, was, in fact, a
method of instruction forced upon him by
the habits and feelings of his countrymen,
and the practice of the Jewish schools; that
his parables themselves were, of their own
nature, sufficiently intelligible, being drawn
from common sayings, or habitual occur-
rences; and that, in fine, they were suffi-
ciently understood by his auditors.
Instead, therefore, of spending more time
in answering an objection, which belongs
more properly to another place, I will notice
two passages, which appear to be at variance
with the rule I have laid down, and discuss
them as briefly as the subject will permit.
The first is John, ii. 18-22. Upon the Jews
aksing Jesus for a sign of his authority, in
LECTURE III.
129
driving the tradesmen from the temple, he
said to them: "Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up." The Jews
then said: "Six and forty years was this
temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up
again in three days?" But he spoke of the
temple of his body. When, therefore, he
was risen again from the dead, his disciples
remembered that he had said this; and they
believed the Scripture, and the word that
Jesus had said." Here the Jews understood
his words literally, when he meant them to
be understood figuratively; yet he gives no
explanation. On the contrary, the Jews re-
tained their erroneous interpretation to the
end; for they made it a charge against him
at his trial;* and the Apostles themselves, as
appears from the very text, did not under-
stand it until after the resurrection.
1. I must commence by remarking, that
the phrase used by our Lord in this passage,
if referred to his body, was one in such or-
dinary use among the Jews, that he noways
departed from established forms of language.
Nothing was more common among those
* Matt. xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mar. xiv. 58, xv. 29.
K
130
LECTURE III.
nations who had imbibed the oriental philo
sophy, and among them the Jews, than to
consider the body as a vessel, a house, a taber-
nacle, a temple. It is called a vessel by St.
Paul; and the same appellation is given to
*
it by Socrates, who, in his last discourse, calls
it "the vessel and receptacle of the soul;"†
and by Lucretius:—
"Crede animam quoque diffundi, multoque perire,.
Quippe etenim corpus, quod vas quasi constitit ejus,'
&c.
De Rerum Nat. lib. iii. 438.
"Sic animus per se non quit sine corpore et ipso,
Esse homine, ollius quasi quod vas esse videtur."
Ibid. 553; v. also 794.
""
These expressions are justly referred by
Bendtsen to the antiquum orientalium judi-
cium. Isaiah calls it a house, T77,8 and Job a
house of clay. It is styled a tabernacle by
the same Apostle;T and his words, as Dr.
* 2 Cor, iv. 7; 1 Thessal. iv. 4. Comp. 1 Sam. xxi. 5.
† Plato, Sympos. c. xxxii.
"Marmora Mystica, in Miscellanea Hafnensia, phi-
lologici maxime argumenti," Fascic. ii. Copenhag. 1824,
p. 293.
§ xxxviii. 12.
|| iv. 19.
¶ 2 Cor. v. 1, 2, 4, where it also called a house.
LECTURE III.
131
Lardner has observed,* are strikingly illus-
trated by a passage in Josephus, who as a
Pharisee, was necessarily versed in the mystic
language of eastern philosophy. The same
expression is to be found in Nicander,
Hippocrates, and other physiological authors.
To the examples already known, the late
learned Dr. Münter has added some from
Spon and Wheeler's inscriptions, and an
ancient hymn; and concludes" et hæc
loquendi formula procul dubio ex orientalium
philosophorum disciplina profecta." In.fine,
it is repeatedly called a temple by St. Paul.§
Philo uses the same image, styling the body
vuov and iepov ;|| as does the philosopher Lucre-
tius :-
"Via qua munita fidei
Proxuma fert humanum in pectus templaque mentis.”
Lib. iv. 102.
From all this, it is manifest that the expres-
sion used by our Saviour was one of such
obvious occurrence, that the Jews ought to
* Works, Lond. 1827, vol. i. p. 127.
+ "Joseph de Bello Jud." p. 1144, ed. Hudson.
“Miscellanea Hafnensia,” tom. i. Copenhag. 1816,
p. 23.
§ 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16.
"De Opificio Mundi," pp. 93, 94, ed. Pfeiffer.
132
LECTURE III.
have understood him without difficulty. This
at once forms a strong contrast with John
vi. 53: for we have seen that the phrase there
objected against was never in use among the
Jews, in a figurative sense; so that there was
no clue to guide them to such a sense, if
Christ had intended it.
Hence it is that the commentators who
adopt the ordinary interpretation, of referring
the text wholly to the resurrection, supposed
two things, which remove it still further
from being a case in point for illustrating our
controversy. 1. They suppose that our Sa-
viour decided the meaning of τον ναον τουτον,
by pointing with his finger towards himself.*
2. That the Jews did really understand
Christ correctly, and that it was only malig-
nity which made them raise an objection to
*"The explanation given by John (v. 21) has in its
favour, not merely the phraseology of the Bible, but also
the circumstance which so observant an auditor as John
may have noticed, that Jesus, at the TOUTov (v. 19),
pointed to his own body, which may have been over-
looked by such stupid people as the adversaries of Jesus
were."-Gottlob. Christ. Storr, in his dissertation en-
titled, “Did Jesus appeal to his Miracles as a proof of
his Divine Mission ?" in Flatt's "Magazin für christliche
Dogmatik und Moral," viertes Stück, Tübing. 1793, p.
19. See also Kuinoel, p. 205.
•
LECTURE III.
133
his words. They suppose that the Apostles
fully understood them, as St. John only tells
us that they did not believe them, till after
the resurrection ;* that is to say, they did not
comprehend how they were to be verified.
Now, the passage in the sixth chapter differs
totally in both respects. No action which
we can suppose our Lord to have used, could
possibly have explained "the eating of his
flesh" to signify believing in his death; and
neither did the Jews understand them in that
sense, nor did the Apostles, as we shall more
clearly see in the sequel.
2. But marked as is the difference between
the intelligibility of the expressions used in
the two passages, there is another strong
difference between them, which does not
allow them to be compared. In John vi.,
our Saviour is delivering a doctrine; in the
second chapter, he is uttering a prophecy.
It is the nature of the one, that it ought to
be understood when delivered; of the other,
* See Süskind's Observations on Henke's explanation
of this passage, in a dissertation entitled, "Remarks
directed to answer the question, ‘Did Jesus distinctly
foretell his resurrection ?" "_"Flatt's Magazin," sieben-
tes St. 1801, p. 213.
=
134
LECTURE III.
that it should be explained by its accomplish-
ment; the former ought to be all plain and
intelligible; the latter is, of its nature, ob-
scure and involved. Hence, Christ having,
under a mysterious emblem, foretold hist
resurrection, was sure that the event itself
would be a key to his words. And so we
find it was; for St. John assures us, that
"when he was risen again from the dead, his
disciples remembered that he had said this,
and they believed the Scripture, and the
word that Jesus had said." Thus, therefore,
the words were understood, when they were
fulfilled, and, accordingly, served the very
purpose for which they were spoken.*
"I find that Bishop Newcome, after Grotius, has
taken the same view of this text. "His hearers under-
stood this literally; but our Lord alluded to the temple
of his body; and probably intimated his true meaning.
by pointing to himself. Here the words would be ex-
plained by the event; and their intended obscurity
subjected them to examination, and impressed them on
the memory. Veracity, and every virtue, must be
governed by prudence. A plain reference to his death
and resurrection would have been unwise and dangerous
before malignant hearers."-("Observations on our
Lord's Conduct as a Divine Instructor," Lond. 1820, p.
454.) The whole chapter on our Lord's veracity con-
firms strongly the line of argument pursued in this
lecture.
LECTURE III,
135
3. A third and principal difference be-
tween the two passages under investigation,
is this. I have never said that our Saviour
was bound to answer the objections of the
Jews; but I have examined only his practice,
when he did answer or explain; and have
found that his conduct was precisely that of
an honest and upright teacher, who corrected
mistakes, and enforced his doctrines without
fear. But in the case of Jo. ii. he deems it
right to give no answer at all. The passage,
therefore, does not belong to either of the
classes above mentioned, and cannot form a
term of comparison for explaining Jo. vi. 53.
It only proves that our Saviour sometimes
declined answering an objection at all,—and
the prophetic nature of his declaration is a
sufficient reason for acting so in this case,—
it cannot prove that he ever answered so as
to mislead his hearers,
4. Finally, did our Lord speak altogether
of his resurrection, so as to exclude all allu-
sion to rebuilding the temple which stood
before him? I must confess, that in spite of
the reasoning of Storr, Süskind, Schott, and
others, I cannot read the passage without
being convinced that he spoke of both.
محمد
C
136
LECTURE III.
A
τούτον
1. The circumstances under which he
uttered these words, while standing in the
temple, and upon his being asked to give a
sign of his jurisdiction over it, seemed to re-
quire, or at least to render appropriate, a sign
of authority drawn from that very temple.
The pronoun TOUTOV would naturally denote
the building in which he spoke. 2. If he
used the epithet attributed to him by the
false witnesses in St. Mark, xiv. 58, tov vaov
τον χειροποιητον, “ this temple built
with hands," he can hardly be supposed to
have alluded primarily to anything but the
real temple. St. Paul uses the negative of
this word,* as Christ himself is said to have
done in St. Mark, for the temple of heaven:
but could he have possibly applied either epi-
thet to his body, before and after the resur-
rection? Nor do I see any reason to suppose
that the witnesses added this epithet, for it
was by no means common, and, moreover,
tended to weaken their own testimony, by
rendering our Saviour's words more enigma-
tical and obscure.
αχειροποιητον, 2 Cor. v. 1; ου χειροποιητον, Heb.
ix. 11
LECTURE III.
137
It seems to me clear, that one of the fol-
lowing explanations, both of which differ
from those of Forberg, Henke, Gurlitt, or
Paulus, must be followed. 1. Our Redeemer
spoke of the power wherewith he was in-
vested of rebuilding the temple, should it be
destroyed; but, at the same time, selected
such words as would aptly denote another
proof of equal power, which was really to be
given. The terms, ναος, τουτο, εγείρειν, εν
Throw yμepais, all suited most exactly this ob-
ject. Even those who are opposed to the
double sense of prophecy, for the proofs of
which I must refer you to our course of
hermeneutics, even they could hardly be
offended at this prophetic speech, veiled
under such appropriate and natural imagery.
2. Or we may, without violence, take the
temple not made with hands, in the same
sense as St. Paul does, and then the sense
will be: Destroy this temple and religion,
and I, in three days, by my resurrection,
will restore a more perfect temple, not built
with hands, that is, not of this creation, by
opening the spiritual temple of God in
heaven.
* Heb. ix. 11.
*
!
138
LECTURE III.
Another instance which, at first sight,
seems at variance with the rule which I have
given of our Lord's conduct, might be taken
from Jo. iv. 10-15. Our Saviour there
speaks of giving living waters, in a figurative
sense, and the Samaritan woman manifestly
understands him literally; yet he gives no
explanation.
To this instance I will briefly reply:-1.
That, as in the last, our Saviour declines
answering her difficulty at all, and therefore,
the passage belongs to neither of the cases
for which I have laid down a rule. 2. That,
according to the opinion of the best com-
mentators, the women in v. 15, received our
Saviour's words with irony and levity, and
did not so much solicit an explanation, as
ridicule his words.
3. But passing over these two important
differences between this example and Jo. vi.,
the real motive of our Saviour not explaining
himself here appears manifest, if we consider
his situation and his design. Upon perusing
this interesting chapter, it has often struck.
me as one of the most beautiful instances on
record, of his amiable ingenuity in doing
good. He desired to make an opening for
LECTURE III.
139
his religion among the Samaritans. But had
he presented himself among them uncalled,
had he commenced his preaching of his own
accord, he could have only expected to be
rejected, to be ill-treated as a Jew, and
punished as a religious innovator. He wishes,
therefore, to be invited by the Samaritans
themselves, and he selects the most favoura-
ble moment and means for effecting his pur-
pose. He dismisses all his disciples to the
city of Sichem, and seats himself at the well,
where he was sure to find some of the inha-
bitants, and where the rules of hospitality in
the East would give him a right to enter
into conversation. A female accordingly
comes, and he uses this right by asking her
for water. Nothing can be more beautifully
natural than the dialogue which follows this
request, every reply of our Saviour's, in par-
ticular, is most aptly directed to his great
object, which was not to instruct, but to excite
the woman's interest in his regard, to stimu-
late her curiosity concerning him (and her
language at v. 11 showed that he had inspired
her with respect), and to make her his in-
strument for the consequences which fol-
lowed. When he had wrought up these
!
140
LECTURE III.
feelings to the highest point, till she asked
(v. 15) at length, that he would give her the
water whereof he spoke, he most ingeniously
leads her to a still more interesting, and to
her, intensely trying topic, by the natural
suggestion that her husband ought to be
present.* I am not giving you a commen-
tary, and therefore must suppress many re-
flections, only to state that the knowledge
which Jesus evinced of her most private
domestic affairs, convinced her that he was
a prophet (v. 19). This leads the way to a
controversial discussion on the difference of
the two religions: she appeals to the Messiah
for a decision, and thus gives him an oppor-
tunity of crowning her curiosity and astonish-
ment, and of effecting all his wishes, by the
concluding words, "I am he who am speak-
ing with thee" (v. 26). She acts exactly as
he evidently desired; she runs into the city
to communicate her curiosity to her fellow-
* It seems plain that the woman fancied our Lord to
insinuate that he could lead her to some running spring,
which would save her the daily trouble of going so far,
and drawing so deep (v. 15). She asks, therefore, was
he greater than Jacob, who had been able to find no
better well than that (v. 12).
LECTURE III.
141
citizens; they come out to invite him in; he
tarries there two days, and many believe in
him (vv. 39-42).
It is evident from this rapid sketch, that
the object of our Saviour, in this conference,
was not to satisfy, but to excite curiosity;
not to instruct but to provoke inquiry. Had
he answered the woman's question, by saying
that he spoke of grace, and not of water,
before he had made her confess, from her
own conviction, that he was a prophet, she
would most probably have left him in dis-
appointment, and with ridicule or digust;
the great object for which he had sought and
undertaken the interview, would have been
frustrated, and the mission to the Sichemites
unaccomplished. Long before the end of
the conference, certainly long before he left
the city, the woman would know that he
spoke not of earthly, but of spiritual waters.
In fact, when she runs into the city, she does
not say,
"Come and see a man who has pro-
mised to give us a fountain of running water,
more commodious and more perennial than
even the well of Jacob;" though this would
have been a truly interesting motive to
induce the citizens to invite him in; but,
142
LECTURE III.
"Come and see a man who hath told me all
things whatsoever I have done. Is not he
the Christ?" (v. 29). The discovery that
Jesus was the Messiah, had absorbed, as he
desired, every other consideration.
LECTURE IV.
FOURTH ARGUMENT FOR THE REAL PRESENCE FROM THE
SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN, FROM THE ANALYSIS
OF OUR SAVIOUR'S ANSWER TO THE JEWS, AND THEIR
INCREDULITY.-FIFTH ARGUMENT; FROM HIS CON-
DUCT TO HIS DISCIPLES AND APOSTLES-OBJECTIONS
TO THE CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF THIS CHAPTER
ANSWERED.
To complete our examination of our Sa-
viour's discourse, nothing remains but to
analyse the expressions whereby he answers
the Jews, and his conduct towards his fol-
lowers; then to reply to such objections as
are brought against the Catholic explanation
of this chapter. I will endeavour to be as
brief as the subject will permit.
1. Our Lord commences his answer to the
Jews, who had asked, "How can this man
give us his flesh to eat?" by laying down his
doctrine in the form of a precept, and that
144
LECTURE IV.
in the strongest manner. I say in the
strongest manner, because the most marked
and expressive way in which a precept is
ever given in Scripture, is by placing it in a
double form, as negative and positive. The
words of Jesus Christ are these: "Unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink
his blood, ye shall not have life in you; he
that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,
hath everlasting life" (vv. 54, 55). Now,
compare the words of St. Mark (xvi. 16),
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be
saved; but he that believeth not, shall be
condemned;" and we cannot but be struck
by two reflections. 1. The beautiful simi-
larity of form with which we find the two
principal sacraments of the Christian religion
inculcated, if with the Catholic Church we
suppose the words of St. John to refer to the
Eucharist. 2. The clearness of the expres-
sion in St. Mark, and the absolute absence of
comprehensibility in that of St. John, the
moment we take it in the Protestant sense;
since our Lord will be giving a precept, with
a promise of eternal life to its observers, or
a threat of eternal death to its violators, which
would be totally unintelligible to his hearers.
LECTURE IV.
145
For I have proved already, and have adduced
the authority of the learned Tittmann, that
our Saviour, if not speaking of the Real
Presence, spoke not according to the received
usages of language among his hearers. And,
in fact, such is the variety of interpretations
among Protestant writers upon this discourse,
that it is manifestly obscure and unintel-
ligible, if we seek for figurative explanations,
Now, it is evidently in the nature of a law or
precept, with a threat of punishment annexed,
that it should be clear, distinct, and well de-
fined. Such is the one for baptisms, and such
is this, if we understand it, of the Real Pre-
sence.
2. In these words, our Lord makes a dis-
tinction between eating his body and drinking
his blood; a distinction without any real sig-
nification or force, if he be not speaking of
the Real Presence; for to partake of the blood
of Christ by faith, adds nothing to the idea.
of partaking of his body. And this remark
applies to all this discourse.
3. This sentence is, moreover, introduced
by the peculiarly emphatic phrase, “Amen,
amen, I say unto you." This expression is
acknowledged by the best sacred philologers,
L
146
LECTURE IV.
1
to be a strong confirmatory assev ration,
though not an oath. It is called by the Jews,
the corroboration and » הזק חמאמד וקיומו
11*
confirmation of a saying;" and is used, as
Glassius has well observed, "in confirmando
divino verbo et promisso. When the amen
is doubled, additional emphasis is given to it.
But, if our Saviour meant to be understood
only of a belief in his death, there was surely
nothing in the doctrine which required such
a strong asseveration. For the objection of
the Jews was not directed to that doctrine,
of a belief in him which they certainly did not
understand him to teach, when they said,
"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Now, a strong asseveration of the truth of a
doctrine objected to, in answer to a difficulty,
must always be understood as an acknowledg-
ment that the objection was, indeed, directed
against the doctrine taught, though it has no
force. But an asseveration of the truth of
your proposition, in spite of an objection,
when you know that the objection was not
directed against it, because the objicient is
* "Philologia Sacra his temporibus accommodata,"
tom. i. Lips. 1776, p. 397.
LECTURE IV.
147
speaking on a totally different subject, is not
only misplaced, but absurd. To suppose our
blessed Lord to insist upon the necessity of
believing in him, in terms of the most em-
phatic asseveration, as if replying to an ob-
jection, when he knew very well that no one
had meant to express a difficulty upon the
subject of believing in him, is to imagine him
acting wantonly and insincerely with their
judgment and feelings, whom he had under-
taken to instruct.
4. The next verse (56) goes on still con-
firming the literal meaning of his words.
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood
is drink indeed." Anews, really, is the word
of the original. It may be worth while to
observe, that many of the best manuscripts,
several versions and fathers, read the adjec-
tive aλnoŋs, true, instead of the adverb; so
that Griesbach has marked this reading, in
his inner margin, as of equal or superior
value to the one in the text. Whichsoever
we adopt, our Lord assures the Jews that his
Aesh is truly meat, and his blood truly drink.
I own that the word aλanews is spoken, not
merely of identity of things, but also of their
qualities; so that Christ calls himself the true
148
LECTURE IV.
vine,* when he only spoke in parables; and
the Greek version of Isaiah has the same
word in the same sense, αληθως χορτος ὁ λαος,
¿
"truly the people are grass." But, without
entering into any long discussion to prove
how inapplicable these passages are to our
case, it is sufficient to observe that philology
is not conducted by taking the abstract mean-
ing of words and applying them to any pas-
sage, but by studying them as used in pecu-
liar circumstances. While the Jews under-
stood our Saviour to speak of really intending
to give them his flesh to eat, if they were
wrong, can we suppose him to answer them
by saying that his flesh was really meat? Or
can we, under these circumstances, imagine
him to use the word at all, and that twice
and emphatically-for the repetition of it in
the two members of the sentence forms a
true emphasis—unless he wished to be taken
literally? If so, there is no other conclusion
to be drawn from the sentence, than that he
* Jo. xv. 1.
+ Is. xl. 7. Yet this passage is not much to the
purpose; but I have brought it, because some Pro-
testant writers have done so; as Tholuck, loc. ci-
tand.
LECTURE IV.
149
was speaking of a real eating of his flesh, and
drinking of his blood.
5. The change of expression in the suc-
ceeding verse (58) still further confirms our
interpretation. Hitherto our Saviour had
spoken of eating his flesh and drinking his
blood; he now comprises the two under the
harsh expression, "he that eateth me.” If, as
most Protestants suppose, the former phrases
were selected expressly to allude to his violent
death,* the words which he now uses can
have no such meaning, and cannot express
the same figure as the others, Both, there-
fore, must have a common meaning, and that
can only be the literal one.
Almost in every phrase this reply of our
Saviour affords a strong confirmation of the
Catholic doctrine, drawn from its general
tendency. We have now to consider the
effects which this answer produced upon his
hearers.
1. Instead of removing their previous dif-
ficulties, it manifestly augmented, or, at least,
confirmed them. "Many, therefore, of hist
* Consult all the best commentators on the chapter-
Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Tittmann, Tholuck, Lampe,
Schulz, Bloomfield, Elsley, &c.
150
LECTURE IV.
disciples, hearing it, said, This saying is hard,
and who can hear it!" (v. 61). The phrase,
σκληρος εστιν ουτος ὁ λόγος, “ this saying is
ο
hard," does not signify, "this proposition is
difficult to be believed or comprehended;" but
“is harsh or revolting." Cicero has a similar
expression." In reipublicæ corpore, ut
totum salvum sit, quicquid est pestiferum
amputatur. Dura vox. Multo illa durior;
salvi sint improbi, scelerati, impii."* Deme-
trius uses the Greek words of the text in the
same sense, απηνης ουτος ὁ λογος και σκληρος,
"this word is cruel and hard,"+-speaking of
the command to stand in the ranks, to be killed
by the enemy. Hence, on aλŋŋ, in Euri-
pides, are disagreeable, or repulsive truths.‡
The second part of the sentence implies a
similar meaning. The disciples do not ask,
and who shall believe it? but, "who can hear
it?" The verb dvvaoui, as St. Chrysostom
remarks, is equivalent in this phrase to Bov-
Xeoai, § and this sense has been ably illus-
Philippic viii.
+ Apud Stobæum, Serm. vii. p. 97.
+
See Kypke, "Observationes sacræ," tom. i. Wra-
tislav, 1755, p. 371.
§ Ενταυθα το μη δυνασθαι, το μη βουλεσθαι εστιν. Com.
LECTURE IV.
151
trated by Raphel from very similar passages
of classical writers.* The question, there-
fore, of the Jews, imports,-"this is a harsh
and revolting proposition, and who can bear
to listen to it?" From it we may draw two
conclusions; first, that no doctrine but that of
the Real Presence, supposed to have been
taught by our Saviour, could have elicited
this strong form of repulsive dissatisfaction
at his words: secondly, that the preceding
discourse had only served to increase the
feelings expressed in their former inquiry,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
In other words, after the reply of our Lord,
they were more convinced than ever that he
spoke of the real manducation of his flesh.
2. Jesus answered these murmurs by the
following words, the meaning of which has
been so much contested:-"Doth this scan-
dalize you? If, then, ye shall see the Son
of Man ascend up where he was before" (vv.
62, 63). Once more, as I am not writing a
on Jo. viii. 43, where a similar expression occurs—ov
δυνασθη ακουειν τον λογον εμον. The phrase occurs also
Mar. iv. 33.
* "Annotationes philologicæ in N. Testamentum ex
Polybio et Arriano," Hamb. 1715, p. 274.
1
152
LECTURE IV.
I
commentary, I will not attempt to discuss the
opinions of others upon these words. Kui-
noel, and, of course, Bloomfield, understand
by them-"When I shall have ascended to
heaven, you will then cease to be scandalized
or offended."* Others imagine our Saviour,
on the contrary, to mean, that the difficulties
of his doctrine would be increased by his
ascension; what, therefore, would his incre-
dulous disciples say then? Upon examining
other passages where our Blessed Lord makes
the same, or a similar appeal, it seems to me
plain, that his object is to refer his auditors
to a great and striking proof, which he was
to give, that he had divine authority to teach,
and that his words were to be believed, what-
ever difficulties they might present. When
Nathanael confessed him to be the Son of
God, on account of his revealing some know-
ledge to him, which he knew could not have
been acquired by human means, our Lord
replied, "Because I said to thee, I saw thee
under the fig tree, thou believedst; greater
things than these shalt thou see. . . . .Amen,
amen, I say to you, you shall see the heavens.
•
* Kuinoel, p. 374. Bloomfield, p. 220.
.
A
LECTURE IV.
153
opened, and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon the Son of Man."* This
allusion to the ascension is manifestly made.
to point out the superhuman motives upon
which the important truth just confessed by
Nathanael, had to be received. In like man-
ner, when the High Priest adjured him to say
if he were the Christ, he gave in his answer
a similar proof of the truth of his assertion
and claims; "Hereafter shall ye see the Son
of Man sitting on the right hand of the
power of God, and coming on the clouds of
heaven." We must, therefore, consider
the appeal to his ascension, in the sixth
chapter of St. John, in precisely the same
light; and may fill up the apodosis of his
sentence, by, "would you not receive my
word after such a confirmation?"
But this appeal to so strong an evidence
confirms manifestly the Catholic belief. For
it supposes that what Christ taught was
truly something requiring the strongest evi-
dence he could give of the divine authority
of his mission. It is an acknowledgment,
that, without such evidence, the difficulty
* John, i. 50, 51.
+ Matt. xxvi. 63, 64.
154
LECTURE IV.
of his hearers would be well-grounded. Yet
all this could not be the case, if nothing but
belief in him or his death was signified, a
doctrine repeatedly taught in the Scrip-
tures, and, consequently, noways requiring
such strong confirmatory appeals.
"
•
3. The consequence of this conference is,
that many of his disciples went back, and
walked no more with him" (v. 67). Can
we suppose that Jesus would have allowed
things to come to this extremity, that he
would cast away for ever many of his dis-
ciples, when an explanation in two words
would have saved them? And yet even this
did he, if the Protestant interpretation of his
discourse be true.
4. Our Saviour's conduct towards the
twelve, affords us additional assurance of
the correctness of the literal interpretation
of his discourse. He asks them, after the
departure of other disciples, "Will ye also
go?"
Whoever reads the answer which
Peter gives to this touching question, must
be convinced that the Apostles were mani-
festly perplexed as to the nature of their
Divine Master's intentions. For Peter does
not even allude to the doctrines taught, but
LECTURE IV.
155
,
throws himself entirely upon his belief in
our Saviour's authority, and answers ac-
cordingly: "Lord, to whom shall we go?
thou hast the words of eternal life," (v. 69).
Now, when we consider, that to them it
was given to know the mysteries of the
kingdom of God, it must appear extra-
ordinary that even to them he should not
have condescended to give any explanation
of this singular enigma, which Protestants
suppose him to have been uttering. By
one only hypothesis can we solve this diffi-
culty, by acknowledging that they had
really understood him right, but that he
spoke of a mystery which only required faith
-and that they had clearly professed through
Peter-but which could not receive any
explanation, so as to bring it within the
comprehension of reason.
In order to condense and sum up the argu-
ments which I have hitherto brought in
favour of the Catholic dogma, I will propose
a very simple hypothesis, and deduce them
all from its solution.
It will be readily allowed that nothing can
* Luke, viii. 10.
156
LECTURE IV.
be more beautifully consistent than the cha-
racter of our Saviour. And yet what forms
its principal and distinguishing peculiarity is,
the superhuman manner in which traits of
the most opposite nature, and apparently of
the most unharmonizing qualities, blend
together, in such just proportion as to make
one perfect and consistent whole. In him
we have an independence which renders him.
superior to all the world, yet a humility
which subjects him to the meanest of its in-
habitants; an intrepid firmness in reproof,
and a nervous eloquence in condemning,
which humbles and crushes the most daring,
yet a sweetness and gentleness in instructing,
which encourages and wins the timid and the
prejudiced; a fortitude which could support.
the most excruciating tortures, yet a meek-
ness which could suppress the slightest ex-
pression of triumph. There is not one pas-
sage in his entire life which refuses to
harmonize with the rest, however different
it may appear at first sight, from his usual
conduct; there is no apparent shade in his
character which does not beautifully mingle
in with its brightest colours. Hence is there
not a single transaction of our Lord's upon
LECTURE IV.
157
earth, which may not be dwelt upon by the
Christian teacher, as a lesson of conduct, the
most perfect and most instructive, not one
where the Christian apologist could not rest,
to point out to the unbeliever a beauty and a
sublimity more than human.
Let us, therefore, for a moment suppose
that the discourse of our Lord, which I have
so fully analyzed, had to be the theme of
such a twofold discussion; and let us see
whether the Protestant or Catholic exposi-
tion of it would alone harmonize with the
character which the rest of the Scripture
attributes to the Saviour of the world, which
would most strikingly convince the unbe-
liever of its perfection, which would afford
the only proper lesson for practical observ-
ance?
The Protestant would have to describe how
this model of all meekness, condescension,
and sweetness, upon a certain occasion, un-
dertook 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. After having taught this doc-
Į
158
LECTURE IV.
trine, by a metaphorical expression, he saw
that he was not well understood (v. 34), and
that objections were raised; and accordingly,
with his usual condescension, he explained
himself literally, and for some time continued
to expound his doctrine in the clearest terms
(vv. 35-47). Then all on a sudden, without
changing his subject, he totally changes his
expressions (v. 52), and conveys the same
truths in phrases to which the language
possessed no parallel, and which were used
in a totally different sense by those who
heard him (above pp. 77-91), phrases which
conveyed to them the most revolting and
sinful ideas (pp. 105-111). Having no other
resource in the usages of their language,
they necessarily took his words literally, and
objected to his doctrine as quite impracticable
(v. 53). It had, indeed, been the custom of
Jesus, on all similar occasions, gently to reply
to such objections, by explaining his mean-
ing (pp.116–125). But this time he preferred
another method; which was, so to adapt his
answer that every expression should exactly
tend to corroborate their erroneous interpre-
tation. For this purpose, he repeats the
phrases which gave rise to their error, six
LECTURE IV.
159
times in as many verses (54-60), with ad-
ditional circumstances (drinking his blood),
the best calculated to confirm their mistake,
he tells them that what he commands is verily
what they have taken it for (v. 26), and as-
sures them, with an attestation little short of
an oath, that if they do not put it in practice,
they shall be eternally lost (v. 54). Yet by
all these expressions, he still meant something
quite different from what they thought; and
the consequence was, that many of his dis-
ciples, shocked at the harshness of his doc-
trine, left him in disgust, and never more
returned to his school (vv. 61-67). He let
them depart, though one word of explana-
tion, had he condescended to give it, would
have saved them from this apostasy. Neither
does he deem it proper to explain himself
further to his chosen twelve (vv. 68-71).
Such is the analysis of this passage, if in-
terpreted according to Protestant views; and
let me ask, could this conduct be represented
to the infidel, as a beautiful trait in the cha-
racter of Jesus, calculated to win his affec-
tions, excite his admiration, and make him
confess that it is just the conduct we should
expect to meet in one who came down from
160
LECTURE IV.
Heaven to instruct and save man? Or is
such conduct a model for imitation? Would
any one propose it to those engaged in teach-
ing others, as a perfect line of conduct?
Would any Protestant bishop instruct his
clergymen to act thus; and tell them, that
should any of the children misunderstand
those words in their catechism, that "the
body and blood of Christ are verily and in-
deed taken and received by the faithful in
the Lord's Supper," so as to imagine the
Real Presence to be thereby taught, they
should, after the example of their Lord and
Master, instead of explaining the phrases, go
on repeating, that verily they must eat the
flesh and drink the blood of Christ, and then
let the children depart in the full conviction
that their pastor had meant to teach them
this extraordinary doctrine?
But on the other hand, how beautifully
does the Catholic interpretation suit the
well-known character of the Son of God
upon earth! Our analysis of the discourse
is soon made. Jesus takes the most suitable
opportunity possible to teach a certain doc-
trine, and he does it in the most simple
and expressive terms. The Jews object the
LECTURE IV.
161
impossibility of his doing what he promises;
and, according to his usual practice, he
replies to them by repeating, again and
again, what he had asserted, and insisting
that it must be done. Many of his disciples
still refuse to believe him, after these clear
protestations; and he, with his customary
firmness and indifference to mere popularity,
suffers them to depart, content to preserve
those who, with the faithful twelve, believe
him even when they cannot comprehend,
because they know him to have the words of
eternal life.
What a consistent line of conduct is here
exhibited: how superior to the mere desire
of having many hearers and followers,
whether they believe or not, which so often
characterizes popular teachers; how worthy
of one who came to deliver doctrines re-
vealed by God, and intended to exact for
themselves man's homage, even when far
superior to his understanding! And what a
beautiful pattern for our imitation, to pro-
pose our doctrines boldly and clearly, to
admit no one as a true disciple who believes
not all, however difficult, and to seek for
converts, and not for followers!
M
162
LECTURE IV.
I will now proceed to review, compen-
diously, the different arguments brought by
Protestants, to prove that our Lord's dis-
course in the sixth chapter of St. John
cannot be referred to the Eucharist. For
greater clearness, I will divide them into two
classes. First, I will examine those which
are drawn from the nature and circumstances
of the entire discourse; secondly, such as
are deduced from particular expressions.
I. 1. The first, and I think most favourite,
reason given for not understanding this dis-
course of the Eucharist, is, that it was not
yet instituted. This is given as a decisive
argument by Wolfius,* Beveridge†, Kuinoel,‡
Bloomfield,§ Scott, and many others. I
will state this objection, and answer it, in
the words of Dr. Sherlock, intermingling
such remarks as suggest themselves to me.
"The only objection," says he, "I know
* "Curæ philologicæ et criticæ in IV. Sacra Evan-
gelia," ed. 3a, Hamb. 1739, p. 865. He quotes the
opinion of Calvin also.
t "Thesaurus theologicus; or, a complete System of
Divinity, Lond. 1710, vol. ii. p. 271.
‡ Ubi sup. p. 369.
§ Page 215.
|| Scott's "Bible," sixth ed. Lond. 1823, vol. v. Note
on Jo. vi. 52-58.
LECTURE IV.
163
against expounding this of eating the flesh
of Christ, and drinking his blood, in the
Lord's Supper, is because the feast was not
yet instituted, and therefore neither the
Jews nor his own disciples could possibly
understand what he meant. Now, there are
several answers to this; as,
"Our Saviour said a great many things to
the Jews, in his sermons, which neither they
nor his own disciples could understand when
they were spoken, though his disciples under-
stood them after he was risen."
This first reply merits a short illustration;
for it may appear at variance with the line
of argument which I have been all along
pursuing; that the hearers did understand
our Saviour's words rightly. But it may
be necessary, and certainly sufficient, to re-
mind you of the distinction between compre-
hending and understanding. The latter refers
to the meaning of the words, the former to
the nature of the doctrine. The words used
by our Saviour naturally led the Jews to
believe that he commanded them to eat his
flesh and drink his blood. How this was to
be effected, they, of course, could not com-
prehend. Hence our Lord was bound to
164
LECTURE IV.
0
take care that they understood his words,
and they were bound to believe them, though
they could not comprehend them.
Bishop then proceeds:
The
"Suppose we should understand this
eating the flesh and drinking the blood of
the Son of Man, of feeding on Christ by
faith or believing; yet they could under-
stand this no better than the other. It is
plain they did not, and I know not how they
should. For to call bare believing in Christ,
eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is so
remote from all propriety of speaking, and
so unknown in all languages, that to this day
those who understand nothing more by it
but believing in Christ are able to give no
tolerable account of the reason of the ex-
pression.
11*
To this reply, which is certainly satisfac-
tory, we may add, that we do not want for
other instances of similar conduct in the
course of our Lord's mission. To give one,
his important conversation with Nicodemus
took place before baptism was instituted, and
yet the necessity of it is there declared. Now,
* "Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies,"
Lond. 1700, pp. 364-367.
LECTURE IV.
165
no one has ever yet thought of denying that
the regeneration there mentioned referred
to baptism, on the ground that this sacra-
ment had not yet been instituted. The
discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John,
therefore, stands in the same relation to the
institution of the Eucharist, as the confe-
rence with Nicodemus does to the institution
of baptism.
2. A second reason for this discourse
being taken figuratively is meant to be given
in the following words of a commentator
already more than once quoted, which con-
tain the only argument upon the subject,
besides the one I have just answered. "To
the former" (that is, to most of the Fathers)
"it has been satisfactorily replied, that the
context does not permit us to take the words
of the Eucharist, since the phraseology is
plainly metaphorical, and the metaphor is
built on the preceding mention of natural
food."*
To this form of argument I cannot
* Bloomfield, p. 215. It may amuse my readers
to compare the two following passages: "Many inter-
preters take the words to have a reference also to the
Eucharist. So most of the Fathers."-(Ibid.)
"That
we only eat the flesh of Christ spiritually by faith in
166
LECTURE IV.
be expected to reply. First, because it con-
sists of a bare repetition of the point in
dispute; for the question, whether these
words are to be understood of the Eucharist
or not, is identical with the inquiry, whether
they are to be taken literally or figuratively;
and therefore, to conclude that they do not
refer to the Eucharist, because they are
figurative, is just as satisfactory an argument
as if I had contented myself with the oppo-
site course, and reduced all my proofs of our
doctrines from this chapter to the following
words:-"This discourse must refer to the
Eucharist, because it must be taken literally !"
Secondly, my answer to this daring and un-
proved assertion is contained in my former
lectures, wherein I have minutely examined
whether the words of Christ can be so plainly
metaphorical.
his blood, and not orally or sacramentally, Whitby has
here proved in an instructive argument against the
Romanists. He concludes with the concurrent testi-
mony of most of the ancient fathers."-(Elsley's "An-
notations," 5th ed. Lond. 1824, vol. iii. p. 66.) If the
reader wish to see which is right, let him consult
Waterland, vol. vii. pp. 110-135, though of course he
attempts to prove that the Fathers did not teach the
Real Presence.
LECTURE IV. “
167
I know of no other argument of any
weight brought against the Catholic inter-
pretation, from the whole structure of our
Lord's discourse. But there is one commen-
tator upon St. John, who, more candidly than
any I have yet quoted, suffers to escape the
real grounds upon which Protestants take
this discourse in a figurative sense.
After
having given the usual Protestant interpre-
tation of flesh, blood, eat, and the rest, Pro-
fessor Tholuck thus concludes his argu-
ments:-"Still more, if the expressions are
not tropical, they would prove too much,
namely, the Catholic doctrine."* This sen-
tence, indeed, says much; we are forced to
take the words of our Saviour figuratively,
because otherwise we must become Catholics!
With great personal esteem and friendship
for this learned and amiable professor, I
cannot help remarking how most unherme-
neutical this is to make the interpretation
of a passage of Scripture depend upon the
controversial differences of Christians; and
* "Vielmehr wurde es, wann es nicht Tropus wäre,
zu viel beweisen, nämlich die Katholische Lehre."
Commentar zu dem Evangelio Johannis, 2 Aufl. Hamb.
1828, p. 131.
168
LECTURE IV.
this in persons who profess to open their
Bible, in order to draw from it, by an im-
partial examination, which of the different
opinions is the truth.
II. Proceeding now to particular texts
which have been used to prove that this dis-
course is not to be taken literally, I will
notice the only two which I think can pre-
tend to any weight.
1. First, it is argued that the universality
of our Saviour's expressions regarding the
effects of eating his flesh, precludes the
possibility of any reference to the Eucharist.
"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live
for ever." "He that eateth my flesh, and
drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life."-
"He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood, abideth in me, and I in him."-" Un-
less you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink his blood, you shall not have life in
you." "Hence arises an argument," says
Dr. Waterland, "against interpreting the
words of sacramental feeding in the Eucharist.
For it is not true, that all who receive the
communion have life, unless we put in the
restriction of worthy and so far. Much less
can it be true, that all who never have, or
LECTURE IV.
169
never shall receive, have not life, unless we
make several restrictions. Now, an inter-
pretation which must be
multitude of restrictions to
clogged with a
make it bear, if
at all, is such as one would not choose (other
circumstances being equal) in preference to
what is clogged with fewer or with none."
These texts Dr. Waterland calls " a surer
mark for interpreting our Lord's meaning in
this chapter."* The same argument is in-
sisted upon by Dr. Beveridge.f
* Ubi sup. p. 102.
+ Ubi sup. p. 271. Lest my readers may imagine
that I have concealed or glossed over the arguments
used by Protestant writers against our interpretation
of Jo. vi., I will give the entire reasoning of this learned
and pithy theologian upon the subject. "It is not the
sacramental but spiritual eating his body and blood,
our Saviour here speaks of. I mean, our Saviour hath
no particular reference, in this place, to the representa-
tives of his body and blood in the sacrament, but only
to the spiritual feeding upon him by faith, whether in
or out of the sacrament, as appears,
"1. In that the sacrament was not yet ordained.
Jo. vi. 4, and vii. 2.
"2. In that it is said, that he that eateth not of the
bread here spoke of, shall die. Jo. vi. 53.
"3. In that every one that doth eat of it, shall live.
Jo. vi. 51, 54, 56.”
In the text we shall see Dr. Waterland combating
these conclusions upon these very premises.
170
LECTURE IV.
My reply shall be brief. First, Dr. Water-
land himself observes, that this reasoning
also overthrows the interpretation of the
passage adopted by most Protestant divines,
and among them by Dr. Beveridge, upon
the very ground given by himself, namely,
that the discourse of Jesus Christ refers to
belief in him. For here also he remarks,
"there must be restrictions too."* Secondly,
I say that there is no restriction at all; be-
cause, whenever in any law, or promise in
Scripture, or elsewhere, rewards or conse-
quences are mentioned, the simple term, ex-
pressive of the act to be done, always
essentially signifies that act as duly done.
When faith is mentioned as having rewards
attached to it, a real, a sincere faith, a faith
working by charity, is always implied, for
"the devils also believe and tremble."t
When it is said that all who believe and are
baptized shall be saved, much, surely, is
understood relative to the proper dispositions.
When efficacy is attributed to the sacrifices.
* Page 103.
† St. James, ii. 19. See Horne, vol. ii. p. 557, No.
viii. 7th ed.
Mark xvi. 16; Jo. xi. 26.
LECTURE IV.
171
of the Old Law, we have no difficulty in
understanding that this depended upon the
interior feelings of repentance, gratitude, or
humility, which accompanied them. The
law, in short, always supposes the act well
performed, and so it is, of course, with the
law of the Eucharist.
2. A second text, popularly adduced
against us, is the sixty-fourth verse:—“ The
flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I
have spoken to you, they are spirit and
life." Our Lord is supposed to have inti-
mated by these words that his phrases are to
be taken spiritually, and not literally, and
so to have intended them for a key to all the
preceding discourses. This interpretation.
may be considered as fairly given up by all
learned commentators; but as I have more
than once observed that it has a popular
influence, and that it is often used by ordi-
nary controversialists, as the great ground
for rejecting the Catholic explanation of
this chapter, I will enter into a fuller ex-
position of them than otherwise I deem
necessary. I will show you first, that this
popular way of understanding these words
has no foundation; and secondly, that the
T
1.72
LECTURE IV.
most learned Protestant commentators are
with us in rejecting it.
I. 1. There is not a single instance
in the Old or New Testament, in which
flesh means the literal sense of words. Yet
this is necessary for us to understand, by
the spirit, their figurative or spiritual signi-
fication. In some instances, indeed, the
spirit is thus opposed to the letter,* but
no one will consider flesh an equivalent term
to this, especially in a chapter wherein it
has been used twenty times in its ordinary
meaning.
2. If by the flesh we are to understand the
material flesh of Christ, by the spirit we
must understand his spirit. If so, in what
way does the phrase explain that the fore-
going words are to be taken figuratively?
For the assertion that Christ's spirit gives
us life, is, surely, not equivalent to a decla-
ration, that whatever had been said about
eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is to
be understood of faith.
3. The terms flesh and spirit, when opposed
* Rom. vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. Particularly Rom. ii.
29, where flesh might have been used if an equivalent.
LECTURE IV.
173
to each other in the New Testament, have
a definite meaning which never varies.
A full explanation of these
terms you will
For
find in the eighth chapter of St. Paul to the
Romans, from the first to the fourteenth
verse. The beginning is as follows:-
"There is now, therefore, no condemnation
to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk
not according to the flesh. For the law of the
spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath delivered
me from the law of sin and of death.
what the law could not do, in that it was
weak through the flesh; God sending his
own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and of sin, hath condemned sin in the
flesh; that the justification of the law
might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
according to the flesh, but according to
the spirit. For they that are according to
the flesh, mind the things that are of the
flesh; but they that are according to the
spirit, mind the things that are of the spirit.
For the wisdom of the flesh is death; but the
wisdom of the spirit is life and peace.
cause the wisdom of the flesh is an enemy
to God; for it is not subject to the law of
God, neither can it be. And they who are
Be-
[
174
LECTURE IV.
in the flesh cannot please God. But you
are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so
be that the spirit of God dwell in you."
(vv. 1-9) From this passage, were others
wanting, it would be clear that the flesh sig-
nifies the corrupted dispositions and weak
thoughts of human nature; and the spirit
means the sentiments of man, as elevated
and ennobled by grace. The qualities here
atributed to these powers, or states, are
precisely the same as are indicated in the
text of St. John; "The wisdom of the flesh
is death;" "the flesh profiteth nothing;"
"the wisdom of the spirit is life;" "it is
the spirit that quickeneth." Christ's words,
then, are spirit and life, or "the spirit of
life," by a grammatical figure common in
sacred and profane writers:* in other words,
such as the mere man cannot receive, but
which require a strong power of grace to
make them acceptable, If you desire more
proofs of this being the only true signi-
fication of these terms in Scripture, you
may turn over to the following texts:-
* As,
chalybem frænumque momordit;" "pateris
libamus et auro." See Glassius, or any writer on sa-
cred philology.
LECTURE IV.
175
Gal. v. 13-26; 1 Pet. iv. 6. You may con-
sult, likewise, Matt. xxvi. 41; John, iii. 6;
Rom. vii. 5, 6; coll, 25; 1 Cor. v. 5; 2 Cor.
vii. 1; Gal. iii. 3; iv. 8; 1 Pet. iii. 18. The
origin of the phrase will be further ex-
plained by John, viii. 15; Rom. xiii. 14;
Gal. ii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 10.
II. But I might have spared myself all the
trouble of detailing the internal evidence
concering this text, as all modern Protestant
commentators of any value agree with us
in this interpretation.
Kuinoel discusses the terms at length.
After having stated the interpretation popu-
larly given, which I am refuting, he thus
comments on it:-" Sed hæc verborum inter-
pretatio usu loquendi scriptorum Novi Test.
comprobari nequit .... Præplacet igitur mihi
eorum ratio quibus vevμa est perfectior,
sublimior sentiendi et statuendi ratio quam
doctrina Christi efficit oap humilis, vilis
sentiendi ratio qualis erat Judæorum, qui
præconceptas de Messia et bonis in ejus
regno expectandis opiniones fovebant: ut
adeo sensus sit, valedicere debetis opinioni-
bus vestris præjudicatis nam sublimior tan-
tum sentiendi et statuendi ac operandi ratio
I
176
LECTURE IV.
;
TVEVμа, salutem affert; humilis, vilis statu-
endi ac sperandi ratio, Judaica illa ratio,
oup, nihil confert ad veram felicitatem."*
His transcriber, Bloomfield, repeats his
remark, that "this translation" (the popular
one) "cannot be proved from the usus lo-
quendi of Scripture."†
The Lexicograper of the New Testament,
Schleusner, agrees fully with them:-" app:
pravitas, vitiositas humana.
altera vero
(ratio) hæc quod sensus animi per religio-
nem Christianam emendatos veνμɑ nominare
solebant opostoli." Again:-" IIvevμa: Vis
divina qua homines adjuti proni ac faciles
redduntur ad amplectendam et observan-
dam religionem Christianam. John, vi. 63."§
Mr. Horne coincides with these authors:
"The Holy Spirit is put for his effects,
2 Cor. iii. 6. Here, by the word letter, we
are to understand the law, written in letters
on stone... By the spirit, is meant the saving
doctrine of the Gospel, which derives its
* In Joan. vi. 63, tom. ii. p. 400, ed. Lond.
† Ubi sup. p. 221.
‡ Sub voce σaps, No. 17, tom. ii. p. 618, ed. Glasg.
1817.
§ Sub voce пvevμa, No. 21, p. 448.
LECTURE IV.
177
origin from the Holy Spirit. In the same
sense Jesus Christ says, John, vi. 63:—
The words that I speak, they are spirit
and life;' that is, they are from the Spirit of
God;
and if received with true faith, will
lead to eternal life."* Again, in his "Index
of the Symbolical Language of Scripture,"
under the word Flesh, we have this meaning:
"2. External appearance, condition, circum-
stances, character, &c.-John, vi. 63, The
flesh profiteth nothing.""†
There would be, however, no end, were I
to attempt giving you all the authorities on
this subject. I shall, therefore, content my-
self with referring you to the following
Protestant works:-Koppe, "Excursus ix.
in Epist. ad Galatas." Sartorius, "Dissertatio
theologica de Notione Vocis apg in N. T."
Tübingen, 1788. Storr, "Commentatio de
Vocum Carnis et Spiritus genuino Sensu."—
Ib. 1732. Schmid, "De Potestate Vocabulis
σαρκος
σаркos et πveνμaτos in N. T. subjecta."- Viteb.
1775. Roller, "De Vocum σap§ et ¬v. in
Pauli Ep. ad Galatas Sensu."-Zwic. 1778.
πνευματος
* "Introduction," vol. ii. p. 455, 7th ed.
+ Horne's "Introduction," vol. iv. p. 522.
N
178
LECTURE IV.
These terms are referred by Bendsten,
whom I have already quoted, as belonging
to the oriental philosophy.* And, in fact,
the learned Windischmann has pointed out a
strong analogy between the doctrines which
they contain, and the opinions of the Sankhja
theology.†
I might be allowed to dwell, after having
answered all objections, upon the variety of
interpretation into which Protestant divines
have necessarily run, in consequence of their
abandoning the literal sense. Hardly two
of them can be said to agree in their ex-
planation; and terms of condemnation suffi-
ciently harsh are used in their mutual
confutations. But I have been already so
diffuse, that I dare not detain you longer
upon this chapter, and must, therefore, omit
likewise, what would not be devoid of in-
terest-the exhibition of the laboured and
lengthy, and often not very intelligible,
paraphrases, by which they are compelled
to explain our Saviour's expressions.
* "Miscell. Hafn." ubi sup.
+ "Die Philosophie im Fortgang der Weltgeschichte.”
Erst. Th. 2 Buch. Bonn, 1832, p. 1889.
LECTURE IV.
179
One instance may suffice. Dr. Hampden,
in his "Inaugural Discourse," as Regius.
Professor of Divinity in the University of
Oxford, thus expresses himself:-"Our
Church, indeed, has rejected the fond notion
of transubstantiation, but does not, there-
fore, the less hold a real vital presence of
Christ in the Sacrament. The Church for-
bids our holding the doctrine of a corporal
presence, and yet does not presume to over-
look the strong words of Christ declaring
'this is my body,' 'this is my blood,' and,
'he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him;' and
will not therefore incur the impiety of
emptying this holy sacrament of its gifted
treasure of grace. And thus it is asserted
in the Catechism that the body and blood of
Christ are verily and indeed taken and re-
ceived by the faithful in the Lord's supper.
11
These words might furnish matter for
multiplied remarks, 1. Dr. Hampden applies
the sixth chapter of St. John to the Eucha-
rist; for he defends the faith of his Church
on the Lord's supper, by a quotation from it.
2. This quotation is strong enough to prove
* Page 14.
180
LECTURE IV.
a real presence, but yet does not prove
a corporal presence, which he tells us is
rejected by his Church. Now Jesus Christ
exists in the body, from which he is no more
separable. How words which prove his real
presence, anywhere, exclude his corporal or
bodily presence, it is not easy to understand.
3. This real presence, according to the learned
professor, is demonstrated by the assertion,
that the flesh and blood, the constituents of
a body, are there, and yet the real presence
differs from a corporal presence, or from the
presence of the body, whose flesh and blood
are there. 4. Christ is present, because he
said, "This is my body ;" and upon this we
are to ground a doctrine that Christ is there,
but not his body! 5. Where in Scripture is
this nice distinction drawn between a real,
vital presence, and a corporal presence.
I will conclude this subject by quoting the
opinions of a late Protestant philosopher in
our country, who was probably as deep a
divine as the Church of England has lately
possessed, but who unfortunately betrays,
when occasion occurs, as miserable an igno-
rance of our religion, and as narrow a pre-
judice against it, as would have disgraced
LECTURE IV.
181
"There is,
talents of a much lower order.
believe me, a wide difference between sym-
bolical and allegorical. If I say that the flesh
and blood (corpus noumenon) of the incarnate
word are power and life, I say likewise, that
this mysterious power and life are verily and
actually the flesh and blood of Christ. They
are the allegorizers, who term the 6th chap-
ter of the gospel according to St. John-the
hard saying, who can hear it? After which
time many of (Christ's) disciples, who had
been eye-witnesses of his mighty miracles,
who had heard the sublime morality of his
sermon on the Mount, had glorified God for
the wisdom which they had heard, and had
been prepared to acknowledge, 'this is indeed
the Christ,'-went back and walked no more
with him!-the hard sayings which even the
twelve were not yet competent to understand
further than that they were to be spiritually
understood; and which the Chief of the
Apostles was content to receive with an im-
plicit and anticipative faith !—they, I repeat,
are the allegorizers who moralize these hard
sayings, these high words of mystery, into a
hyperbolical metaphor per catachresin, that
only means a belief of the doctrines which
I
182
LECTURE IV.
"
Paul believed, an obedience to the law, re-
specting which Paul was blameless,' before
the voice called him on the road to Damascus !
What every parent, every humane preceptor,
would do when a child had inisunderstood a
metaphor or apologue in a literal sense, we
all know. But the meek and merciful Jesus
suffered many of his disciples to fall off from
eternal life, when to retain them, he had only
to say,-O ye simple ones! why are ye of-
fended! my words, indeed, sound strange;
but I mean no more than what you have often
and often heard from me before with delight
and entire acquiesence-Credat Judæus ;
Non ego."*
*
Coleridge, "Aids to Reflection.”
*
LECTURES
ON
THE REAL PRESENCE.
SECTION II.
EXAMINATION OF THE WORDS OF
INSTITUTION.
* |
}
A
I
I
1
#
2
1
•
1
WORDS OF INSTITUTION
OF THE
BLESSED EUCHARIST.
GREEK TEXT.
ΜΑΤ. XXVI. 26-28.
Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ
Ἰησοῦς τὸν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐλο-
γήσας, έκλασε, καὶ ἐδίδου
τοῖς μαθηταῖς, καὶ εἶπε· Λά-
βετε, φάγετε. ΤΟΥΤΟ
ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ ΣΩΜΑ ΜΟΥ.
Καὶ λαβὼν τὸ ποτήριον, καὶ
εὐχαριστήσας, ἔδωκεν αὐ-
τοῖς, λέγων· ΤΟΥΤΟ ΓΑΡ
ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ ΑΙΜΑ ΜΟΥ, τὸ
τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, τὸ περὶ
πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφε-
σιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
LUKE XXII. 19, 20.
Καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον, εὐχαρισ‐
τήσας ἔκλασε, καὶ ἔδωκεν
αὐτοῖς, λέγων, ΤΟΥΤΟ
ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ ΣΩΜΑ ΜΟΥ,
τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον·
τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν
ἀνάμνησιν. Ωσαύτως καὶ
τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὰ δειπνῆ-
σαι, λέγων· ΤΟΥΤΟ ΤΟ
ΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝ, Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ
ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, ΕΝ ΤΩΙ ΑΙ-
ΜΑΤΙΑ ΜΟΥ, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν
ἐκχυνόμενον.
MAR. XIV. 22-24.
Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λαβὼν
ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον, εὐλογήσας
ἔκλασε, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς,
καὶ εἶπε· Λάβετε, [φάγετε].
ΤΟΥ͂ΤΟ' ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ ΣΩΜΑ'
ΜΟΥ· καὶ λαβὼν τὸ ποτήριον,
εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς·
καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες,
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ΤΟΥΤΟ
ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ ΑΙΜΑ ΜΟΥ, τὸ
τῆς; [καινῆς] διαθήκης, τὸ
περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.
1 COR. XI. 23-25.
(Ἰησοῦς ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ
εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε, καὶ
εἶπε. [Λάβετε, φάγετε]
ΤΟΥΤΟ ΜΟΥ ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ
ΣΩΜΑ, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώ-
μενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, εἰς τὴν
ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Ωσαύτως
καὶ τὸ ποτήριον, μετὰ τὸ
δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· ΤΟΥΤΟ
ΤΟ ΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝ Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ
ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΕΝ ΤΩΙ
ΕΜΩΙ ΑΙΜΑΤΙ· τοῦτο ποιε-
ῖτε, ὁσάκις ἂν πίνητε εἰς τὴν
ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
The words in brackets are wanting in many manu-
scripts and ancient versions.
186
WORDS OF INSTITUTION.
VULGATE.
MATT. XXVI. 26-28.
Conantibus autem eis,
accepit Jesus panem,
et benedixit, ac fregit,
deditque discipulis suis,
et ait Accipite et
comedite; HOC EST
CORPUS MEUM. Et
accipiens calicem gra-
tias egit, et dedit illis
dicens; Bibite ex hoc
omnes. HIC EST ENIM
SANGUIS MEUS NOVI
TESTAMENTI, qui pro
multis effundetur in
remissionem ресса-
torum.
LUKE XXII. 19, 20.
Et accepto pane gratias
egit, et fregit, et dedit
eis, dicens ; HOC EST
CORPUS MEUM, quod
pro vobis datur; hoc
facite in meam com-
memorationem. Simi-
MAR. XIV. 22-24.
Et manducantibus illis
accepit Jesus panem,
et benedicens fregit,
et dedit eis, et ait:
Sumite, HOC EST COR-
PUS MEUM. Et accepto
calice gratias agens
dedit eis; et biberunt
ex illo omnes. Et ait
illis; HIC EST SANGUIS
MEUS NOVI TESTA-
MENTI, qui pro multis
effundetur.
1 COR. XI. 23-25.
(Jesus) accepit panem,
et gratias agens, fregit,
et dixit: Accipite et
manducate; HOC EST
CORPUS MEUM, quod
pro vobis tradetur; hoc
facite in meam com-
WORDS OF INSTITUTION.
187
liter et calicem post-
quam cœnavit, dicens ;
HIC CALIX NOVUM TES-
TAMENTUM EST IN SAN-
GUINE MEO, qui pro
vobis fundetur.
memorationem. Simi-
liter et calicem, post-
quam cœnavit, dicens ;
HIC CALIX NOVUM TES-
TAMENTUM EST IN MEO
SANGUINE. Hoc facite
quotiescumque bibetis
in meam commemo-
rationem.
VERSION AUTHORIZED BY THE
ENGLISH PROTESTANT CHURCH,
MATT. XXVI. 26-28.
And as they were eat-
ing, Jesus took bread,
and blessed it, and
brake it, and gave it to
the disciples, and said,
-Take, eat; THIS IS
MY BODY. And he
took the cup, and gave
thanks, and gave it to
them, saying: Drink
ye all of it; FOR THIS
IS MY BLOOD OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT,
which is shed for
many for the remis-
sion of sins.
MAR. XIV. 22-24.
And as they did eat,
Jesus took bread, and
blessed, and brake it,
and gave to them, and
said: Take, eat, THIS
IS MY BODY, And he
took the cup, and when
he had given thanks,
he gave it to them; and
they all drank of it.
And he said unto them,
THIS IS MY BLOOD OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT,
which is shed formany.
曩
​さ
​188
WORDS OF INSTITUTION.
+
E
LUKE XXII. 19, 20.
And he took bread, and
gave thanks, and brake
it, and gave unto them,
saying, THIS IS MY
BODY, which is given
for you; this do in re-
membrance of me.
Likewise, also, the cup
after supper, saying:
THIS CUP IS THE NEW
TESTAMENT- IN MY
BLOOD, which is shed
for you.
1 COR. XI. 23-25.
(Jesus) took bread; and
when he had given
thanks, he brake it, and
said: Take, eat; THIS
IS MY BODY, which is
broken for you; this
do in remembrance of
me. After the same
manner, also, he took
the cup when he had
supped, saying: THIS
CUP IS THE NEW TES-
TAMENT IN MY BLOOD;
this do ye as oft as ye
drink it in remem-
brance of me.
P
LECTURE V.
STATEMENT OF THE PROOF OF THE REAL PRESENCE
FROM THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION, MATT. XXVI. 26–
29; MARK XIV. 22-25; LUKE XXII. 19, 20; 1 COR.
XI. 23-26-STRONG DOGMATICAL GROUND OF THIS
ARGUMENT FROM THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT-ONUS PROBANDI THROWN UPON PROTESTANTS,
WHO ARE OBLIGED TO DEMONSTRATE TWO THINGS:
1. THAT THESE WORDS MAY BE TAKEN FIGURATIVELY;
2. THAT WE ARE OBLIGED SO TO TAKE THEM.
EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST POINT.
We have seen, at some length, the Blessed
Eucharist promised in the sixth chapter of
St. John; and the terms of this promise
demonstrated the Catholic doctrine of the
Real Presence; we must now examine the
history of its institution, and discover whether
the same doctrine be there taught.
You are aware that the history of this in-
stitution is given by the three first evan-
gelists, and by St. Paul in his first Epistle to
the Corinthians. The differences in their
190
LECTURE V.
narrations are so slight, that a very few
remarks will suffice to note them. From
the harmony which I have laid before you,
you at once perceive that the two first
Evangelists agree not only in substance, but
almost in every word. The only difference
consists in St. Mark's insertion of the paren-
thetic phrase in the 23rd verse," and they
all drank of it," and in his using a participial
form in the narrative. On the other hand,
St. Luke and St. Paul agree in a no less
remarkable manner, in some slight variations
from the other two. First, they both men-
tion the circumstance of the institution being
after supper; the reason of which seems to
be clearly to distinguish the sacramental cup
from the legal one which Christ divided.
among his apostles (Luke v. 17), of which
he had said he would no more drink. Se-
condly, both add to the words of consecra-
tion of the bread an important clause; St.
Luke having, “This is my body (тò vπèp vµŵv
didóμevov), which is given for you," and St.
Paul adding, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον, " which
is broken for you." Thirdly, both agree in
subjoining a clause commanding the com-
memorative repetition of the rite. St. Paul
LECTURE V.
191
alone repeats this clause after both the forms
of consecration. Fourthly, they both give
the words of institution for the cup in the
peculiar form, "This chalice is the New
Testament in my blood." It is manifest that
these varieties do not affect the substance of
the narrative. Two of the writers give ad-
ditional circumstances, and thus complete
the history. But it is no less manifest that
the expressions recorded by the two classes,
in relating the consecration of the cup, must
be considered quite synonymous; so that
"This cup is the New Covenant in my
blood," is equivalent to "this is my blood."
I will now cite you the words of St. Mat-
thew: any of these trifling differences which
our adversaries may consider opposed to our
interpretation will be examined as objections.
"And while they were at supper, Jesus
took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave
to his disciples, and said: Take ye and eat;
THIS IS MY BODY. And taking the chalice, he
gave thanks, and gave to them, saying:
Drink ye all of this; for THIS IS MY BLOOD Of
the New Testament, which shall be shed for
many for the remission of sins." Matt. xxvi.
26-28.
+
192
LECTURE V.
Before entering on the examination of
these important words, I think it right to
make a few remarks upon the higher dog-
matical ground on which we now stand. I
have not the slightest shadow of doubt upon
my mind, that the latter portion of the sixth
chapter of St. John refers to the Eucharist,
and demonstrates the Real Presence; but
for the proof drawn from the words of in-
stitution, we have a higher authority than
any hermeneutical reasoning can supply,-
the positive decree of the Council of Trent,
which expressly defined that they prove the
Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in
the adorable Sacrament." But regarding
the promise in St. John, the holy Synod
observed its usual caution, which proves
how far it was from merely seeking to
impose doctrines, without sufficient proof to
satisfy the conditions of our principle of faith.
For the functions of a general Council being
to define what the Church has always taught,
as such unanimity among the ancient Fathers
and among later divines was not discovered
as could meet the intensity of proof required,
it manifestly drew a distinction between th
*
* Sess. xiii. cap. 1.
LECTURE V.
193
two passages, and did not sanction the words
of promise with a formal dogmatical precision.
This was evidently shown in the twenty-first
Session, where the decree relating to com-
munion under one kind was framed. For,
in the contests with the Hussites, who urged
the necessity of all receiving the cup, upon
the strength of texts in Jo. vi., many Ca-
tholic divines, following the footsteps of
some among the Fathers, had denied that
the discourse related to the blessed Sacra-
ment. When, therefore, that decree was
drawn up, and that chapter was referred to,
. a clause was added to this effect: "utcumque
juxta varias Sanctorum Patrum, et doctorum
interpretationes intelligatur."* This clause
was introduced by the congregation appoint-
ed to prepare the decree, in consequence of
objections urged against it by Guerrero,
Archbishop of Grenada, on the ground that
the Council would thereby appear to define
that the chapter relates to the Eucharist.
Cardinal Seripandus, who presided, observed
that the question on this chapter being two-
fold, one on the use of the
n the use of the cup with heretics,
the other on the meaning of the chapter
* Sess. xxi. cap. 1.
0
194
LECTURE V.
n
between Catholics, it never was the intention
of the congregation to step in between the
parties of the latter difference, but only to
deny the consequences drawn by the former.*
The clause" utcumque" was then introduced.
Salmeron and Torres exerted themselves to
prevail on Cardinal Hosius, and other mem-
bers of the Council, whom Pallavicini enu-
merates, to have the clause expunged. They
were formally heard upon the subject, and
the following adjudication was given:
"Cum ea geminæ interpretationis opulentia
de S. Joannis testimonio Ecclesia frueretur,
quarum utraque probationem ab hæreticis
inde deductam impugnabat, ad unius tan-
tummodo paupertatem non esse redigendam."
The reasons given are, that the interpreta-
tion in question was not new, nor even so
modern as the controversies with the Bohe-
mians, and that many divines of name had
preferred it. Hence Estius expressly writes,
and other divines acknowledge, that there is
not the same strength in the proof drawn
* Pallavicini, "Vera Concilii Tridentini Historia,"
Antwerp, 1670, tom. iii. p. 64.
† Page 69.
LECTURE V.
195
from the discourse in St. John, as in the
words of institution.*
This controversy is important in many
respects. First, inasmuch as it proves how
false are the assertions commonly made, that
the Council blindly decreed whatever it
listed, without any consideration of grounds.
or arguments; since, so far from wishing,
at any cost, to seize upon a strong con-
firmatory proof, such as it might have drawn
from John vi., it prudently refrained from
defining anything regarding it, because the
tradition of the Church, however favour-
able, was not decided for it, as for the
other argument. Secondly, although when.
arguing with Protestants we waive the
authority of the Council and argue upon
mere hermeneutical grounds, and can sup-
port one proof on these as strongly as the
other, yet to the mind of the Catholic, who
receives his faith from the teaching of the
Church, the evidence of the dogma is in the
argument on which we are now entering,
* "Comment in IV. Libros Sentent." Par. 1696, p.
114. Jansenius of Ghent, "Commentar."
Commentar." ad loc.
Hawarden, "Church of Christ," vol. ii. p. 176.
196
LECTURE V.
and which has been pronounced by her
definitive on the subject.
This consideration must suffice to gain
your attention in favour of the important
matter which I am about to propose to your
consideration.
The argument from the words of institu
tion, strange as it may seem, is not so easy
to propose in an hermeneutical form, as that
from John vi., and that on account of its
extreme simplicity. We believe that the
body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly
and really present in the adorable Eucharist,
because, taking bread and wine, he who
was Omnipotent said, "This is my body,
this is my blood." Here is our argument:
and what can we advance, to prove a strict
accordance between our doctrine and that
of our Saviour, stronger and clearer, than
the bare enunciation of our dogma beside
the words which he used in delivering it?
"This is my body," says our Lord; “I
believe it to be thy body," replies the Catho-
lic: "This is my blood," repeats our Re-
deemer; "I believe it to be the figure of
thy blood," rejoins the Protestant. Whose
speech is here yea, yea? who saith amen
Į
LECTURE V.
197
to the teaching of Christ? Is it the Catholic
or the Protestant? You must plainly see
that we have nothing more or better to say
for ourselves than what Christ has already
said; and that our best argument consists
in the bare repetition of his sacred and
infallible words.
This, however, is not our only course of
argument; our opponents do not let us get
through the question on such easy terms.
So far are we from receiving any credit
for our absolute belief in Christ's words,
that we are generally greeted in no con-
ciliatory terms for our simple-hearted faith.
Dr. A. Clarke, whose work I shall now
have often to mention as the great armoury
of Protestants in this controversy, desig-
nates those who hold the Catholic belief on
the Real Presence, as "the most stupid of
mortals." On one occasion he says of us,
"He who can believe such a congeries of
absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer
in faith; for it is evident the man can have
neither faith nor reason. 99%
This is not very
* "A Discourse on the Nature, Institution, and De-
sign of the Holy Eucharist, commonly called the Sacra-
ment of the Lord's Supper," 2nd. ed. Lond, 1814. p. 51.
198
LECTURE V.
complimentary; but when I consider how
very parallel to these and such like expres-
sions are the taunts formerly cast by Julian
the Apostate and his fellows, on the Gali-
leans-the equivalent for Papists in ancient
controversy-because they believed a mere
man to be God, against the evidence of
their senses, on his bare word that he was
God, I own I feel not only comforted,
but proud at finding ourselves placed in a
situation so similar as our ancestors in
Christianity, with relation to our modern
adversaries. I could occupy you long by
extracts from Protestants, full of the most
ribald scurrility when speaking of this bles
sed institution. But considering them, as
we must do, at least ignorantly blasphemous,
I will not shock your ears, nor pollute my
lips, by repeating what can in no manner
strengthen their case with virtuous or sensible
men.
From what I have before remarked, it is
clear that we intrench ourselves behind the
strong power of our Saviour's words, and
calmly remain there till driven from our posi-
tion. The aggression must come from the
other side; and the trouble taken by its
LECTURE V.
199
divines to prove that our interpretation is in-
correct, sufficiently evinces that they are
aware of our strength.
But, before closing with them, or rather
meeting their aggression on this subject, I
deem it right first to give you one or two
specimens of the easy way in which it would
appear popular preachers and writers imagine
that their hearers or readers can be reasoned
into an opinion; and what a mean idea they
must have of the logical powers of those
who willingly drink in declamations against
our faith, I will take a specimen of a sermon
from one of a series, expressly delivered
on our doctrines, by select preachers at
Tavistock-place Chapel, not many years ago.
"We contend that we must understand the
words of [institution] figuratively; because,
first, there is no necessity to understand them
literally; and because it is morally impossible
that the disciples should have so understood
them. . . . . For, let me ask, what is more
common in all languages than to give to the
sign the name of the thing signified? If
you saw a picture, would you not call it by
the name of the person it represents? or if
you looked on a map, of a particular country,
200
LECTURE V.
would you not describe it by the name of that
country ?"*
This is truly the logic of determined
prepossession. What beautifully original
canons of hermeneutics is it not based upon!
Canon the first: A passage of Scripture
must be taken figuratively, unless we can
demonstrate a necessity for taking it literally.
Canon the second: It is morally impossible
that the apostles should have understood
certain words literally, because it is the
custom in all languages (sometimes) to call
signs by the name of things signified. Canon
the third There is no difference between
one sign and another. Bread is as natural,
obvious, and intelligible a representation of
a person's body, as a portrait is of a person's
countenance, or a map is of a country; so
that I should be no more unintelligible if I
took a morsel of bread and said, "This is
my body," than if, pointing to a portrait, 1
said, "This is my father;" but both would
be understood with equal facility. On this
point I shall have occasion to speak more at
length hereafter.
:
*"On the Administration of the Lord's Supper," by
the Rev. D. Ruell, p. 15.
LECTURE V.
201
We have a similar departure from all the
plainest principles of interpretation in another
popular author, whom I have so often quoted
to you, and shall have to quote still oftener
in this and the following lectures, Mr.
Hartwell Horne. He writes that the Ca-
tholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is
"erected upon a forced and literal construc-
tion of our Lord's declaration."* I much
doubt whether on any other occasion an in-
terpretation was honoured with such incom-
patible epithets as these two. The same
meaning, at once forced and literal! It is
as though you said in morals, that an action
was spontaneous and compulsory: the one
annihilates the other. Who ever heard in
law such an application of contradictory
terms to the same object? Who ever heard
that the literal construction of a statute
could be considered forced? Surely into no
argument except a controversial one, would
such logical errors and such flagrant incon-
sistencies be allowed to enter.
But, while popular preachers and writers
may thus set at defiance the rules of logic and
* “Introduction,” vol. ii. p. 373, 6th ed. In the 7th
ed. p. 448.
202
LECTURE V.
hermeneutics, calculating, perhaps, on the
veil of blindness which prepossession may
cast over their hearers' or readers' eyes, more
learned and sensible Protestant writers are
far from considering their figurative inter-
pretation of these texts a matter of such easy
and simple demonstration. Listen to the
following observations of Dr. Paley; "I think
also that the difficulty arising from the
conciseness of Christ's expression, 'This is
my body,' would have been avoided in a
made-up story." Why so, if it be as natural
as calling a picture by the name of him it
represents? What difficulty is there in this
proceeding? "I allow," he continues, "that
the explanation of these words, given by
Protestants, is satisfactory; but it is deduced
from a diligent comparison of the words in
question, with forms of expression used in
Scripture, and especially by Christ on other
occasions. No writer would have arbitrarily
and unnecessarily cast in his reader's way a
difficulty, which, to say the least, it required
research and erudition to clear up.'
99**
This candid admission of a learned man
“Evidences of Christianity,” part ii. chap. iii. vol. ii.
p. 90. Edinb. 1817.
LECTURE V.
203
throws the strength of the argument com-
pletely into our hands. It follows that ours
is the simple and obvious mode of interpret-
ing, and the Protestants have to prove theirs,
by research and erudition, and by the allega-
tion of other passages in its justification.
Later, I shall have occasion to show you one
or two specimens of the strange erudition by
which some of them have thought necessary
to establish their interpretation.
But, on the other hand, if we prove all
this erudition and research to have been
fruitless, if we show that not one of the
arguments brought by them to uphold their
explanation is valid and sound, then, upon
Dr. Paley's showing, I say it follows no less,
that their explanation is not satisfactory, and
that they can make out no case against us.
Hitherto we have been occupied in taking
up our position. We have intrenched our-
selves in the letter of the text, and our more
sensible adversaries have acknowledged that
the offensive warfare must be undertaken by
them. I must now point out to you their
strongest plan of attack, and our most certain
means of repelling it. The most plausible, or
rather the only satisfactory course which our
204
LECTURE V.
adversaries can take, is the following:-First,
to prove that the words of institution may
be taken figuratively; secondly, to demon-
strate that, to avoid absurdities or falsehoods,
or at least great difficulties, we are compelled
to adopt this figurative interpretation. This,
I conceive, is the only line of argument by
which a Protestant theologian could make
good his explanation. It is followed by most,
though not always in the exact order I have
given. Thus, the controversial orator whom
I quoted, goes on to give a well-known
passage from Dr. A. Clarke, which will be
presently examined, in order to prove that
our Saviour's expressions may be taken figu-
ratively, and then demonstrates the necessity
of doing so, in the following terms:-" But
we are compelled to understand these words
figuratively, secondly, because the literal
meaning leads to direct contradictions and
gross absurdities."* You will be pleased to
remember that the first of his compulsory
arguments for taking the words figuratively,
was, that there was no necessity for taking
them literally. The same plan is followed
by others.
* Sermon, &c. p. 17.
LECTURE V.
205
Such, then, is likewise our twofold task.
First, we must examine the arguments where-
by our apponents endeavour to prove that the
words of institution will bear a metaphorical
interpretation, and this will occupy our at-
tention this evening. In my next lecture
I will proceed to discuss the question whether
we are compelled by philosophical or prac-
tical difficulties to recur to a figurative ex-
planation.
To prove the first point, the following is
the system ordinarily followed: to produce
a number of passages from Scripture, and
from other writers where "to be" evidently
signifies "to represent;" and from these it
is concluded, that we can as well understand
the verb here in the same sense. This is the
method to which Dr, Paley alludes in the
passage I have just quoted, and it is that
used by almost every Protestant author on
the subject. Mr. Faber, to whom I shall
allude more distinctly just now, has reasoned
precisely in the same manner. But Dr. A.
Clarke has accumulated this sort of passages
together, in one heap,* and I suppose may
be considered as approved of by modern
writers of his way of thinking, as he is
* Ubi sup. p. 52.
}
206
LECTURE V.
quoted and copied by them word for word.*
In fact, his list is sufficiently complete, if the
argument be worth anything at all. If the
passages collected already, and here brought
together, do not suffice to prove that the
words of institution may be taken figura-
tively, no further discovery will prove it;-
not to say that these texts are the only
ground on which till now this figurative in-
terpretation has been held by Protestants.
As the passages in question are confusedly
heaped together by Clarke and his copyists,
I find it necessary to sift them, and reduce
them to some arrangement. For the same
answers do not apply exactly to all, and we
shall gain in clearness by the separation of
such incongruous materials. I shall be care-
ful, however, not to omit one text. I dis-
tribute them, therefore as follows:-
1st Class.-1. Gen. xli. 26, 27, "The seven
good kine ARE seven years." Dan. vii, 24,
"The ten horns ARE ten kingdoms." Mat.
xiii. 38, 39, “The field is the world; the good
seed is the children of the kingdom; the tares
ARE the children of the wicked one. The
enemy is the devil; the harvest Is the end of
* Ruell, ubi sup.; Horne. ubi sup.
LECTURE V.
207
the world; the reapers ARE the angels." 1 Cor.
x. 4, "And the rock was Christ." Gal. iv.
24, "For these ARE the two covenants."
Apoc. i. 20. "The seven stars are the angels
of the seven churches."
2. Jo. x. 7, “I AM the door;" xv. 1, “I am
the true vine.”
3. Gen. xvii. 10, "This is my covenant
between thee and me," speaking of circum-
cision.
4. Exod. xii. 11, "This is the Lord's pass-
over."
The texts composing the first class can
alone cause us the slightest difficulty; I will
show you that all the others are nothing at
all to the purpose.
I. The only way in which these texts can
be brought to illustrate the words of institu
tion, is by adducing them as parallel passages;
and as such Mr. Horne has brought them.
For he thus concludes his argument:-"It
is evident, therefore, from the context, from
parallel passages, and the scope of the pas-
sage, that the literal interpretation of Mat.
xxvi. 26, 28, must be abandoned." My con-
futation will therefore consist in simply
proving that they are not parallel.
1. The question in dispute is whether is
208
LECTURE V.
in our case is to be taken figuratively, or
may be taken figuratively in the words of
institution; and our adversaries bring a
number of passages where it is so taken.
But, on the other hand, I can bring them
some thousands of passages where the verb
"to be" is taken literally. If, therefore,
they choose to take those passages as parallel,
and reject mine, they must show some pecu-
liarity in the words in question, which
detaches them from the great mass of pas-
sages where "to be" occurs, and associates
them with the few, where it bears a certain
peculiar sense. Yet this they have never
attempted to do.
2. To examine the matter a little more
closely, let us see what it is that constitutes
parallelism between two passages, and autho-
rizes us to illustrate one from the other. I
am willing to take Mr. Horne's own rule.
"Whenever the mind is struck with any re-
semblance, in the first place consider whether
it is a true resemblance, and whether the
passages are sufficiently similar; that is,
not only whether the same word, but also the
same thing, answers together, in order to form
a safe judgment concerning it. It often.
happens that one word has several distinct
LECTURE V.
209
"
meanings, one of which obtains in one place,
and one in another. When, therefore, words
of such various meanings present them-
selves, all those passages where they occur
are not to be immediately considered as
parallel, unless they have a similar power.
This rule is only a translation from Ernesti,
whose words are even clearer: "Proximum
erit considerare, an vera similitudo sit, satis-
que similia sint loca, hoc est, an sit in utra-
que eadem res, non modo verbum idem.”
Upon which words Ammon adds this pithy
commentary: "Tenendum itaque similitu-
dinem rei non verbi parere parallelismum."†
The same is the opinion of the best writers.
on Hermeneutics. Jahn thus defines verbal
parallelisms: "Parallela dicuntur loca, quæ
a se invicem quidem distant, similia tamen
sunt, quia eædem voces aut phrases in similia
orationis contextu atque eodem significatu
occurrunt." Not to multiply authorities,
Arigler's definition is couched in equivalent
terms: "Ejusmodi jam vero loca, quæ de
eadem re tractant, dicuntur loca parallela.Ӥ
Such, then, is the rule given by Mr.
+ Ernesti Instit. p. 61.
* Horne, ubi sup. p. 308.
‡ "Appendix Hermeneut." p. 81.
§ "Hermeneut. Biblica," p. 181.
P
210
LECTURE V.
Horne, in common with other writers, that
to constitute a parallelism between two texts,
so as to be warranted in illustrating one by
the other, it is not sufficient that the words
and phrases be alike, but that from the
context, or other circumstances, a resem-
blance of things can be pointed out. Before,
therefore, the Protestant can have a right to
explain the words, "This is my body," by
"The field is the world," it is not sufficient
for him to show me that the word is occurs
in both, but that the same thing or object
is intended.
I will illustrate the rule by a case in point.
In my former lectures, I proved by the
examination of many passages of the New
Testament, that, judging from our Saviour's
conduct, the Jews must have been right
when they understood his words, "The
bread which I will give, is my flesh for the
life of the world," in their plain literal
sense. The passages which I brought, I
cited as parallel passages. Well, I did not
content myself with merely showing that
there was a similarity of words, as that
Christ in all the cases began his reply by
"Amen, amen;" or that Nicodemus an-
swered like the Jews, "How can a man be
LECTURE V.
211
born again?" but I examined the facts of
the different cases, and saw that Jesus spoke
in a peculiar manner, and that the Jews,
understanding his words rightly, objected,
and that he invariably, when they were right,
replied by repeating the obnoxious phrase.
Then, seeing that, his conduct was the re-
verse when they erroneously took his figu-
rative expressions literally, and thereupon
objected, I concluded that the former class
of passages, wherein the same thing, the res
eadem, occurred, were to be considered
parallel, and the latter not.
Let us take another example from the
same source. I contended that "the spirit
which quickeneth" could not signify the
spiritual or figurative meaning of Christ's
words, but simply the agency of grace and
the Holy Ghost in man, or man spiritualized
by their influence. I did not prove this by
simply showing you that "the spirit" some-
times means this; but I demonstrated by
many examples, and by the concurrent ac-
knowledgment of scholars, that whenever
the flesh and the spirit are contrasted to-
gether, which they are in the text in question,
they have an invariable meaning-the one
* See above, p. 117.
212
LECTURE V.
which I gave them. This union of the two
in contrast forms the fact, the thing, which
authorizes the admission of a parallelism;
and in addition I pointed out to you, in the
passage, from the Epistle to the Romans, the
very same thing said of the spirit and the
flesh, as occurs in the text then under dis-
cussion; namely, the living, or quickening
power of the one, and the deadly unprofit-
ableness of the other.
These, then, were instances of true parallel-
isms, founded on similarity or identity of
things, and not of words. Now, then, let
us apply Mr. Horne's rule, so illustrated,
to the texts under our consideration. The
rule is, that the same thing must be found
in the texts, for us to be justified in con-
sidering them parallel. In fact, this is the
case with regard to all the texts of the first
class; they are strictly parallel one with
another.
To place this point beyond controversy,
let us take an instance. If I desire to illus-
trate the phrase (Gen. xli. 26), "The seven
good kine are seven years," by Mat. xiii. 38,
“The field is the world," or both these by
Gal. iv. 24, "For these are the two covenants,"
LECTURE V.
213
I am fully justified in doing so, and in con-
sidering the passages as perfectly parallel;
because the context in all three demonstrates
to me that the same thing exists in all;
namely, the explanation of a symbolical in-
struction, in one instance, a vision, in another
a parable, in the third an allegory. But then
it follows, likewise, that in order to thrust
the words "this is my body" into the same
category, and treat them as parallel, we must
show them also to contain the same thing
(which every single instance in the first class
of texts does show)-the explanation of a
symbolical instruction. Till this be done,
there is no parallelism established.
3. This argument receives still greater
strength, from observing that, in no one of
the instances heaped together by our oppo-
nents, are we left to conjecture that an ex-
planation of symbols is meant to be conveyed,
but the context in each expressly informs us
of the circumstance. This is evident of the
examples from Joseph, Daniel, and our
Saviour; for they are clearly said to be giving
or receiving interpretations. St. Paul to the
Galatians is equally careful to let us see the
same; for this is his entire sentence: "Which
214
LECTURE V.
things are an allegory; FOR these are the two
covenants." After the expression, "the rock
was Christ," he is careful to add (v. 6.),
"now these things were done in figure of us;"
and in the very sentence he tells us that it
was a spiritual rock whereof he spoke. In
fine, the instance from the Apocalypse is
equally explicit: "Write down the things
which thou hast seen . . . . the mystery [alle-
gory or symbol*] of the seven stars .... and
seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars
ARE the angels of the seven churches." And
with passages so explained by the very wri-
ters, it is pretended to compare the simple.
narrative, "Jesus took bread, and blessed,
and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said,
Take ye and eat: this is my body!"
4. But I must urge this reply still more
home to our adversaries by retorting their
own argument against themselves, in the
person of a Socinian. In the very beginning
of his gospel, St. John says, "The Word was
* I have proved this meaning of μvorηpiov, drawn
from the signification of the corresponding Syriac word
lil rozo, on another occasion. See "Hora Syriaca.”
າ ;
vol. i. Rome, 1828, p. 41. Consult Eichhorn's "Com-
ment. in Apocalyp." Gotting, 1791, tom. ii. p. 206.
LECTURE V.
215
God." This has always been considered, by
Protestants as well as Catholics, a strong
argument for the divinity of Christ. Now
the entire force of the argument rests upon
the little word was. So important is this
syllable, that, to evade its force, Photinus
thought it necessary to separate it from the
following word, and read καὶ Θεὸς ἦν. Ὁ
λoyos OUTOS, &c. ;* Crellius, on the contrary,
wished to read eeoû, the Word was of God.t
But, how useless is all this torture inflict-
ed upon the text, after the simple process.
of reasoning which Protestants have em-
ployed against us, with such satisfaction
to themselves.
Mr. Faber, doubtless one of the most
strenuous and most ingenious of our modern
antagonists, has chosen one text out of the
mass of passages commonly collected, as
particularly to the purpose in proving that
the Eucharistic formulas may have been
ઃઃ
* "S. Ambrose. in Procem. Luc." Rom. 1579, tom.
iii. p. 5.
"Auctor. Quæstion. in Vet. et Nov. Test."
in Appendix iii, tom. Opp. S. Aug. ed. Maur. p. 82.
+ See Bengel, Apparatus criticus," Tübing. 1763,
p. 214; Christ. Ben. Michaelis, "Tractatio critica de
variis. Lectt. N.T. caute colligendis," Hala, 1749, p.
18; Wetstein, ad. Jo. i. 1.
216
LECTURE V.
"
used in a figurative sense. For he thus
writes: "Christ does not more explicitly
say of the bread and wine This is my body,'
and This my blood,' than St. Paul says of
the rock whereof the Israelites drank in the
wilderness, And the rock was Christ.'"*
Well, now, let us take this very text and
compare it with the words of institution, on
one side, and with the first verse of St. John,
and see which it most resembles, to which
it is more parallel. I write it thus between
them:-
"The word was God,"
"The rock was Christ,"
"This is my body."
Now tell me which have we most right.
to consider parallel. The construction of
the two first is, word for word, identical;
certainly much more so than that of the two
last; and if parallelism have to depend only
upon similarity of phrase, and if Protestants
have a right to interpret the words "This is
my body" by the help of "The rock was
Christ," then, I say, the Socinian has an
equal right to interpret the phrase "The
i
* "Difficulties of Romanism," Lond. 1826, p. 58.
LECTURE V.
217
Word was God," by the very same parallel-
ism, and explain it by "The word represent-
ed God." Nay, I will say he has a far
greater right, not only because the parallelism
is more complete, but because he could
bring other passages of Scripture to support
it, where it is expressly said that the Word,
or Christ, was the image or representative of
God; "Christ, who is the image of God;"*
"who is the image of the invisible God;"†
whereas Protestants cannot pretend to bring
a single passage where it is expressly said,
that bread is the image or representation of
the body of Christ.
Yet has no Socinian ever thought of such
a course of reasoning, and such principles of
interpretation, too absurd to be used except
in contest with Catholics. And if any of
them had brought it forward, what answer
would Protestants have given? Why they
would have replied, and replied triumph-
antly, that the two texts, "The Word was
God," and "The rock was Christ," could
not for a moment be compared, because a
mere similarity of collocation in the words
does not constitute parallelism; but that to
† Coloss. i. 15.
2 Cor. iv. 4.
218
LECTURE V.
establish this, a similarity of circumstances
is required; that while St. Paul is mani-
festly interpreting an allegory, the words of
St. John stand independent of any such.
circumstance, nor is there anything in the
context that denotes his wish to be figura-
tively understood. Now, all this we can say
to our adversaries when they attempt to
establish a parallelism between the words of
institution and the phrases adduced; what-
ever they deny to the Socinian, they grant
to us; whatever they take from us, they
give in argument to the Socinian.
5. These phrases differ materially from ours
in point of construction. For in all of them,
except the one from St. Paul's Epistle to the
Galatians, there is a definite subject which
is said to be something else; as the rock is
said to be Christ, horns are said to be kings.
Now we know that two material objects
cannot be identical; and therefore we are
compelled to fly, by a positive repugnance
and contradiction, to another sense. In fact,
according to the philosophy of language,
there are two ways of considering these
sentences both of which save the logical
consistency of the idea, and yet preserve to
LECTURE V.
219
the verb substantive its true determinate
meaning. The first is, to consider one of
the objects mentioned, or the predicate, in
the form of an adjective epithet; that is, as
the concrete expression of the qualities which
belong to the other. As though one should
say, "The rock was Christlike," the name
Christ being the complete enunciation of the
qualities meant to be attributed to the rock.
And, in this manner of conception, the verb
"to be" keeps its own determinate signifi-
cation expressive of identity. A second
way of analyzing these passages, is to con-
sider the subject as specifically modified by
the circumstances of the occasion, so as to
be deprived of that material quality which
defies identity with another object. In other
words, "the rock" means not the material
rock, but, as St. Paul himself describes it,
"the spiritual rock which followed them;"
that is, an ideal rock, which was symbolized in
the material one, and which was truly Christ.
Here again "to be" has its genuine power, and
expresses identity; the substitution of the
idea or phrase "represents," is an act of our
limited minds, unable to grasp the pure ideal
expression.
220
LECTURE V.
But, to come down to more intelligible
ideas; it is obviously necessary to fly from
the literal meaning of texts which represent
two material objects as identical; which
every one of those alleged, excepting one,
does in its ordinary acceptation. But we
have no reason for this change, where one
term is left vague and indefinite, and has no
subjective existence till the other confers it.
For Christ does not say "Bread is my body,"
"Wine is my blood," which, in point of con-
struction, would have brought these words
within a posibility of a comparison with the
"Seven kine are seven years," or, "The
horns are kings." But he says, "This is my
body," "This is my blood." The THIS is
nothing but the body and the blood; it re-
presents nothing, it means nothing, till iden
tified at the close of the sentence, with the
substances named.
This is even more marked in the original
Greek than in our language; because the
distinction of genders shows clearly that the
bread is not indicated, but only a vague
something, to be determined by the remainder
of the sentence. In this manner, the motive
or reason which in those texts drives us from
LECTURE V.
221
the literal sense, as involving a contradiction,
does not exist here, and consequently we
cannot consider this as parallel with them.
But even the one text which I seemed
just now to except,-"these are the two
covenants," affords no real ground of resem-
blance in construction. For the translation
is not accurate; but should be, "these per-
sons," or "they." For the Greek has not
the mere demonstrative pronoun as in our
text, but the strictly personal demonstrative
pronoun.
Αὗται γάρ εἰσι δύο διαθήκαι, - « For
they are two covenants:" that is, Agar and
Sarah, of whom St. Paul is speaking. Hence
it is manifest that the pronoun represents the
two persons, and is not indefinite as in our
text, where its determination is only fixed by
the substantives which succeed, σῶμα, αἷμα;
body and blood.
6. Even supposing that the hypothesis or
opinion of Protestants could be substantiated
aliunde, that Christ meant only to institute
a symbolical or representative rite, yet would
not these texts be available as parallel pas-
sages, for they all refer to the explanation of
a symbol, and not to the institution of one.
This is a very different thing, and conse-
222
LECTURE V.
quently the two passages brought into com-
parison contain not the same fact or thing.
After having thus seen that no argument
can be drawn in favour of the Protestant in-
terpretation from this first class of texts, let
us proceed to the succeeding ones, in every
one of which I deny that "to be" can be at
all rendered by "to represent." If, there-
fore, nothing can be done against us by those
texts, in which we allow that the substitution
can be made, how much less, or rather how
completely nothing, is to be effected by those
where it is inadmissible.
II. In the second class, I have placed two
texts commonly mixed up with the prece-
ding: "I am the door, I am the vine."
Christ, we are told, is not really the vine or
door, but only figuratively; so, in like man-
ner, is the Eucharist not his body, except in
figure. I assert that these passages can
boast of no parallelism with the words
of institution. And for the following
reasons:-
1. Because all that I have already said
concerning the other texts, as clearly in-
forming us by their historical context, that
a parable is delivered, holds good here.
LECTURE V.
223
Our Saviour goes on, by a series of com-
parisons, to show us how he is the door and
the vine; to all which there is nothing cor-
responding in the history of the Eucharist.
2. The necessity of avoiding the literal
construction, on the ground of identity being
predicated of two distinct objects, is the
same here as in the former class of pas-
sages.
3. "To be" here does not mean to "re-
present;" for, if you make the substitution,
you have these propositions, "I represent
the door, I am a figure of a vine." This,
most certainly, is not our Lord's meaning,
who did not intend to demean himself into
a symbol or figure of material objects. In
fact, he evidently meant to say, "I resemble
the door, I am like a vine."
4. But this is a very different idea from
the other, and is, in truth, admissible in
every language, while the other is not. If
I say
"Achilles was a lion," everybody
understands me; because the two not being
by possibility identical, usage tells me that I
mean he was "like a lion." But if, pointing
to a lion, I should say, "This is Achilles,'
you might conclude that Achilles was the
""
224
LECTURE V.
animal's name, but never that I meant to say
it symbolizes the hero. To be understood
in this sense, I must say,
"That is a fit
emblem or type of Achilles."
5. In like manner, had our divine Sa-
vióur said, pointing to a vine, "That is I,”
or, "That is my body," the expressions
would have borne some resemblance; but,
when he says that he is the vine, the usages.
of language, founded on necessity, make us
recur to the idea of resemblance between
the two objects; especially when a long con-
text elaborately enumerates the points of
resemblance.
Nor can it be said that the conclusion is
the same, if we interpret the Eucharistic
words in the same manner, by "this re-
sembles my body and blood;" because a
declaration of similarity does not constitute
a type or commemorative symbol. This is a
matter of positive institution, nor would
Protestants presume to ground their ordi-
nance of the Lord's Supper on nothing more
than similarity. This would be as bad as
Wetstein's resolution of this point, when he
says, "We can easily understand how red
wine could signify blood; but it is not easy
LECTURE V.
225
to understand what resemblance exists be-
tween the human body and bread. It might
be answered that a bloodless corpse, as that
of one dead on a cross, is as dry as bread;
and then that the body of Christ, mystically
considered as the flesh of sacrifice, nourishes
the mind, as bread does the body.
11%
Let us pass on to the third class.
III. The passage which I have placed in
it, "This is my covenant between me and
thee," is no more applicable to the present
case.
1. Circumcision, of which this text speaks,
was indeed a sign of God's covenant with
his people; but then God was careful to let
his people know this. He is not content
with telling them that it is his covenant, and
leaving them to conjecture or argue that this
meant a sign of his covenant, for in the very
verse following, he adds, " And ye shall cir-
cumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it
shall be a sign or token of the covenant be-
tween me and you." But are these two verses
identical in meaning, and is the second only
an explanation of the first; so that is really
corresponds to "represent?" Certainly not.
* In loc. Nov. Test, p. 519.
226-
LECTURE V.
་་
2. Because, secondly, circumcision was, at
all events, not merely the symbol or emblem,
but actually the instrument whereby the
covenant between God and his people was
at once executed and recorded. It was,
according to the established law of every
language and country, the treaty itself. If
I present any one with a writing or book,
and say to him, "This is the treaty of
Amiens, or Tolentino, or Westphalia," every
one must understand me to mean the instru-
ment or act of treaty. But if the book
contained nothing more than a symbolical
drawing of a treaty, for instance, two hands
joined together, I should have been com-
pletely misunderstood; for no one could
have conjectured this to be my meaning.
In the former sense, was circumcision
not a bare and empty symbol, but an ef-
fective representative, that which formed
the covenant, and recorded upon each
individual his personal comprehension under
its. provisions, and his accession to it as
a holder of its promises. Therefore,
"this is my covenant between me and
thee," signifies much more than, "this is
the sign of my covenant;" to wit, this is
W
LECTURE V.
227
"the act of my covenant;" taking the word
"act" in both its meanings, of its execu-
tion and its record. This interpretation is
fully borne out by. what follows (v. 13):
"He who is born in thy house, and he that
is bought with thy money, must needs be
circumcised; and my covenant shall be in
your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
3. Satisfactory, however, as these answers
are, and perfectly in harmony with each
other, I am led, by a more minute exami-
nation of Scripture phraseology, to adopt a
third, which does not, however, in any way
disturb the correctness of all I have asserted.
I have no hesitation in saying, that the verb
is must here be taken quite literally, and the
pronoun this referred not to circumcision or its
idea, but to the latter member of the sentence.
"This is my covenant which ye shall keep
between me and thee. . . . . . every male child
among you shall be circumcised." As if one
said, "This is our agreement, you shall pay
me a hundred pounds," I presume no one
would hesitate to refer the pronoun to the
condition proposed. The idea of is meaning
to represent, would never have entered into
any one's head in either proposition, except in
228
LECTURE V.
a controversial argument. I have said that
I noways doubt this to be the true mean-
ing.
-
First, because I see that, as in the follow-
ing verse, so in every other place, a sign of
a covenant is clearly styled such, and no
encouragement is given elsewhere by Scrip-
ture to this Protestant interpretation. Thus,
in Gen. ix. 12, 13, 17, the rainbow is not
called a covenant, but thrice distinctly named
the sign or token of the covenant.
Secondly, whenever the words, "this is
my covenant" occur in Scripture, they refer
to the second member of the sentence, in
which the covenant is described. Thus Is.
lix. 21, “ This is my covenant with them,” saith
the Lord; my spirit which is upon thee,
and my words which I have put in thy
mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth,"
&c.; Jer. xxi. 33, " And this is the covenant
which I will make with the house of Israel;
after those days, saith the Lord, I will put
my law in their interior," &c.; 1 Sam. xi. 2,
according to the original, "In this will I
make a covenant with you, in boring out
your right eyes." This is further confirmed
by the analogous and parallel forms: "this
LECTURE V.
229
is what the Lord hath commanded ;"*"this
is what the Lord hath said;"+"this shall be
an everlasting statute to you;" "this shall
be a statute for ever unto them."§
In all these, and in similar phrases,
reference is clearly made to what is proposed
in the other member of the sentence. Now,
in fact, no one has ever dreamt of inter-
preting these passages by, "this is a figure
of my covenant," or "a figure of my sta-
tute;" and, consequently, in the objected
passage, there is no reason whatever to render
it similarly. On the contrary, it is evident
by the real parallelism of these quotations,
where not only the same words are used, but
the same things expressed, that it ought and
must be explained in these terms: "the
following is my covenant between thee and
me, that every male child among you shall
be circumcised."
IV. We come finally to the passage occu-
pying the fourth class, which possesses an
interest quite independent of its real value.
"This is the Lord's passover." This text,
you are doubtless aware, was considered by
* Exod. xvi. 16.
Levit. xvi. 34.
+ Ib. 23.
§ Ib. xvii. 7, where the proposition precedes,
230
LECTURE V.
Zwinglius the ægis of his figurative inter-
pretation, and the discovery of it was
esteemed by him a complete triumph. For
he himself tells us, that he made little or no
impression upon his hearers with other texts,
because in them all, it was evident, as I have
shown you at full, that parables or allegories
are treated. The history of his discovery
you shall have in his own words.
"The
attempt yet remained, and it was not the
least, to produce examples which should not
be joined to parables. We began, there-
fore, to think over everything; but no ex-
amples came to mind except what were in
the Commentary, or resembled them. But
when the thirteenth day approached,-I
relate a true occurrence, and so true, that
my conscience obliges me to manifest (when
I desire to conceal it), what the Lord com-
municated to me, knowing to what contumely
and laughter I shall expose myself:-when,
then, the 13th of April was come, I appeared
to myself again to be contending in my sleep
with my adversary the Scribe,* with great
annoyance; and unable to utter what I knew
* The defendant of the Catholic doctrine before the
Senate of Zurich against Henry Engelhardt, mentioned
LECTURE V.
231
to be true, because my tongue refused to do
its office. I was troubled as men are in
deceitful dreams (for I relate nothing more
than a dream as far as I am concerned,
though what I learnt in the dream was not,
through God's favour, of light moment, for
whose glory I relate it), when opportunely,
a monitor appeared to be present (whether
he were black or white, I do not remember,
for I relate a dream), who said, 'You coward,
why do you not answer him, that in Exod.
xii. is written, it is the Pasch, that is, the
Passover of the Lord?' As soon as this
phantom appeared, I awake and leap up
from bed; I examine well the passage in
the Septuagint, and preach to the assembly
about it."*
There is much to remark in this statement.
One does not know, after reading it, whether
to consider the writer a mad enthusiast, or
little better than an idiot. It is scarcely possi-
ble to understand the motives which impelled
him to publish this disgraceful narrative, in
before. Of him, too, Zwinglius says, "Qui albus an
ater sit, non est hujus instituti dicere."
*(
Operum Huldrichi Zuinglii," 2ª pars, Tigur. 1581,
p. 249. Subsidium seu Coronis de Eucharistia.
232
LECTURE V.
spite of his own better feelings. The best
criterion for ascertaining whether the spirit,
if any, who suggested this palmary argu-
ment against us was a true or lying one, is
to see whether the argument he suggested
was correct or false; and, if we find that the
text is nothing on earth to the purpose, I
think we may determine the character of its
suggestor; if, indeed, the incoherences of a
raver deserve such credit. At any rate, we
must compassionate the poor burghers of
Zurich who allowed themselves to be cheated
out of their belief in the Catholic dogma,
with all its consolations and all its charms, by
a misapplication of a Scripture text. For
Zwinglius adds, that the discovery of this
wonderful text on the 13th of April achieved
their conviction!
1. I say, then, in the first place, that if the
words in question signify "this represents
the passover," the many ceremonies and pe-
culiar rites prescribed in eating the paschal
lamb, of which they were spoken, were of a
character to prepare the Jews for a symboli-
cal explanation of them.
2. Again, granting the point at issue, that
the paschal sacrifice is called "the Lord's
LECTURE V.
233
passover," meaning that it was only its sym-
bol, this might be a figure easily allowed;
because it was familiar to the Hebrews to
call sacrifices by the name of the object
for which they were offered. Thus, a peace-
offering and a sin-offering are known in
Hebrew by the simple designation of peace
and sin. This, in fact, was so usual as to
have given rise to several peculiar images,
as, Osee, iv. 8, where the priests are said
"to eat the sins of the people;" and 2 Cor.
v. 21, where St. Paul says of God, "Him
who knew no sin, for us he hath made sin;"
that is, an oblation for sin. In like manner,
therefore, the sacrifice of the Lord's passover
might by the same familiar image, be called
his passover. But there is no trace of any
such usage in regard to bread being the
image or type of Christ's body.
3. But, in fact, these remarks are almost
needless; for, as I have before intimated,
the text, from its very construction, is in
nowise applicable to the matter under dis-
cussion, inasmuch as the verb "to be" does not
here signify" to represent," but purely what
it sounds. A very simple and natural trans-
lation, proposed by Dr. Trevern, if admitted,
234
LECTURE V.
makes this evident; that is, the referring
of "this" to the day or festival. It would
then no more mean "this is a figure of the
Lord's passover," than "this is Easter-day"
means that it is a figure of that holiday.* I
am satisfied that this is nearly the sense,
with this difference, that, instead of under-
standing "day," we may make the de-
monstrative pronoun refer to the repast or
sacrifice just described.
But there is an important circumstance in
the grammatical construction of this pas-
sage, noticed by modern commentators, which
fairly removes all doubt, as the inapplica-
bility of this text to the illustration of the
Eucharistic formulas, by proving that the
verb has its native signification. Rosen-
müller has observed, that in the original it
is not "the passover or pasch of the Lord,"
but with a dative, "to the Lord,"
nin. Now this construction invariably
signifies "sacred or dedicated to," We have
several examples; as Exod. xx. 10, mim
"a sabbath (sacred) to the Lord;" and
xxxii. 5, "a festival (sacred) to the
.ליהוָה
שַׁבָּת
חַג לי
ליהוה
* “ Amicable Discussion," Lond. 1828, vol. i. p. 271.
LECTURE V.
235
Lord." But this rendering is placed beyond
all controversy by a passage perfectly pa-
rallel, in the very chapter from which the
objection is drawn, which, if Zwinglius had
possessed the sagacity to compare, he would
not have become the instrument of ensnaring
his unlearned auditors. Iallude to the twenty-
seventh verse, in which we read of this very
-lite ; הוּא לַיהוָה זֶבַחַ פֶּסַח,sacrifice as follows
rally, "this is to the Lord the sacrifice of
passover or pasch." Here the paschal feast
is spoken of not as any emblem of the Lord's
passover, but as its sacrifice; and the thing
so spoken of is said to be sacred to the Lord.
The verb which expresses this idea must
necessarily be taken in its own strict sense,
for it affirms the fact of this consecration.
In the other passage, therefore, in which
the same thing is spoken of, and the same
construction employed, we must conclude
that the word has the same meaning;* "this
is the paschal feast sacred to the Lord."
* Rosenmüller, Scholia in loc. Of course, when we
speak of the verb substantive in these texts, it is of the
verb understood, and not expressed; as in Hebrew it is
not used simply to connect two terms in a sentence.
The argument, however, is precisely the same.
236
LECTURE V.
I have thus gone through every one of the
texts brought forward by writers, whether
popular or scientific, among Protestants, for
the purpose of showing that the words of
institution can be understood figuratively
without doing violence to their construction,
and in harmony with similar forms of ex-
pression found in Scripture. You have seen
that, on solid hermeneutical grounds, they
cannot be admitted as parallel with the
words under examination; either because in
them the verb in question is to be taken
literally, or else because the circumstances in
which other passages occur are such as group
them into a class apart, into which our text
cannot possibly be forced. The first part,
then, of the Protestant reasoning against our
interpretation falls to the ground;-it remains
for us to see whether the second has any
better foundation; that is, whether such
difficulties surround the literal meaning, as
drive us, however unwillingly, to take refuge
in a metaphor. This disquisition will occupy
your attention at our next meeting.
1
LECTURE VI.
EXAMINATION OF THE SECOND POINT AT ISSUE BETWEEN
CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS, ON THE WORDS OF
INSTITUTION; ARE WE COMPELLED TO PREFER THE
FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION IN ORDER TO ESCAPE
FROM GREATER DIFFICULTIES, SUCH AS CONTRADIC-
TIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF NATURE.—
HERMENEUTICAL DISQUISITION ON THE SUBJECT.—
PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO IT.-STRONG
CONFIRMATORY ARGUMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC INTER-
PRETATION, FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORDS,
AND FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTITUTION.
It might appear that, between us and Pro-
testants, in the ordinary acceptation of the
word, our contention was now closed. For
they, as well as ourselves, believe in Christ's
omnipotence, in the existence of mysteries
unfathomable by reason, and in the infal-
lible inspiration of the gospel. They must
admit, likewise, the accuracy of the rules
which I have adopted and observed most
238
LECTURE VI.
scrupulously throughout this investigation.
With the principles which I have enume-
rated, common to us all, we may, I think,
insist upon the completeness of the conclu-
sion which we have reached, independently
of every other inquiry. For, if the words
spoken by our Saviour be such as admit of
no other meaning but what we attribute to
them, it follows that this meaning alone,
with all its difficulties, must be received, or
else belief in Christ's omnipotence, or in his
veracity, be renounced; an idea too blas-
phemous to be ever entertained.
For, a question very naturally presents
itself: Are we to modify the conclusions
drawn from the examination of a text by
other considerations? If hermeneutical
principles be grounded on sound reason and
correct logic, and if, when applied, they all
converge to one interpretation of a text, and
assure us that it alone can be accurate, have
we a choice, except between the admission
of that proof, and the rejection of the facts?
For instance, when I read in a profane
writer the account of a miraculous action
performed by Vespasian or Apollonius, if,
upon critically discussing the narrative, I
LECTURE VI.
239.
find all my rules bring me to the conclusion
that the writer meant to state such facts, am
I not bound to admit that such was his in-
tention, and obliged either to believe his
words with all their difficulties, or else,
acknowledging his intention, reject the state-
ment as false? But am I not manifestly
precluded from putting a meaning or inter-
pretation on the expressions, which would
be at variance with all the rules of his lan-
guage? Here, then, having proved that in
the language used by our Saviour he can
only have had one meaning, we have a right-
to propose a similar dilemma. We cannot
depart from that meaning, but can only
choose between believing or disbelieving
him. If you say, that what he asserts in-
volves an impossibility, the only choice is,
will you believe what he states, in spite of
its teaching what to you seems such, or will
you reject his word and authority for it?
It cannot be, that he does not state it, when
all the evidence which can possibly be re-
quired or desired proves that he did. In a
word, Christ says, "this is my body," and
every rule of sound interpretation tells you
that he must have meant to say it simply
240
LECTURE VI.
and literally: your selection is between be-
lief or disbelief that it is his body; but you
are shut out from all attempts to prove that
he could not mean to make that literal asser-
tion.
However, we must here, as often, conde-
scend to the imperfect modes of reasoning
pursued by those whom it is our duty to
try to gain; and, therefore, foregoing the
advantages of our previous argument, I
proceed to reason upon the usual ground of
necessity for departing from the literal in-
terpretation of our Saviour's words. But
first, a few remarks on the manner in which
the argument is presented.
You have heard how unceremoniously Dr.
Clarke calls those little better than dolts and
idiots, who believe in the possibility of the
Catholic doctrine. The preacher, likewise,
whom I quoted, appealed to the same argu-
ment; and Mr. Horne gives the same motive
for departing from the letter, in the form
of a rule.
"Whatever is repugnant to natu-
ral reason cannot be the true meaning of the
Scriptures. . . . .No proposition, therefore,
which is repugnant to the fundamental
principles of reason, can be the sense of any
LECTURE VI.
241
part of God's word; hence, the words of
Christ, 'This is my body, this is my blood,'
are not to be understood in that sense which
makes for the doctrine of transubstantiation,
because it is impossible that contradictions
should be true; and we cannot be more
certain that anything is true, than we are
that that doctrine is false."*
The very same line of argument is pur-
sued by Dr. Tomline, whose "Elements of
Theology" are, if I am rightly informed,
a standard classical manual of the science in
the Anglican Church. For, in expounding
the Church article on the Lord's Supper, he
summarily rejects our doctrine as follows:-
"In arguing against this doctrine, we may
first observe, that it is contradicted by our
senses, since we see and taste the bread and
wine after consecration, and, when we
actually receive them, they still continue
to be bread and wine, without any change or
alteration whatever. And again, was it
possible for Christ, when he instituted the
Lord's Supper, to take his own body and his
own blood into his own hands, and deliver
them to every one of his apostles? Or, was
* "Introduction,” vol. ii. p. 448, 7th ed.
R
+
242
LECTURE VI.
it possible for the apostles to understand our
Saviour's words, as a command to drink hist
blood, literally? &c. . . . . The bread and
wine must have been considered by them as
symbolical; and, indeed, the whole transac-
tion was evidently figurative in all its parts.
99.
The learned bishop then goes on to say
that it was performed when the Jews were
commemorating their delivery from Egypt
by eating the paschal lamb, which was sym-
bolical of Christ's redemption. Now, before
proceeding further, I may remark that this,
to my idea, would make against the Doctor's
argument rather than in its favour; for I
should imagine that the impression of the
apostles, and the impression which our
Saviour's character and mission is calculated
to make upon us, is, that if there was a
conformity visible between anything which
he instituted and a ceremonial appointment
of the old law, his was to be a fulfilment of
the other, rather than a substitution of figure
for figure. And, therefore, when he so
celebrated his last Supper, as to fill up the
"Elements of Christian Theology," by George
Pretyman (Tomline), Lord Bishop of Lincoln, 2nd. ed.
1799, vol. ii. p. 484.
LECTURE VI.
243
circumstances of the Jewish paschal feast, in
words and in actions, we must conclude that
here was the accomplishment of that former
rite; and if that was but a shadow or type
of Christ, this should contain its correspond-
ing reality; and if that was a typical sacri-
fice, pointing out the Lamb of God slain for
the remission of sins, this must be one
containing that very Lamb so slain for our
propitiation.
This, however, is but a passing remark; at
present we are occupied with the argument
drawn from the possibility or impossibility
of our Saviour's really performing what the
palpable import of his words is that he did
perform. But while so many Protestant
divines have thus considered this to be the
groundwork of departure from our inter-
pretation, others have acknowledged that
such a line of argument is absolutely un-
tenable. Among them, perhaps the most
explicit, at least of modern times, is Mr.
Faber, who certainly will not be suspected
of any leaning to our way of thinking.
This is the way in which he expresses him-
self:-
"While arguing upon this subject, or inci-
244
LECTURE VI.
dentally mentioning it, some persons, I regret
to say, have been too copious in the use of
those unseemly words, 'absurdity and im-
possibility.' To such language, the least ob-
jection is its reprehensible want of good
manners. A much more serious objection is
the tone of presumptuous loftiness which
pervades it, and is wholly unbecoming a
creature of very narrow faculties. Certainly
God will do nothing absurd, and can do
nothing impossible. But it does not there-
fore follow that our view of things should
be always perfectly correct, and free from
misapprehension. Contradictions we can
easily fancy, where, in truth, there are none.
Hence, therefore, before we consider any
doctrine a contradiction, we must be sure we
perfectly understand the nature of the mat-
ter propounded in that doctrine; for other-
wise the contradiction may not be in the
matter itself, but in our mode of conceiving it.
In regard of myself,-as my consciously
finite intellect claims not to be a universal
measure of congruities and possibilities,-I
deem it to be more wise and more decorous,
to refrain from assailing the doctrine of
Transubstantiation; on the grounds of its
LECTURE VI.
245
r
alleged absurdity, or contradictoriness, or
impossibility. By such a mode of attack,
we, in reality, quit the field of rational and
satisfactory argumentation.
"The doctrine of Transubstantiation, like
the doctrine of the Trinity, is a question, not
of abstract reasoning, but of pure evidence.
We believe the revelation of God to be
essential and unerring truth. Our business
most plainly is, not to discuss the abstract
absurdity, and the imagined contradictoriness.
of Transubstantiation, but to inquire, accord-
ing to the best means we possess, whether it
be, indeed, a doctrine of Holy Scripture. If
sufficient evidence shall determine such to be
the case, we may be sure that the doctrine is
neither absurd nor contradictory. I shall
ever contend, that the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation, like the doctrine of the Trinity,
is a question of pure evidence."*
Here, then, is a clear and manly acknow-
ledgment that the course pursued by divines
of the Protestant church is by no means
satisfactory or tenable. Mr. Faber places the
discussion of Transubstantiation on the same
footing as that of the Trinity, as a question
* “Difficulties of Romanism," Lond. 1826, p. 54.
2
246
LECTURE VI.
of pure evidence. This is precisely what I
have considered it. But after this acknow-
ledgment, I certainly expected to find in the
succeeding pages of this acute controver-
sialist's works, some additional arguments in
aid of the Herculean task of building up the
Protestant interpretation, as a positively
demonstrated doctrine, and as standing on
its own actual proofs. But, to my dis-
appointment, I found nothing but the old
trite and thrice-confuted remarks, on "the
flesh profiteth nothing," which can have
nothing to do with the words of institution,
if the sixth chapter of St. John apply not to
the blessed Sacrament, and Christ's decla-
ration that he would not taste of the fruit of
the vine! Nothing, indeed, that I have
read in Catholics, has more confirmed my
conviction-if it ever needed confirmation—
than this evident barrenness of evidence in
one who has disclaimed the incorrect reason-
ing of his predecessors, and the poverty of
proof which he has displayed in maintaining
his cause.
In spite, however, of this conflict between
divines, whether the supposed contradictions
or impossibility involved in our dogma be or
LECTURE VI.
247
be not a legitimate element of interpretation
in examining the words of institution, I will
go fully into the question, and that without
turning aside one step from the great prin-
ciples which I laid down at the commence-
ment of my course.
Dr. Clarke and the Bishop of Lincoln,
place, as you have seen, this inquiry, if it
have to be undertaken, upon a proper basis.
For they refer the argument to the apostles,
and consider its probable working on their
minds. They assert, or rather ask, in a tone
of confidence, how it is possible that they
can have taken our Saviour's words literally,
and not at once fly to the figurative meaning?
But they do not think it worth their while
to prove anything on the subject, or to con-
vince us that the natural reasoning of the
immediate hearers must have led them to this
interpretation. Now, assuming the same
correct point of departure with them, I
hesitate not to assert that we shall come to
exactly the opposite conclusion.
According to the admitted principles of
biblical interpretation, which I explained in
my first lecture, the immediate hearers who
* Clarke, ubi sup. p. 51. Tomline, sup. cit. p. 198.
Uor M
248
LECTURE VI.
were personally addressed are the real judges
of the meaning of words; we must place
ourselves in their situation, and we must
make use only of those data and means which
the speaker could suppose them to use for
understanding his words. The institution
of the Eucharist was addressed primarily to
the twelve who were present. To satisfy
ourselves, therefore, how far the contradic-
tions, or apparent impossibilities, or violation
of unalterable laws, involved in our inter-
pretation, can have been the criterion used
by them for reaching the sense of Christ's
words, and how far he could have intended
or expected them to use it, is now a question
of great importance.
We must, in the first place, remember that
the apostles were illiterate, uneducated, and
by no means intellectual men at that time;
consequently, we must not judge of their
mind, or of its operations, as we should of a
philosopher's; but we must look for its type
among the ordinary class of virtuous and sen-
sible, though ignorant men. Now, among
such you will seek in vain for any profound
notions on the subject of impossibility or
contradictoriness. Their idea of possibility
LECTURE VI.
249
is measured exclusively by the degree of in-
tensity of power applied to overcome an
obstacle, never by the degree of the resistance.
When that intensity has reached what they
consider Omnipotence, they can understand
no further power of resistance. You may
talk to them of the impossibility of a body
being in two places at once, or existing
without extension, in consequence of contra-
dictions thence ensuing,-they will under-
stand very little about the matter; but they
will consider it a contradiction to speak about
anything being impossible to Omnipotence.
I have made the experiment; and, on trying
to prove to such persons that God cannot cause
the same thing be and not be at the same
time, I have not succeeded in making them
comprehend it: they invariably fly back to
the same consequence; therefore, God cannot
do all things; he is not then almighty. This
may, perhaps, be considered a low state of
intellectual power; but we need not go so
low for our purpose. Supposing, then, the
apostles to have possessed some notions of
the repugnance of certain conceivable proposi-
tions to the unchangeable laws of nature, a
twofold question arises: first, were they
250
LECTURE VI.
likely to form, in an instant, a decision to
that effect on that literal import of their
Divine Master's words; and, secondly, would
they have been right in making it? The
first is an inquiry of pure hermeneutics, and
as such I proceed to treat it; the second is a
more philosophical investigation, and will be
touched upon in the sequel.
I. 1. First let us see what estimate of
their Lord's power they must have formed
by witnessing his actions. They had seen
him cure every species of disease and de-
formity; such as restoring a withered limb
to life and vigour. Three times, if not
oftener, they had seen him raise the dead to
life; in one instance, where decomposition
must have taken place;* consequently, where
a change of matter from one state to another
must have been effected.
But there were some miracles still more
calculated to make them very timid in draw-
ing the line between absolute impossibility
to their Lord, and power over the received
laws of nature. For instance, gravitation is
one of the properties universally attributed
* Jo. xi. 39.
LECTURE VI.
251
to bodies, and is closely allied, in reality and
in conception, with our notion of extension.
Yet the apostles had seen the body of Jesus,
for a time, deprived of this property, and
able to walk, without sinking, on the surface
of the waters.*
*
They had seen him, in another instance,
actually change one substance into another.
For at the marriage-feast at Cana, he com-
pletely transmuted, or, if you please, tran-
substantiated water into wine. It would
require a very fine edge of intellect to dis-
tinguish in mind between the possibility of
making water become wine, and the im-
'possibility of making wine become blood.
Such men as the apostles, at least, would
not have made the distinction, if it existed,
the basis of any interpretation of their
Master's words.
Upon two other occasions they had wit-
nessed him controling, still more remarkably,
the laws of nature, and that in a way likely
to influence their ideas of his omnipotence
to such an extent as would not allow them
to use the notion of impossibility or con-
* Matt. xiv.; Mar. vi.; Jo. vi.
‡ Jo. ii.
252
LECTURE VI.
tradictoriness for interpreting anything he
might ever teach. I allude to the miracles
whereby he fed five thousand men with
five loaves and two fishes, and four thousand
with seven loaves.* For, according to the
simple narrative of the Evangelists, it does
not appear that the multiplication of the
loaves took place by an addition to their
number, whether through the creation of
new matter, or by its being miraculously
brought from some other place, but by ac-
tually causing the same substance, the very
loaves, to be the nourishment of many in-
dividuals. The miracle is never described
as consisting in an increase of number, but
in a sufficiency of what existed; the frag-
ments are not spoken of as additional pieces,
but as part of that very bread, of those very
loaves, which had been broken, distributed,
and eaten by the multitude. Now, you may
explain the phenomenon as you please, so
as to bring it into accordance with our sup-
posed laws of nature regarding substance,
extension, and matter's being in more places
than one at a time; but the witnessing of
* Jo. vi. 5-14; Mar. viii. 1-9.
LECTURE VI.
253
such acts as these must have gone a long
way towards weakening the confidence of
simple-minded men in any distinctions be-
tween one interference and another with
the laws of nature, such as they might have
ever imagined, and must have left them
very little qualified, and still less disposed,
to make them the basis of their reasoning,
when trying to reach the sense of his doc-
trines who had performed these works.
Such, then, were the apostles, and such
were the notions of their Master's power,
suggested by what they had seen him per-
form; will any one believe that they would
have used, to interpret his simple words,
"This is my body," any idea of the impos-
sibility of their literal import;—an idea of
impossibility to be grounded necessarily on
the conception of their being at variance
with the laws of nature, in a totally different
manner from the other miracles which I have
described? Can we suppose that the apos-
tles would think, "It is true that he once
changed water into wine; it is true that he
deprived his body of gravity; it is true that
he multiplied a few loaves, so as to satisfy a
crowd; but the change here proposed, the
254
LECTURE VI.
destruction of the essential qualities of a
body, the multi-presence of one substance
here designated, meets the laws of nature at
a point so nicely different from the former
cases, that here we must, for the first time,
doubt whether his power can go so far, and
must understand him figuratively?" And
if the apostles, after his resurrection rea-
soned on this matter, would this conclusion,
supposing it to have been drawn, have re-
ceived any confirmation from having seen
and known that the body, on which all this
learned reasoning had been made, was able
to pass through closed doors, and even
penetrate the stone vault of the sepulchre,
to the utter discomfiture of all reasoning
on the boasted incompenetrability, as it is
called, of matter.
2. But if what the apostles had seen must
have thus worked upon their minds, what
lessons had they heard in the school of
Christ?
Why, first, instead of any attempt to
limit their ideas of possibility, his doctrine
must have gone far to enlarge them. After
the parable of the camel passing through
* Jo. xx. 19, 26.
LECTURE VI.
255
the eye of a needle, he adds, "With men
this is impossible." He does not complete
the antithesis by saying, "With God IT IS
possible." No, he gives a universal propo-
sition in contradistinction to the first parti-
"but with God ALL THINGS are
cular one;
possible.
11*
Secondly, we find that he took every
opportunity of encouraging a belief in his
absolute omnipotence, without limitation.
When the blind men asked to be cured, he
first puts the question to them, "Do ye
believe that I can do this thing unto you?"
And upon their expressing their conviction,
he replies, "According to your faith, be it
done unto you."+ When the centurion begs
that he will not trouble himself to come to
his house to cure his servant, but expresses
a confidence that he can do it at a distance,
even as he himself can, through his servants,
perform what he wishes, Jesus approves of
this high estimate, for the first time, ex-
pressed of his power; and answers, “ Amen,
I say unto you, I have not found so great
faith in Israel." So completely was this
idea of his power possessed by his friends,
* Matt. xix. 26. † Ib. ix. 28. ‡ Matt. viii. 10.
256
LECTURE VI.
and by the people in general, that in apply-
ing to him for favours, they only endeavoured
to gain his good-will, as if quite certain of
its effects. "Lord," said the leper, "if thou
wilt, thou canst make me clean."* So
Martha addresses him: "Lord, if thou hadst
been here, my brother had not died. But I
know that even now, whatever thou shalt ask
of God, he will give it thee."+ Jesus in his
answers in both cases approved of this faith
and of its principle. To the leper he replied,
"I will; be thou made clean." To Martha
he answered in his prayer, "Father, I thank
thee that thou hast heard me.
And I know
that thou hearest me always,"‡ Now, after
thus encouraging unlimited belief in his
power by his followers, are we to believe
that he ever meant his words to be inter-
preted by them on the supposition that what
he said, if taken simply, was impossible even
to him?
Thirdly, they had scarcely ever been
severely reproved by him except when their
belief and confidence in him seemed to waver:
"Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?
* Matt. viii. 2. † Jo. xi. 21, 22. + Ib. 41, 42,
LECTURE VI.
257
+
O thou of little faith, why dost thou doubt?"*
Such conduct towards them was not calcu-
lated to make the first impression of any
proposition he might utter be a doubt of its
possibility; nor would they be likely to make
this the criterion for interpreting his words.
Finally, on a former occasion he had
made this the very test whereby his disciples
were to be assayed, and their fidelity or
hollowness decided; that the unsteady and
insecure would abandon him, upon hearing a
doctrine which appeared to them to involve
an impossibility, while the true ones adhered
to him in spite of such a difficulty. This
occurred after the discourse in the sixth
chapter of St. John, on which I have already
said so much; but the argument is quite in-
dependent of the controversial question; for
it is evident that, whatever was the doctrine
taught, the false disciples who said, "This is
a hard saying, who can hear it?" were al-
lowed to depart; and the tried fidelity of
the twelve, who said, "To whom shall we
go? thou hast the words of eternal life,"
was approved in those words, "Have I not
chosen you twelve?"
* Matt, viii. 26; xix. 21.
S
258
LECTURE VI.
The conclusion to which we must come
upon these premises is strictly within the
range of hermeneutical principles. For it is
their province to decide whether, under given
circumstances, a certain opinion or conviction
could have been an element employed for
arriving at the interpretation of any passage.
And here, therefore, we have a right to ask,
concerning the apostles, they being illi-
terate, and not scientific men, accustomed to
see their Divine Master, whom they con-
sidered omnipotent, perform actions appa-
rently at variance with the established order
of nature, taught by him never to limit their
confidence in his power; can they be sup-
posed to have used, as a key for understanding
his words aright, the idea that, if taken
literally, they implied a more complete viola-
tion of those laws of nature than the others,
and the notion that here his power was un-
equal to the work, or that what he said was
impossible to him?
Or let us transfer the ground of the con-
clusion to our Saviour's mind, and see
whether he can have used words whereof the
true meaning was to be reached only through
the reasoning here supposed. In other
LECTURE VI.
259
words, having always accustomed his apostles
to argue thus: "Although the thing may ap-
pear to us impossible, as our Divine Master
says it, it must be so," can we believe that now,
on a sudden, he should have chosen expres-
sions, to understand which they must perforce
reason in an exactly inverse manner:
"As
this thing appears to us impossible, although
our Divine Master says it, it cannot be so?"
Every unprejudiced mind will answer,
that such a departure from an established
course of reasoning cannot, for a moment,
be allowed. The consequence is obvious;
the apostles cannot have made the possibility
or impossibility of the doctrine expressed a
criterion for interpreting our Saviour's words.
But then we have seen that, to interpret
correctly, we must place ourselves in the im-
mediate hearers' state, and identify ourselves.
as much as possible with their feelings and
opinions; and therefore we are are not war-
ranted in using any criterions or instruments
which could not have occurred to them for
that purpose. Consequently we have no right
to make the physical difficulties, supposed to
be incurred by our interpretation, any ground
for adopting or rejecting it.
260
LECTURE VI.
II. Hitherto I have spoken only of the
apostles, because they were the proper judges
of our Lord's meaning; we may, however,
boldly ask, who is the philosopher that will
venture to define the properties of matter so
nicely, as to say, that they would have been
right in weighing them against an Almighty's
declaration? It is easy to talk of reason and
common sense, and the laws which regulate
bodies; but when we come to introduce these
matters into theology, and pretend to decide
where they clash with a mystery, and where a
mystery rides triumphant over them, we not
only bring profane scales into the sanctuary
but we are mixing a dangerous ingredient
with our faith. I need not repeat any well-
known remarks upon the difficulty of defin-
ing the essential properties of matter, or of
deciding what relation to space is so neces-
sary to it, as not to be affected without de-
stroying its nature. On such a subject, it
would be rashness to pronounce a sentence,
especially for those who believe in revelation,
and read in its records the qualities attri-
buted to Christ's body risen from the dead;
and the profounder the philosopher, the
more modest and timid will he be in coming
LECTURE VI.
261
to a decision. I will, therefore, confine my-
self to a few remarks more connected with
the theological view of the case.
I would ask, then, what are the laws of
nature which our interpretation is said to
contradict? They are, they can be, nothing
more than the aggregate of results from our
observation of nature. We see that her work-
ings and her appearances are constant and
analogous, producing the same effects in all
similar circumstances; and we call a result
under given conditions, a law, and an un-
varying appearance, a property. All objects
cognizable by the senses, from the very fact,
are proved to have a certain relation to space,
which we call extension, and as we have no
knowledge of matter except through that
medium, we pronounce extension to be a
necessary property of all bodies. We find
that one material substance never occupies
the very identical space of another, and we
call this incompenetrability, another such
property. It is so with regard to every
other. The code of laws which we have
framed for nature, consists of nothing more
than the results of observation on the un-
deviating course which she pursues.
262
LECTURE VI.
Now, then, suppose a mystery revealed;
that is, a truth at the comprehension of which
unaided reason cannot arrive. Is its truth
to be tried by its accordance with the results
deduced from the observation of nature's
undeviating workings? If so, the decision.
must ever be against the mystery. For it is
of its essence to depart from all natural
analogies, through which it can never be
reached. All the experience and observa-
tions of philosophers on the law of numbers
must have led them to conclude that the very
term Triune, or three in one, was opposed to
natural reasoning, Would they, then, have
been right in rejecting the Trinity? Most
undoubtedly not; because, revealed by that
authority which created nature, and framed
the code of her government, man's reason
• must receive it, and yield the conclusions of
its feeble powers to that supreme authority.
In like manner, the observation of nature,
and the undeviating principles observable in
her, would have led Aristotle, or any other
philosopher, to conclude that the infinite
could not be united to or contained in the
finite; consequently, that the Godhead could
not be incarnate in the human nature. Yet
·
LECTURE VI.
263
the mystery of the incarnation, once clearly
revealed, overthrows this specious reasoning
deducible from experience.
Precisely of the same character is the
argument relative to the blessed Sacrament.
All the pretended laws of nature which it is
said to transgress, are no more than results.
deducible from observation; no one will
venture to assert that they have their being
in the essence of matter. If, therefore, as
clear a revelation has been made of this
mystery as of the others, the results of our
observations, which have been formalized into
a code of laws, must yield to the revelation,
as they have done before. Whether this
revelation be as distinct in this instance as in
any other, the arguments which you have
heard may perhaps have sufficiently shown.
An empty distinction has been often popu-
larly made, though never proved, that the
Trinity is above reason, but Transubstantia-
tion is against reason. This is truly a dis-
tinction without a difference. If it existed, it
could only be in this sense; that reason could
never have reached the doctrine of the
Trinity, but that, when this has been once
manifested, reason sees nothing contrary to
264
LECTURE VI.
it; whereas the Eucharist, even after having
been revealed or proposed, is strongly re-
jected by reason. This is manifestly a fal-
lacy; for reason unaided has equal repug-
nance to one as to the other, but bows and
is silent in regard to both, when revealed.
It cannot pretend to sanction the one, or
prove it, or understand it; it cannot presume
to reject the other, if proposed by the same
authority as the first. Both belong to a
plane far elevated above her sphere of
action, and thus both are beyond reason;
they depend for their truth on an authority
beside which reason is a valueless element,
and so they cannot be contrary to it.
I will close this question, by referring to the
opinion of one of the soundest philosophers
of the last century, who lived and died a
Protestant. The celebrated Leibnitz left
behind him a work in manuscript, entitled,
"Systema Theologicum," in which he de-
liberately recorded his sentiments upon every
point contested between Catholics and Pro-
testants, in a simple, moderate style. This
work was not published till 1819, when the
manuscript was procured from Hanover, by
the Abbé L'Emery, who translated it into
F
LECTURE VI.
265
66
French. His version appeared at Paris, to-
gether with the original Latin. In this
book, Leibnitz, of course, among other dog-
mas, treats of the Catholic doctrine of a
corporal presence, or transubstantiation; and
examines its supposed opposition to philoso-
phical principles in great detail. His answer
necessarily runs into minute disquisition,
which it would be at variance with my
plan to give; I will, therefore, content my-
self with saying, that he perfectly repels
the idea of any such contradiction, and ob-
serves, "that so far from its being demon-
strable, as some flippantly boast, that a body
cannot be in many places at once, it may, on
the contrary, be solidly proved, that though
the natural order of things requires that
matter should be definitely circumscribed,
yet no absolute necessity requires it."* In
a letter to the Landgrave Ernest of Hesse-
Rheinfelds, given by the editor of his work,
Leibnitz observes: "In regard to doctrine,
the principal difficulty it appears to me,
turns on Transubstantiation. Upon the sub-
* "Systema Theologicum," p. 224. See "Catholic
Magazine," vol. i. pp. 577, seqq.
266
LECTURE VI.
ject of the Real Presence, I have worked
out certain demonstrations, founded on
mathematical reasoning, and on the nature
of motion, which I own give no satisfaction."
Thus much may suffice upon the motives.
given for a necessity of rejecting the literal
sense of the words of institution. You have
seen that it is contrary to the first principles
of hermeneutics to allow any such supposed
difficulties to interfere in their interpreta-
tion, or to enter as an element in it; you
have seen that they can no more be admitted
in regard to this doctrine than they can
respecting the Trinity, Incarnation, or any
other divine mystery. This is more than
sufficient to justify us in refusing to admit
them into the disquisition of this doctrine.
Before closing this Lecture, however, I
must not omit the positive arguments in
favour of the literal sense. They are two-
fold,-drawn from the construction of the
words themselves, and from the circum-
stances in which they were pronounced.
I. 1. The words in their own simplicity,
as I before observed, speak powerfully. But
this power is greater, if, with Dr. A. Clarke,
and his transcribers, we admit a strong em-
LECTURE VI.
267
phasis in the words of consecration of the
cup. Hear their commentary upon them:-
"Almost every syllable of the original
Greek, especially the articles, is singularly
emphatic. It runs thus: Touro yup eσtɩ TO
αίμα μου, ΤΟ της καινης διαθήκης, Το περι πολλων
εκχυνόμενον εις άφεσιν ἁμαρτιων. The following
literal translation and paraphrase do not ex-
ceed its meaning: For this is [represents]
THAT blood of mine which was pointed out
by all the sacrifices under the Jewish law,
and particularly by the shedding and sprink-
ling the blood of the paschal lamb: THAT
BLOOD of the sacrifices slain for the ratifica-
tion of the new covenant: THE blood ready to
be poured out for the multitudes, the whole
Gentile world, as well as the Jews, for the
taking away of sins, sin, whether original or
actual, in all its power and guilt, in all its
energy and pollution.' And yet, after all,
it was not that blood! The writer, indeed,
slips his "represents" within brackets, to the
utter destruction of all sense, and of harmo-
nious accord between his rule and his illus-
111*
* Clarke "On the Eucharist," p. 61. Horne, vol. ii.
p. 369, 7th edition.
268
LECTURE VI.
tration. For, if the contents of the cup
were not the blood, but only its emblem, and
if the institution reached not the blood,
surely the commendatory emphasis should,
in common reason, have fallen on the thing
instituted, not on what it represented. If I
wished to recommend a model of St. Peter's
Church, I would not say, "This is St. Peter's,
THAT St. Peter's in which the Pope officiates,
THAT Church which is considered the most
beautiful in the world; THE Church in which
the Apostle's ashes repose." All this would
be absurd; for my hearers would immediately
think I wished to say that the model was the
very church. But I should naturally say,
"This is a model of St. Peter's, an exact
model, the very image of it, its perfect re-
presentation." The emphasis would then
fall right on the object instituted or recom-
mended. If, therefore, in the words of
institution, it fall upon the blood, then I say,
as in the instance just quoted, that blood is
the subject of the sentence. For the words
of my example could never be used, save
only when speaking of the real church itself.
2. I have already had occasion to notice
the syntax of the sentence in the Eucharistic
#
LECTURE VI.
269
formularies; namely, that the pronoun used
could refer to no other subject but the body,
TOYTO CσTI TO σwpa, and not, consequently, to
the bread. But the argument, naturally
resulting from this construction, seems to me
much strengthened by the identifying epi-
thets added to the object mentioned. St.
Luke adds to the words, the clause To Vжер
vμwv AIAOMENON, "which is GIVEN for you:"
St. Paul, το ύπερ ύμων ΚΛΩΜΕΝΟΝ, " which is
BROKEN for you."
I observe, in the first place, that not a
single passage occurs in Scripture, where the
two verbs to give and to break are synony-
mous, except where spoken of food; the
epithets, therefore, apply not to the future
state of Christ's body in his passion, but to the
thing then before the Apostles. 2ndly, The
verb kλaw, as Schleusner observes, never is
used in the New Testament, except of bread
or food. He only quotes this very passage
as an exception, applying it to the passion.†
* See above, p. 220. See also "An Etymological
Essay on the Grammatical Sense, in the Greek, of the
Sacred Texts regarding the Last Supper," by Sir John
Dillon, 1836, p. 24.
+ "Lexicon N. T." tom. i. p. 920, ed. cit.
270
LECTURE VI.
""
3rdly. I think it will be admitted as not im-
probable, that Jesus used both the words, and
said, Τουτο μου εστι ΤΟ ΣΩΜΑ, ΤΟ ὑπερ ύμων
ΚΛΩΜΕΝΟΝ και ΔΙΔΟΜΕΝΟΝ,— This is my
body, that which is BROKEN and GIVEN for
you." The phrase exactly corresponds with
the narrative of St. Luke: Aаßwv apтov.
ΕΚΛΑΣΖ και ΕΔΩΚΕΝ αυτοις,
66
he BROKE and GAVE to them."
Taking bread,
It is worthy
of remark, that St. Paul has preserved
in his narrative only the verb "he broke,"
which corresponds to the participle which
he selected of the two, in his formu-
lary.
From these reflections, which as being, I
believe, new, I put forward with becoming
diffidence, I conclude two things; first, that
the TOYTO is positively defined to be identi-
cal with the owμa or body; because the
phrase, “This thing which is broken, and
given, is my body," forms a more definite
expression, much more difficult to be applied
to express a figure, than the vague this.
Secondly, the thing so broken and given
could not be bread, because the expression
""
FOR you,”—YIIEP iµwv, could not be used
of it, but only of Christ, who was alone our
LECTURE VI.
271
redemption.* While, therefore, epithets
were chosen, which exactly corresponded
to the idea of food, an object was expressed
which could only apply to the body of our
Saviour itself.
II. I will pass briefly through the histori-
cal circumstances which must confirm the
literal interpretation.
1. Our blessed Saviour alone with his
chosen twelve, on the point of suffering, is
here pouring out the treasures of his love.
2. He is making his last will and testa-
ment, an occasion when all men speak as
simply and as intelligibly as possible.
3. He tells his dear friends and brethren,
that the time is come when he would speak
plain and without parables to them.† These
reflections ought surely greatly to strengthen
our preference, on this occasion, of the plain,
intelligible, natural signification of his words,
when instituting the great sacrament of his
religion.
* See Rom. v. 8; viii. 26.
† Jo. xvi. 29.
LECTURE VII.
OBJECTIONS TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
WORDS OF INSTITUTION ANSWERED. FIRST: ORDI-
NARY PRACTICE OF CALLING A REPRESENTATION BY
THE NAME OF THE THING SIGNIFIED. SECONDLY :
OBJECTIONS DRAWN FROM THE CELEBRATION OF THE
PASCHAL FEAST; AND THIRDLY: FROM THE LAN-
GUAGE IN WHICH OUR SAVIOUR SPOKE. NOTICE OF
DR. LEE'S ALLEGATIONS.
IT now becomes my duty to notice the
objections made by Protestants to the inter-
pretation of the words of Institution, accord-
ing to our belief. In this Lecture I shall
only treat of such objections as affect this
particular point; reserving the general ones
brought by them, from Scripture, against
the belief itself, till I have completed my
proofs, in the next, by commenting on some
passages of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corin-
thians.
The first and most popular argument
urged by Protestants is, that nothing is more
LECTURE VII.
273
common than to call a figure by the name
of the object. You will remember how the
reverend preacher whom I quoted at the
beginning of my last lecture but one, exult-
ingly demanded: "For, let me ask, what is
more common than to give to the sign the
name of the thing signified?" and then, by
way of illustration, to cite the examples of
a portrait or a map. Dr. Clarke uses the
same argument; and asks whether any one
would have a difficulty, if in a museum,
busts should be pointed out by the phrase-
"This is Plato, that is Socrates ?"* In short,
this exemplification is quite trite, and to be
found in almost every Protestant writer.
Among others, Mr. Townsend brings it for-
ward with great pomp, and seems quite satis-
fied of its sufficiency.†
The confutation of this reasoning is so
obvious, and strikes the sense so immediately,
that it is most wonderful to me, how such
an illustration could ever have been brought.
First, as to the principle itself: the obvious
difference between the class of instances
* Ubi sup. 54.
"New Testament chronologically arranged," vol.
i. p. 45.
T
274
LECTURE VII.
brought and the case to be elucidated is
this; that the one speaks of images already
instituted, the other of the actual institution.
Had bread and wine been before constituted
symbols, the words might have been com-
pared with a representation already made;
then the phrase "this is body," might possi-
bly have led the hearers to a right under-
standing. But surely it is a very different
thing to institute the symbol by such an
expression. Let us take the very example.
On entering the Vatican museum, you see a
number of busts: you must know, if you
have eyes, that they represent the human
head and countenance; all your ignorance
is as to whose features they exhibit. The
words in question, "This is Plato," only
inform you of this point; they are not
intended to convey the marvellous intelli-
gence, that the piece of marble is an image,
at all: this your own eyes have told you.
But in the words of Institution, the inquiry
is not, of what this is the symbol, but whether
it be one; for neither eyes nor reason have
told you, or could have told the apostles,
that the bread was such a symbol. Let us
press it a little further. Suppose that on
LECTURE VII.
275
entering the Belvedere court of that
museum, I called you solemnly to stand
beside one of the porphyry pillars there,
and pointing to it said, "This is Magna
Charta;" would you understand me? You
would be sadly confounded, and perhaps
think me a little beside myself.
Suppose,
then, that I answered you thus: "Foolish
creatures! you understood me quite well
when I showed you a bust in the gallery
and told you it was Plato; that is, that it
represented Plato. Is it not precisely as
easy to understand that I now mean this is
a symbol of Magna Charta, the support of
our constitution?" You would reasonably
ask, "When was this pillar, or any other,
constituted a symbol of it?" and, to pre-
serve the parallelism, I should have to
answer, "Why, I instituted it for the first
time, by those words which I uttered." I
ask, would such language be intelligible, or
would you consider the person rational who
used it? Yet this fancied scene accurately
represents the two forms of expression
which are brought together in that popular
argument, for the figurative interpretation
of the Eucharistic formulas.
276
LECTURE VII.
Then coming to the specific examples,
those chosen are anything but fortunate.
For, not only are they of objects which
already and conventionally represent others,
but of such as actually have no possible
existence except as representations. Symbol
is their very essence, the very law of their
being. A portrait, or bust, cannot exist save
as the image of a man; this idea enters into
every possible definition which you can give
of it: you cannot describe or explain it,
except by calling it a representation. So it
is with a map, which is but the miniature
portrait of a given country, and has no
other cause of being but its destination for
that purpose. Is such the case with bread in
relation to the body of Christ? If I hold
up a coin, and, pointing to the king's image,
say, "This is William IV.," every one under-
stands me. If I show a blank piece of gold,
and use the same words, no one would com-
prehend that I want to declare the metal to
be a symbol of him.
A second objection, which, at first appear-
ance, looks rather more plausible, is often
drawn from the forms of expression sup-
posed to have been in use among the Jews.
LECTURE VII.
277
in the celebration of the paschal feast.
"When they eat of the unleavened bread,"
says Dr. Whitby, "they said, 'This is the
bread of affliction' (that is, the represen-
tation or memorial of that bread), ' which
our fathers did eat in the land of Egypt.'
What, therefore, could men, accustomed to
such sacramental phrases, think of the like
words of Christ, but that it was to be the
representation or memorial of it?" We are
sometimes told that the head of the family,
solemnly holding a morsel of unleavened
bread in his hand, pronounced these words;
by which the apostles would interpret the
similar ones that followed.
Before giving what cannot fail to be a
complete answer to this objection, I may pre-
mise, that under no circumstances could the
words signify "this represents the bread of
affliction." For, if I hold up in my hand a
morsel of bread of a different sort from what
we habitually use, and say, "This is the
bread they eat in France," you do not under-
stand me to mean that it is a type or symbol
of such bread, but simply that it is the same
"Commentary on the New Testament," vol. i.
p. 256, Lond. 1744.
278
LECTURE VII.
sort of bread. So, as the Jews ate un-
leavened bread on going out of Egypt, any
person exhibiting a portion of such bread,
and saying, "This is the bread, &c.," would
be understood to designate identity of
quality.
But the fact is, that these words could
have done the apostles no service towards
reaching a figurative sense in our Saviour's
words, because they were not used at all, as
is stated, in the celebration of the Passover.
First, we have a very detailed account of the
ceremonial of this solemnity in the Hebrew
treatise, entitled, "Pesachim, or Pasch," in
which not a word is said of any such expres-
sion to be used. After that, we have a later
treatise in the same Talmud, entitled, "Bera-
coth, or the Blessings," which likewise gives
a minute description of the rites to be ob-
served; and again, not a syllable on the sub-
ject. At length comes Rabbi Maimonides,
in the twelfth century, who describes exactly
the forms to be followed on that occasion,
without a hint at this phrase or ceremony,
and concludes by saying: "In this manner
they celebrated the paschal supper while the
Temple stood." He then goes on to say:
•
LECTURE VII.
279
#
"Behold now the formula of the hymn,
which, at present, the Jews in their dis-
persion use at the beginning of the meal.
Taking up one of the cups, they say,
'We went out of Egypt in haste.' Then
they begin this hymn: This is the bread,'
&c."*
So that, after all, this is but a canticle,
and not a formula; and, even so, is acknow-
ledged by the first writer who mentions it to
be quite modern.
Dr. Whitby quotes another expression,
"the body of the pasch," applied to the
lamb, as likely to have guided the apostles
to a symbolical understanding of their mas-
ter's words. This was first brought as an
argument by the younger Buxtorf, and is
answered fully by the author from whom I
have taken the preceding reply, himself a
Lutheran. He shows that the expression
goph, translated body, is a Syriaism,
signifying no more than "the very pasch."+
I come now to another popular objection,
in which I naturally feel a peculiar interest,
from its solution being the subject of my
* "C. Schoettgenii Hora Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ,"
vol. i. p. 227.
† lbid. p. 229.
280
LECTURE VII.
first youthful literary essay. Calvin, Piccard,
Melancthon, and others, argued against the
Catholic interpretation of the words of In-
stitution, on the ground that our Saviour
spoke Hebrew, and not Greek; and that,
in the Hebrew language, there is not a single
word meaning to represent. Hence they con-
cluded, that any one wishing to express in
that language that one object was figurative
of another, he could not possibly do it other-
wise than by saying that it was that thing.
Of course, this argument advances nothing
positive; it could only show that the words
are indefinite, and may imply only a figure;
it might deprive Catholics, to some extent,
of the stronghold which they have in the
words themselves; but it could put no posi-
tive proof into the hands of Protestants, who
would always be under the necessity of de-
monstrating, that in this peculiar case the
verb "to be" signifies "to represent."
Wolfius, after Hackspann, rightly answered
to this argument, that if the Hebrew had
been ambiguous, the Evangelists, writing
in Greek, a language in which the verb
substantive was not ambiguous, would
have used a verb more accurately ex-
•
I
LECTURE VII.
281
plaining to their readers what they con-
ceived the meaning of our Saviour's phrase
to be.*
*
But this precise ground could be no
longer tenable. For all philologers now
agree, that the language spoken by our
Saviour could not be Hebrew, but Syro-
Chaldaic. Such a shifting, however, as
might suffice to continue a catching argu-
ment like this, was easily made; it could
cost only a word, the change of a name; for
few readers would take the trouble, or have
it in their power, to ascertain whether Syro-
Chaldaic, any more than Hebrew, had any
such terms. A good bold assertion, espe-
cially coming from a man who has a reputa-
tion for knowledge in the department of
science to which it belongs, will go a great
way with most readers; and a negative asser-
tion no one can expect you to prove. If I
assert, that in a language there is no word
for a certain idea; if I say, for instance, that
in Italian there is no equivalent for our word
"spleen" or "cant," what proof can I possi-
bly bring, except an acquaintance with the
* "Curæ philologicæ et criticæ,” Basil, 1741, tom. i.
p. 371.
282
LECTURE VII.
language? I throw down a gauntlet when
I make the assertion; I defy others to show
the contrary; and one example overthrows
all my argument. In this case, indeed, it
might have seemed to require some courage
to make the assertion that no word existed for
"a figure," or "to represent," in a language
cultivated for ages, and spoken by a people
who, beyond all others, delighted in figures,
allegory, parable, and every other sort of
symbolical teaching. However, no assertion
could be, I suppose, too bold against popery,
and no art too slippery, to gain an argument
against its doctrines. Dr. Adam Clarke, a
man of some celebrity as an Orientalist,
fearlessly cast his credit upon the assertion,
that Syro-Chaldaic affords no word which
our Saviour could have used, in instituting a
type of his body, except the verb "to be."
These are his words:-"In the Hebrew,
Chaldee and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, there
is no term which expresses to mean, signify,
or denote; though both the Greek and Latin
abound with them. Hence the Hebrews
use a figure, and say it is, for it signifies."
Then follow the texts which I quoted in my
Fifth Lecture; after which Dr. Clarke pro-
LECTURE VII.
283
1
1
' ܗܢܘ ܒܓܪܝ
6
ceeds: "That our Lord neither spoke in
Greek or Latin upon this occasion, needs no
proof. It was probably in what was form-
erly called the Chaldaic, now the Syriac,
that he conversed with his disciples. In
Matt. xxvi. 26-27, the words in the Syriac
version are honau pagree,' this
is my body;
so honau damee,' this
is my blood, of which forms of speech the
Greek is a verbal translation; nor would
any one at the present day, speaking in the
same (Syriac) language, use, among the
people to whom it was vernacular, other
terms than the above to express 'this repre-
sents my body, this represents my blood.'"*
Mr. Hartwell Horne has transcribed this
passage nearly verbatim; he has, in fact,
altered it only so far as to render the argu-
ment more definite. "If the words of
Institution," he writes in his six first editions,
"had been spoken in English or Latin at
first, there might have been some reason for
supposing that our Saviour meant to be
literally understood. But they were spoken
in Syriac, in which, as well as in the Hebrew
* "Discourse on the Blessed Eucharist,” p. 52.
1
284
LECTURE VII,
and Chaldaic languages, there is no word
which expresses to signify, represent, or denote.
Hence it is that we find the expression it is
so frequently used in the sacred writings
for it represents."* Here follow the usual
trite examples, discussed in my last Lecture;
and after it comes the concluding sentence
of Dr. Clarke's text, that no man, even at
the present day, speaking the same language,
would use, among the people to whom it was
vernacular, other terms to express, "This
represents my body."
It is no wonder that other authors should
have gone on copying these authorities,
giving, doubtless, implicit credence to per-
sons who had acquired a reputation for their
knowledge of biblical and oriental literature.
Hardly a sermon or a treatise has been pub-
lished on the Catholic doctrine of the
Eucharist, for some years past, in which the
objection has not been repeated. The argu-
ment is one strictly philological, and seemed
to me, when first engaged in the study of
Syriac letters, to afford a fair field for purely
literary discussion. As I had begun to make
* "Introduction," part ii. chap. v. vol. ii. p. 590,
6th ed.
LECTURE VII.
285
some collections towards the improvement
and enlargement of our Syriac lexicons, I
resolved to embody the result of my labours.
upon this question into a specimen of ad-
ditions to the best which we possess, and
thus to divest the discussion, if possible, of
all controversial acrimony. As my essay, or
to use the German phrase, my monography,
upon this subject presents a form but little
attractive to any but professed oriental
scholars,* you will excuse me if I endeavour
to put you in possession of its substance, so
that you may be able to rebut the objection,
should you ever hear it repeated. I will
afterwards proceed to notice the manner,
courteous indeed, but sadly uncandid and
unfair, in which my answer has been met by
Mr. Horne and other writers.
After several preliminary observations,
some of which have been more fully de-
veloped in these Lectures, and the remark
De objectionibus contra sensum literalem locorum
Matt. xxvi. 26, &c., seu verborum SS. Eucharistiæ
Sacramentum instituentium, ex indole linguæ Syriacæ
nuperrime instauratis, commentatio philologica, conti-
nens specimen supplementi ad Lexica Syriaca."-Horæ
Syriacæ, Rome, 1828,
286
LECTURE VII.
B
*
that some word for sign or figure must be
found both in Hebrew and Syriac, because
the expression occurs both in the Old and
New Testaments, as where circumcision is
called a sign of God's covenant, and where
Adam is called a type of Christ,f the essay
proceeds with the vocabulary, arranged in
alphabetical order. The words are all au-
thenticated by reference to the most ancient
and most esteemed writers in the Syriac
language, principally St. Ephrem, James of
Edessa, St. James of Sarug, Barhebræus,
and others. When various significations are
omitted in the lexicons, besides the meaning
held chiefly in view, these are carefully
given, with their authorities. But the prin-
cipal pains are, of course, taken to verify
the signification denied by Protestants to any
word in the language. In some instances
the references amount to forty or fifty-in
one word, to upwards of ninety passages, in
edited and manuscript works.
After the vocabulary, which occupies up-
* As Gen. xvii. 11, where the noun is oth is used;
a word which every learner of Hebrew ought to know
means a sign.
† Rom. v. 14.
LECTURE VII.
287
3
wards of thirty pages, there comes a tabular
arrangement of its results, which I will give
you.
1. Words in Castell's Lexicon with this sig-
nification, and illustrated by sufficient examples
2. With the signification, but no authority.
3. Words meaning a symbol, that have not
this signification in him .
4. Words of the same meaning totally omit-
ted by him
·
5. Words used by Syriac writers in a less
direct mode for the same purpose. *
Total words signifying or expressing
figure," or "to represent," in Syriac
4
1
21
2
13
•
6 a
41
Besides four other words, the examples of
which were not quite so satisfactory to me,
though I have no doubt of their power;
thus making in all FORTY-FIVE words which
our Saviour could have used!† And this is
the Syriac language, of which Dr. Clarke.
had the hardihood to assert that it had not
one single word with this meaning.
The next question is, how far it is usual
* These words, which are in common use, are verbs
signifying "to see, to show, to call," &c. : as when
writers say, that in one thing we see or contemplate
another.
+ Page 48.
288
LECTURE VII.
with persons speaking that language to say
that a thing is what it only represents?
This point is tried and decided on the fol-
lowing grounds. First, Syriac commen-
tators, after they have given us clear notice
that they intend to indulge in allegorical or
figurative interpretation, yet scarcely ever
use the verb "to be" in the sense of "to
represent," but use the different words given
in the vocabulary. This may be proved by
a simple enumeration. St. Ephrem, in his
Commentary on Numbers, uses the verb
substantive, in the sense alluded to, two or
three times, where no mistake could possibly
arise; whereas he employs the words in
question upwards of sixty times. In his
Notes on Deuteronomy, the verb, "to be"
occurs as above six times; the other terms
more than seventy!
Secondly, where they use the verb "to
be" in that sense, it can be always used with-
out danger in the Latin version; and what
is still stronger, the translation occasionally
prefers it, where the original has a verb
meaning to represent. References are, of
course, given to places where these things
are found.
LECTURE VII.
289
}
Thirdly, the words in question are often
heaped together in these writers to such an
extent, as to defy translation into any other
language. As the text and version are in
parallel columns on each page, it follows
that a line of text is less than half the
breadth; and from the greater space re-
quired for the translation, and from the
straggling form of the Syriac type, there
are often only two or three words in a
line. Yet, notwithstanding this, St. Ephrem,
in eighteen half lines, uses these words thirteen
times, and eleven times in seventeen lines;
James of Sarug has them ten times in thirteen
half-lines, and Barhebræus eleven times in as
many lines.*
This is sufficient to decide whether it be so
usual with the Syrians to use the verb, "to
be" for "to represent."
But it was fair to lay the question more
directly before them for decision; and this
is done in the following way. Three pas-
sages are brought from Syriac writers, one
of which exists only in an Arabic translation.
This and another merely say that the
*
Page 52.
τ
1
290
LECTURE VII.
Eucharist is the true body of Christ, really,
and not figuratively, and simply, by their
very words, show that in Syriac this idea can
be expressed. The third is a remarkable
text of St. Maruthas, Bishop of Tangrit, at
the close of the fourth century, who, writing
in Syriac, expresses himself in these terms:-
"If Christ had not instituted the blessed
Sacrament, the faithful of after-times would
have been deprived of the communion of his
body and blood. But now, so often as we
approach the body and blood, and receive
them upon our hands, we believe that we em-
brace his body, and are made of his flesh and
of his bones, as it is written. For Christ did
not call it a type or a symbol, but said,
Truly, this is my body, and this is my
blood.'
Here, then, we have an early Syriac saint
and ornament of the oriental Church writing
as though Dr. A. Clarke had been open
before him; and so far from countenancing
his assertion, reasoning exactly in the con-
trary direction. The English Doctor says
"that we must not admit theCatholic inter-
pretation, because Christ, speaking Syriac,
* Page 55.
LECTURE VII.
291
1
ļ
could not say, 'This represents my body;'
the Syriac Father asserts "that we must
maintain it, because in that very language
(his own too) he did not say so."
This controversy might have been said to
end here, as no attempt has been made to
controvert the substantial statements made
in the Essay. But as the writings in which
assent to them has been given have indulged
in an indirect attempt, at least, to show that
I was not accurate or fair in some of my
statements, I will proceed to relate the man-
ner in which these have been received by the
persons I allude to.
In the first place, Mr. Horne has expunged
the extract from Dr. Clarke in his seventh
edition, at least so much of it as contains the
absurd assertion regarding the Syriac lan-
guage, though the kine and the ears of corn,
&c., are preserved, with a few additions of
the same class. A long note is substituted,
containing references to grammars, &c., by
way of proof that in the Semitic dialects "to
be" is put for "to represent."
That is very
11*
true, as it is true of English or Latin; but
the question is not whether such a substitu-
* Vol. ii. p. 449.
}
292
LECTURE VII.
tion is ever made, but whether it is to be
made in our case-a point which I have
abundantly discussed. But in his biblio-
graphical catalogue, which forms the se-
cond part of the volume, he enters into
an analysis of a critique upon my assertions
by the Rev. Dr. Lee, professor of Hebrew in
the University of Cambridge, in which he
seems greatly to exult; with what reason
you shall judge just now, when I shall have
examined, as I proceed to do, the strictures
of both.
Dr. Lee's attack is contained in a note
to his Prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglott
Bible,* a composition, doubtless, intended
for posterity, before which it was naturally
intended, by the learned professor, that my
fair fame should stand impaled upon the
sharpness of his critical wand. The real
theme which he is discussing is the Syriac
versions, and he does me the honour to quote
my little volume of "Hora" with flattering
commendation, not unmingled with strange,
and, to me, inexplicable misapprehensions.†
*
"Biblia sacra Polyglotta," Lond. 1831, p. 29.
† I cannot refrain from giving one specimen of the
learned linguist's fairness in even mere literary criticism.
LECTURE VII.
293
Б
It is, as I observed, in a note that he
undertakes, to all appearances, the confuta-
tion of my Essay. He begins by admitting
that as far as Dr. Clarke's assertion goes,
"N.
In a note, p. 24, he thus writes of me:-
Wiseman vero properantius, ut solet, xii. versiones
Syriacas dinumerat :-'his (xii. sc.) et alias addere
possem ;' Regere rem tamen; hæc vix satis persicu-
late." He then goes on gravely to teach me that the
Karkaphensian version, which I was in that very volume
the first to detect is no version; and that the Nestorian
version, which (p. 139) I completely reject, is fabulous;
and to make confusion doubly dense, he discovers that
in another place I reject these versions myself! "Ad
p. 95, tamen ipse hæc omnia immisericors contundit."
Now all this contradiction and confusion is entirely the
result of Dr. Lee's not having understood a very
ordinary Latin word. I was commencing a series of
Essays on the Syriac versions, some of which I intended
to elucidate, as I hope I did the Peschito; and some to
explode as the Karkaphensian, which I reduced to the
condition of an emendation or recension. Others I
should have proved identical, and some imaginary.
Should the second volume of my Horæ, for which the
materials were ready when the first appeared, ever come
to the press, Dr. Lee would see that I had by me, when
I enumerated the twelve unlucky versions, proofs, from
inedited sources, that some of them never existed.
But as is usual with authors, before entering on my
task, I enumerated, chiefly from Eichhorn, all the
versions usually spoken of by writers of biblical intro-
ductions. So far, however, was I from admitting them
294
LECTURE VII.
which his friend Mr. Horne had quoted, it
must be given up. These are his words:
"Horneus noster, uti videtur, ad locum
Matt. xxvi. 26, verba ipsa Adami Clarkii
Doctiss. referens, dixerat, nullum esse morem
loquendi apud Syros usitatum, quo dici potuit
'hoc est typus seu symbolum corporis mei, &c.,'
(when it was my intention to disprove some of them),
that I selected the phrase most likely in my judgment
to secure me from any suspicion of believing in them.
My words are Sequentes tamen præcipue circumfe-
runtur, tamquam versiones, quarum aliqua saltem cog-
nitio ad nos usque pervenerit." The expression circum-
feruntur tamquam versiones, I fancied any child would
have understood as equivalent to “are commonly spoken
of as versions." For such is the meaning of circumfero
in similar cases; it always leaves the truth or false-
hood of the fact undecided, but leans oftener to the
intimation of the latter. Thus Ovid :-
"Novi aliquam quæ se circumfert esse Corinnam.”
But Dr. Lee decreed that I should believe in the twelve
versions, I suppose because such a belief was absurd,
and gave good matter for dull jokes. One of these
occurs in note ** p. 26, where the versio figurata is
said tenaciously to adhere to my memory, because it
will not fall out of the cerebellum of the learned. Now
I no more believe in the twelve versions, or in the
figured one, than I do in the twelve knights of the round
table;
and a very small inclination to be just would
have made Dr. Lee perceive it.
LECTURE VII.
295
verba verò hoc est corpus meum,' ad men-
tem Syrorum id semper significare. Primum
negat Wiseman, et rectè si quid video." Now
this acknowledgment at the same time con-
tains an unfair statement. It was no part
of my theme to prove that the Syrians
understood the words of Institution literally.
Had this been my object, I surely would
not have overlooked the testimonies of SS.
Ephrem, Isaac, and a host of other wit-
nesses. The only appeal to the Syrians was
in answer to Dr. Clarke's challenge, repeated
by Mr. Horne, that they had no word for
"to represent." But it suited the learned
Doctor to create his adversary before he
attacked him; and so the real point in dis-
pute is misstated, and two of my three
texts are examined, not as referring to the
philological question under discussion, but
as if brought by me to prove that the Syriac
Church believed in the Real Presence; thus
making show as if I had only been able to
collect three texts for my purpose!
23
Now then let us see what Dr. Lee's
"minute and critical examination
of my
quotations, as Mr. Horne calls it, comes to.
The first quotation was from Dionysius
1
296
LECTURE VII.
Barsalibæus, simply saying that the mys-
teries "are the body and blood of Christ, in
truth, and not in figure." The object of this
quotation was obviously to show that the
Syrians had a means of expressing, if they
chose, "this is a figure of my body," and
that Dr. Clarke's assertion was inaccurate,
that the Syrians to this day could only ex-
press the idea by saying "this is my body."
But Dr. Lee chooses to overlook the simple
philological question, and to attack the testi-
mony as an argument for the Real Presence.
This he does in words to the following
effect:
"Among the Syriac authors whom he
quotes, the first is Dionysius Bar Salibi
(p. 57). But he wrote his book against the
Franks or Catholics (Pontificios) themselves,
towards the end of the twelfth century, and
sent it to Jerusalem. Here (pp. 57, 59) the
bread and wine are called (by him) the body
and blood of Christ; but the bread is never
said by him to be changed into the flesh of
Christ, which I consider a thing of great
importance. And Bar Salibi himself else-
where teaches that these expressions are to
be taken mystically (Assem. B. O. tom. ii.
1
LECTURE VII.
297
I
p. 191), which N. Wiseman forgot to show.
'We contemplate,' he says, 'the bread with
the eye of the soul;' and p. 193, it makes
it the body in a divine and mystical manner.'
Here are two assertions, the one as remark-
able for accuracy, as the other is for candour,
First, speaking of Barsalibæus, Dr. Lee
asserts, "but the bread is never said by him.
to be changed into the flesh of Christ; which
I consider a thing of great importance."
Would you believe that in the very page
which contains my quotation from Barsali-
bæus, there is another passage from him in
the following terms: "As Jesus himself
appeared to be a man, and was God, so do
these things appear to be bread and wine,
but are the body and blood . . . So also,
when the Holy Ghost descends upon the
altar (which is a type of the womb and of
the tomb), he CHANGES the bread and wine,
and makes them the body and blood of the
Word."* The term here used is se
mshachleph, to change, transmute. The com-
parison with Christ's divinity in the flesh
shows that he understood the body and blood
ܡܝܚܠܦ usedis
* Page 57, note.
F
,
1
298
LECTURE VII.
to be as really in the Eucharist, as his God-
head was in his person on earth.
So much for the accuracy of the learned
professor's statements; but before going to
the next error, I must not overlook a dexte-
rous improvement introduced into his text,
by his friend and applauder, Mr. Horne.
It consists of the artful sliding in of the
the name of Maruthas, with that of Barsali-
bæus, in his analysis of the Doctor's stric-
tures; so to insinuate that Dr. Lee's attempted
confutation extended no less to the formid-
able quotation from the saint which he did
not even venture to touch. But these are
little arts unworthy of serious notice.
Another part of the extract, I said, was
not less remarkable for its candour. I am
charged with overlooking some expressions.
of Barsalibæus quoted by Assemani, which
seem to imply that he disbelieved in the
Real Presence; "which N. Wiseman forgot
to show." Mr. Horne, in echoing these
words, gives a typographical emphasis to the
word forgot, by printing it in capitals, doubt-
less to insinuate that I did not forget. Now,
here again, would you believe, that in the
same note, I actually refer to the very page
LECTURE VII.
299
}
Į
(190) of Assemani's second volume;* and
say that the learned orientalist had accused
Barsalibæus of denying not the Real Pre-
sence, but Transubstantiation, and of admit-
ting a species of companation? Nay, more
than this, I brought the very passage, just
quoted by me, in confutation of Assemani's
very assertion, which I am charged with
forgetting! These are my words: "Primam
partem (loci sequentis) jam dedit Assemani
(ib. p. 190), sed postrema verba omittens,
quæ tamen præclarum continent testimo-
nium." Then follows the passage just given,
in the original, and in Latin, after which I
concluded thus: "Postremam textus partem
ut innui, non dedit Cl. Assemani, ideoque
pono, quod videatur (ibid) negatæ Transub-
stantiationis Dionysium (Barsalibæum) insi-
mulare, subobscuris nonnullis sententiis duc-
tus, quum tamen quæ dedi tam clara sint."†
So that the history of the transaction is
briefly this: Assemani quotes a passage from
Barsalibæus, wherein he seems to doubt of
our doctrine. I go to the MS. of his work
in the Vatican, and find that immediately
* I refer to p. 190, and Dr. Lee to p. 191; but the
subject referred to is the same.
† "Horæ Syria,” p. 57.
300
LECTURE VII.
*
after that passage, which is very obscure,
comes the clearest possible assertion of the
reality of Christ's presence, and of an abso-
lute change of the elements. I bring it
expressly in explanation of the other extracts,
and in confutation of Assemani; and Dr.
Lee finds that I forgot what Assemani asserts,
and holds me dishonest because I do not
submit my conviction to the authority which
I am actually confuting! And the sentences
by which I was to correct my strong quota-
tion were, "that we contemplate the bread
with the soul's eye;" and that "it is made
the body in a manner divine and mystical"
(mysterious in Syriac).* As if I should not
use the same phrases, who yet believe in the
Real Presence! For it is the Protestant
who looks upon the Eucharist with the
bodily eye, and sees nothing but bread, while
we look on it by the eye of the soul, and dis-
cover it to be a nobler gift; the Protestant
sees nothing divine or mysterious in his ordi-
nance, while we require a divine power, and
believe in a mysterious effect in ours.
* In Latin and English there is a difference between
mystical and mysterious; in Syriac there is no such dis-
tinction. The word used means secret, and so myste-
rious.
LECTURE VII.
301
•
Dr. Lee, whom I own I am wearied with
thus following in his doubling logic, then
attacks the Arabic passage from David; and
his transcriber again supports him by his
emphatic capitals: for I am now charged
with MISTRANSLATING the text. Had the
translation been mine, I might have felt
hurt, and certainly I should have bowed to
the professor's superior reputation in Arabic
literature. But it happens not to be mine,
but that of a scholar, a native Syrian or
Arab, who leaves Dr. Lee as far behind him,
as he may be justly thought to surpass me.
And yet I do not mean to defend even his
work, simply because the supposed mistrans-
lation in no manner affects the consequences
to be drawn from the text. This was simply
quoted to prove that the Syrians could dis-
tinguish in their language between saying,
"this is my body," and "this represents it."
The latter part proves this fact. "Christ
said, 'this is my body,' but did not say, 'this
is the figure of my body;'" or, as Dr. Lee
prefers, "this is like my body." It is evi-
dent that a contrast which must have been
expressed no less in the Syriac original, is
here made between the Real Presence and
some other presence by emblems; and this is
302
LECTURE VII.
all I wish to establish. But, on the other
hand, what an ingeniously absurd meaning
the Doctor's learned commentator has put
upon his version. You shall hear both. This
is Dr. Lee's translation of the passage: "Illud
dedit nobis in remissionem peccatorum post-
quam id sibimet assimilaverat; imo dixit,
'Hoc est corpus meum,' at Non dixit,' Simile
est corpori meo."" I suppose that by Christ's
assimilating the bread to himself at the Last
Supper, is meant, according to Dr. Lee,
making it a symbol of himself; otherwise the
Syriac canon does not agree in doctrine with
the Anglican Church.
But now hear Mr. Horne's paraphrase:
"That is, the sacrament ought to be received
with faith, as my body itself; but not as any
likeness of it, which indeed would be idola-
try." In the first place, the two small words,
"with faith,” are a little interpolation of the
learned critic's, who assumes, of course, for
granted, the very point in dispute, whether
this passage express a Real Presence, or one
by faith. 2ndly, Expunge this trifle, and
read the passage: "that is, the sacrament
ought to be received as my body, but not as
any likeness of it, which would indeed be
idolatry." From which words I draw the
LECTURE VII.
303
interesting conclusion, that there is no idola-
try in the Catholic doctrine, which holds
that it is the body of Christ, and not merely
a resemblance or image of it; and moreover,
that they who believe in such, are idolators.
3. The framer of this canon must have been
guilty of precious absurdity, to tell us, that
Christ made the bread like himself, "sibimet
assimilaverat," and yet took care to say that
it was "not like his body;" and, moreover,
that it would be idolatry, according to Mr.
H.'s gloss, to receive it as that which he had
made it! Lastly, I am quite satisfied to take
the sentiments of the Syrian Church upon
the Eucharist, from this text as expounded
by Horne, with the omission of the adjunct
"with faith," for which there is not the
slightest warrant in the text.
Anxious as I feel to bring this contest to
a close, I am sure I shall be one day charged
with cowardice, if I do not notice the new
additions brought by Dr. Lee, to the passages
illustrative of the Protestant interpretation
of the words of Institution. Mr. Horne in-
troduces the matter with his usual accuracy,
as follows:-" Dr. Wiseman has professed a
wish for some philological illustrations in
behalf of the Protestant, or true mode of in-
304
LECTURE VII.
terpreting Matt. xxvi. 26." I have expressed
such a wish! Where? on what occasion?
I took up my pen simply to confute Dr.
Clarke's statement, copied by Mr. Horne;
and this gentleman's erasure of the passage
from his work, and Dr. Lee's acknowledg-
ment, prove that my confutation was com-
plete. He goes on:-" Dr. Lee proceeds to
gratify the wish, and accordingly cites one
passage from the old Syriac version of
1 Kings xxii. 11, &c., all which ABUNDANTLY
CONFIRM the Protestant mode of interpreta-
tion." A few words will decide this.
The reference to the Syriac version of
the text alluded to, can only be made to
blind persons unacquainted with the lan-
guage, and so make them imagine that it
contains some peculiarity of phrase applicable
to the contest on Syriac philology; whereas
the reference might have been as easily made
to the Hebrew, the Latin, or the English.
For the argument is simply this; that a false
prophet "made him horns of iron, and said,
'Thus saith the Lord, with these thou shalt
push the Syrians.'" This is the passage,
according to the Anglican version, and upon
it the learned professor is pleased facetiously
to argue thus: "Therefore, he proceeded
LECTURE VII,
305
$
{
:
horned to battle! therefore he was to push
the Syrians with those very horns!"
"Qui
potest capere capiat." How these words
"abundantly confirm" the
Protestant expo-
sition, I own I do not see. That horn is a
familiar established metaphor for strength,
and that a horn was consequently its emblem,
every reader of Scripture knows; nor did
any one on reading " he hath raised the horn
of salvation," or even on hearing the poet
say of wine,
“Addis cornua pauperi."
ever understand that actual horns were
alluded to. Was bread then a standing type
of Christ's body, as horns were of strength?
Secondly, a prophet, true or false, acting his
prophecy, is surely to be interpreted by dif
ferent rules from a legislator instituting a
sacrament. Dr. Lee's "confirmation" might
have been made still more abundant, by his
taking equal pains to prove that God did
not really mean to put wooden yokes on the
necks of the kings of Moab and Edom,*
and that the wall of Jerusalem was not-a
frying-pan,† An instance from another
source will still further illustrate this quota-
* Jer. xxvii. 2,
+ Ezech. iv. 3.
X
I
306
LECTURE VII.
εν νικα,
tion. When Constantine saw a cross in the
Heavens, with the legend ev TOYTO vika, "in
THIS conquer," could he have understood
that he was to mount the skies, and bring
down that very cross; or would he not
understand, "by what this represents, that
is, by the cross, the emblem of Christianity,
thou shalt conquer?" But, in short, what
resemblance or parallelism, either in con-
struction or circumstance, is there between
the text of Kings and the words of Institu-
tion? Till this is shown, the argument is
nothing worth.
"
The two other texts, you might suppose,
would be from Syriac writers, as the contro-
versy was about their language. Not at all;
but the one is from the Hamasa, an Arabic
poem, the other from the Persian of Saadi.
The first says, "If you had considered his
head, you would have said, it is a stone of
the stones used in a balista.'" On which the
scholiast says, "This means similitude; you
would have said, that for size, it was a stone
of an engine." An Englishman would have
applied the similitude to its hardness, which
shows how we required an explanation to
reach the true meaning. It proves what I
have before said of conventional metaphors
LECTURE VII.
307
F
refusing capricious interpretations. A poet,
therefore, says that one thing is another, as
every poet has ever done, and means, not that
it is its symbol or its figure, but that it is like
it. But our Saviour is not supposed to have
said, that the bread was like his body: nay, Mr.
Horne has told us, that it would be idolatry
to receive it as such. The words of Saadi,
to which, if needful, I could have added as
many similar examples as you choose, are
these: "Our affairs are the lightning of the
world." Here is a poetical simile, in which
one thing is said to be another, that is, to
possess its properties. As well might every
instance be brought, where a hero is called a
lion, or a virtuous man an angel. But the
sentence means, not that the affairs spoken of
are a figure or symbol of lightning; and that
is the meaning wanted in our case. I never
could deny that a thing is said to be that
which it resembles, or whose qualities it
possesses. Again, in this instance, the addi-
tion of the qualifying expression "of the
world," further destroys all parallelism. It
resembles the expression, "you are the salt
of the earth;" where the addition explains
all the meaning; "you have the qualities of
salt in regard to the earth."
L
308
LECTURE VII.
I have hurried over these instances, be-
cause they are nothing at all to the purpose;
especially after the full examination I have
already made of the Scripture texts brought
as parallel to the words of Institution.
Perhaps in this Lecture I have betrayed
more warmth than is my wont. But, while
God alone can be our last appeal in questions
of religion, and we can only leave the cause
in His hands, after we have sincerely argued
in its defence, unfairness, and misrepresen-
tation are amenable to a human tribunal.
They are not weapons from the armoury of
truth; and where such poisoned arrows are
used, it is difficult not to have recourse to
less bland methods of repulse, than where
candour and good faith expose themselves,
with a confiding bosom, to the contest. I
believe that few instances of more glaring
misrepresentations of an antagonist's state-
ments, or of an unfairer attempt to shift the
ground measured for the lists, are to be
found in modern controversy, than what I
have laid open in the conduct of these two
clergymen. Can a cause so supported pros-
per?
J
LECTURES
ON
THE REAL PRESENCE.
SECTION III.
I
ON THE DOCTRINE OF ST. PAUL REGARDING
THE EUCHARIST.
DOCTRINE OF ST PAUL.
1 COR. x. 16.
GREEK TEXT.
Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας,
ὁ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία
τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἐστι; τὸν ἄρτον ἐν κλωμεν,
οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι ;
VULGATE.
Calix benedictionis, cui
benedicimus, nonne com-
municatio sanguinis Christi
est ? et panis quem frangi-
mus, nonne participatio
corporis Domini est ?
CHAP. XI. 27-29.
Ωστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον
τοῦτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον
τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναξίως, ἔνοχος
ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ
αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου· Δοκι-
μαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν,
καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσ-
θιέτω, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου
πιμέτω· ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ
ωίνων ἀναξίως, κρίμα ἑαυτῷ
ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει, μὴ διακρίνων
τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου.
Quicumque igitur man-
ducaverit panem hunc, vel
biberit calicem Domini in-
digne, reus erit corporis et
sanguinis Domini. Probet
autem seipsum homo, et
sie de pane illo edat, et de
calice bibat. Qui enim
manducat et bibit indigne,
judicium sibi manducat et
bibit, non dijudicans cor-
pus Domini.
VERSION AUTHORIZED BY THE ENGLISH
PROTESTANT CHURCH.
1 COR. x. 16.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
the communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not the communion
of the body of Christ?
1
312
DOCTRINE OF ST. PAUL.
CHAP. XI. 27-29.
Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread,
and [OR] drink this cup of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so
let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not
discerning the body of the Lord.
LECTURE VIII:
ARGUMENTS FOR THE REAL PRESENCE FROM THE DOC-
TRINE OF ST. PAUL REGARDING THE USE OF THE
BLESSED SACRAMENT-GENERAL OBJECTIONS AGAINST
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE.-REMARK
ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE REAL PRESENCE
AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
To complete the Catholic proof of the Real
Presence from the Scriptures, nothing is
wanting but to examine the doctrine deli-
vered by St. Paul regarding the effects of
this sacred institution. I have for this pur-
pose placed before you two passages in which
he speaks of it; and I proceed at once, to
the brief, but convincing, argument which
they afford to our doctrine.
In the first of these, 1 Cor. x. 16, the
Apostle touches quite incidentally upon it;
for he is speaking of the guilt of partici-
pating in the idolatrous sacrifices of the
314
LECTURE VIII.
heathens. He enforces this by the question-
"The cup of benediction which we bless, is
it not the partaking of the blood of Christ?
And the bread which we break, is it not par
taking of the body of the Lord ?" The word
here rendered partaking, or communion, is
used several other times in the following
verses:-"Behold Israel according to the
flesh; are not they that eat of the sacrifices,
partakers of the altar?" The adjective here
used corresponds exactly to the substantive
in the first passage, κοινωνοὶ κοινωνία.
word is here applied to the real participation
of the sacrifices on the altar, and should,
therefore, have a similar power in the other.
But the force of this text is not so great as
that of the second passage in the eleventh
chapter; and I have brought it chiefly for
the sake of some remarks which I shall have
occasion to make.
The
In the passage to which I have but now
alluded, St. Paul draws important practical
consequences from the narrative of the in-
stitution which he had just detailed. If the
words of our Saviour, "This is my body.'
had been figurative, we might expect that
his apostle, in commenting on them, would
LECTURE VIII.
315
("
drop some word calculated to betray their
real meaning. Now, therefore, we have to see
whether, in his instructions, grounded upon
them, he argues as though they were figurative
or literal. That he is going to draw con-
sequences from the account of the institution,
is obvious from the introductory word-
Therefore," he says,
"whosoever shall eat
of this bread, or drink of the chalice of the
Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord." The consequence,
then, to be drawn from the manner in which
our Saviour instituted the blessed Eucharist,
is, that whosoever receives it unprepared, is
“guilty of his body and blood.”
What is the meaning of this phrase?
Only one expression is to be found parallel
to it in the New Testament. The word
évoxos, translated in Latin reus, in English
guilty, is said sometimes of the punishment
incurred; as, "guilty of death;
guilty of death;"* or is re-
ferred to the tribunal; as, "guilty of the
judgment;"+ in which latter passages it
would be more accurately rendered by
"subject to;" as, "subject to the council."
But on one occasion besides the present, it is
+ Id. v. 21, 22.
* Matt. xxvi.
i
316
LECTURE VIII.
applied to the object against which the
transgression is committed. This is in the
Epistle of St. James (ii. 10), where he says,
that "whoever offendeth against one com-
mandment, is guilty of all!" that is, offends
against all God's commandments. In like
manner, then, the unworthy communicant
offends against the body and blood of Christ.
The expression may receive still farther
illustration from a term of Roman juris-
prudence, by which a person guilty of high
treason is said to be reus majestatis, guilty of
majesty, that is, læsæ, or violatæ majestatis,
of an outrage against majesty. Simi-
larly, then, to be guilty of Christ's body
and blood, signifies committing an injury
against those component parts of his sacred
person.
The next question is, whether such an
expression could have been applied to the
crime committed by un unworthy partici-
pation of symbols of Christ. In the first
place, I remark, that a personal offence to
the body of Christ is the highest outrage or
sin that can even be imagined; it forms a
crime of such enormous magnitude, that we
cannot well conceive its being used to de-
LECTURE VIII.
317
¡
!
}
signate any offence of a lower class. Could
a disrespectful or unworthy approach to a
morsel of bread, symbolical of him, be cha-
racterized as equal to it, and be designated
by a name positively describing it?
Secondly, we may easily verify this point
by example. Although the defacing of the
king's coin be considered an offence against
the king, and I believe treasonable, yet who
would venture to call it an offence against
his person, or his body, or to rank it with an
actual assault committed to injure him?
We have, perhaps, an illustration of this in
a well-known historical anecdote. When
the Arians disfigured and defaced the statues
of Constantine, his courtiers endeavoured to
rouse his indignation by saying, "See how
your face is covered with dirt, and quite de-
formed." But this attempt to transfer to his
own person the outrage done to his emblems
or representations, appeared to the sensible
and virtuous emperor too gross a piece of
flattery; so that, passing his hand quietly
over his head, he replied: "I do not feel
anything." In like manner, therefore, any
offence against symbolical representations of
Christ's body and blood could not be consi-
318
LECTURE VIII.
dered as outrages against the realities them-
selves.
Thirdly, such an expression, under these
circumstances, would be rather a diminution
than an aggravation of the transgression.
For, assuming that St. Paul's intention
was to place in its proper light the henious
guilt of a sinful communion; if we suppose
the body and blood of Christ to be absent,
and only in heaven, and, consequently, the
insult offered him to consist only in the abuse
of his institution, it surely would have been
placing it in a stronger light to describe it
as an offence against his mercy, and kindness,
or his dignity and authority, rather than as
one against his body and blood. For, though
such an offence is enormous beyond any
other, when the body is there, it is but a poor
characterization of an offence against the
Son of God, so to designate it, when the
body is not there.
In fine, plain and simple reason seems to
tell us that the presence of Christ's body is
necessary for an offence committed against it.
A man cannot be "guilty of majesty," unless
the majesty exist in the object against which
his.crime is committed. In like manner, an
LECTURE VIII.
319
offender against the blessed Eucharist cannot
be described as "guilty of Christ's body and
blood," if these be not in the sacrament.
St. Paul then goes on to inculcate the
necessity of proving or trying one's self
before partaking of this sacred banquet,
"because he that eateth and drinketh un-
worthily, eateth and drinketh judgment
or damnation to himself, not discerning the
body of the Lord." The crime, before de-
scribed, is now represented as not discerning
or distinguishing the body of Christ from
other, or profane food. A natural question
presents itself: What ground is there for
this distinction, if the body of the Lord be
not present to be distinguished? It may be
a holier food, or a spiritual food, but not so
immeasurably distinct from all others as the
body of Christ must necessarily be.
But these two passages from St. Paul re-
ceive a full development, and an immense
accession of force, when considered in con-
nection with those which have been so fully
investigated in my preceding lectures. For,
considering them conjointly, we have four
different occasions on which certain expres-
sions are used, referred by us to one subject,
4
320
LECTURE VIII.
but by Protestants to totally distinct topics.
In the first instance, we find our Saviour
instructing the crowds, according to their
theory, upon the simple doctrine of belief in
him. He involves this doctrine in a strange,
unusual metaphor, implying, to all appear-
ance, the' eating of his body and the drink-
ing of his blood. The hearers certainly
understand him so, and he conducts himself
so as to strengthen their erroneous impres-
sion, without even condescending to explain
himself to his faithful apostles.
Well, inexplicable as this behaviour may
be, let us allow it for a moment.
We come
to another scene, where he is to institute a
sacrament as the legacy of his love, in the
presence of the chosen few who had stood
by him in his temptations. He only wishes
to give them some bread to be eaten in
commemoration of his passion; but though
speaking on quite a different subject, he again
unaccountably selects metaphorical expres-
sions, which would recall those of the former
discourse, and would lead them to under-
stand, that now he was giving them that
body to eat, and that blood to drink, which
he had before promised. And to increase
LECTURE VIII.
321
1
{
the risk of their being misled still more, the
key to interpret these words properly was
to be found in philosophical principles, to
which all their observation, and the lessons
he had given them, would forbid their re-
currence. Here then we are to suppose a
different topic, treated precisely in the same
manner as the former.
St. Paul has occasion to speak of the com-
parison between the Christian altar and that
of the heathens. We have now readers very
different in point of ideas from the hearers
of our Saviour's doctrine. If the phrase-
ology, used on the two former occasions,
must have been unintelligible to the Jews,
it must have been doubly so to the Greeks.
But there was no necessity for using it at all.
An expression indicative of the symbolical
character of the Eucharist, would have
sufficiently placed it in contrast with the
profane sacrifices of Paganism. But no such
expression escapes the apostle's pen; he
speaks of the blessed Sacrament as truly con-
taining a participation in the body and blood
of Jesus Christ.
Again, he comes to draw practical moral
conclusions from the words of Institution.
Y
322
LECTURE VIII.
This is a serious point; it consists in de-
fining the consequences of an unworthy
participation; there is no room for poetry or
exaggeration. How does he write? Why,
he characterizes the transgression in a two-
fold form, just as he would transgressions.
against the real body and blood of Christ, if
present, but in words totally inapplicable to
the Eucharist, if these be absent from it.
I ask, is it credible that different topics,
or the same topic under the most dissimilar
circumstances should have been treated by
different teachers, and recorded by different
writers, in terms all tending necessarily to pro-
duce the appearance of one doctrine's being
simply taught; without any of these teachers
or historians, our Saviour, St. Paul, and the
the four Evangelists, once using the obvious
literal exposition, or statement of their doc-
trines, or letting slip the idea that only sym-
bols, and not realities, were signified? Is it
possible that they should have all preferred
a strange uncommon metaphor to simple
literal phrases; and that, too, to convey quite
different doctrines?
But take the Catholic interpretation, which
applies these various passages to one and the
LECTURE VIII.
323
E
same subject, and understands every phrase
and word, not as a new and unheard-of
trope, but as the simplest expression possible
of one doctrine, and you establish an analogy
throughout; you interpret on principle and
in accordance with rule, you keep clear of
numerous inconsistencies and anomalies, and
you bring into perfect harmony a series of
passages, through which a similarity of phra-
seology manifestly prevails.
This has always appeared to me one of the
strongest views of the case between Catholics
and Protestants; and must, I think, make a
convincing impression upon every reflecting
mind. The unity which the Catholic belief
bestows on this variety of passages, and the
fragmentary form which the other opinion
gives to their interpretation, are strongly
contrasted; and this contrast will be greatly
heightened by the consideration of the ob-
jections brought against us. In my last
lecture I examined those difficulties which
are raised against the literal interpretation of
the Eucharistic formulas, as I had before
dealt with the objections raised against the
Catholic explanation of the sixth chapter of
St. John. But there still remain a certain
324
LECTURE VIII.
number of objections drawn from Scripture
against the doctrine of the Real Presence,
which it is right to examine before leaving
our present field, and with which I at once
proceed.
In the examination of the objections
against those principal proofs of our doc-
trine, you could not fail to observe one
leading difference between our arguments
and the objections of our opponents; in other
words, their arguments in favour of their
interpretation. It consists in this, that we
construct our argument in each case from
all the parts of the discourse, considered in
relation with the historical circumstances,
the philology of the language used, the
character of our Saviour, his customary
method of teaching, and every other sub-
sidiary means of arriving at a true meaning.
They, on the contrary, fasten upon some
little phrase, in some corner of the narrative,
which seems to favour their idea, or hunt
out some other passage of Scripture some-
what resembling the words under examina-
tion; and, overlooking all the mass of accu-
mulative evidence which we possess, maintain
that it must all give way before the hint
LECTURE VIII.
325
Į
which that favourite little text affords, or be
interpreted by that imaginary parallelism.
Thus, it is in vain that we urge the repeated
injunctions of Christ to eat his flesh and
drink his blood, and to receive him, and the
manner in which he behaved to his disciples
at Capernaum. All this is nothing, because
he said at the end, and too late evidently to
prevent the defection of his disciples, "the
flesh profiteth nothing!" And yet these
words, as has been fully shown, are nothing
at all to the purpose of explanation. Again,
nothing can be clearer than the words of In-
stitution considered with all their circum-
stances; everything tells with us; but St.
Paul interpreting an allegory, said “the rock
was Christ;" therefore Christ, when not in-
terpreting an allegory, must be understood
to mean "this represents my body."
The general objections to the Eucharist
offend in the same manner; they are taken
from scattered reflections; they consist in
weighing a chance expression, against the
overpowering collection of evidence derived
from so many different contexts. One or two
instances, which appear the most generally
in favour, will suffice to show this defect.
326
LECTURE VIII.
It is argued that in the Eucharist no
change can be admitted, because our Saviour
called the contents of the cup "the fruit of
the vine,"* and St. Paul speaks of the other
element as bread: "Whosoever shall eat
this bread unworthily." If they were not
bread and wine, but the body and blood of
Christ, how could they be called thus?
Such is one of the arguments for the Pro-
testant interpretation alleged by Mr. Faber,†
and more at length by the Bishop of Lin-
coln. I will not stay to deny the first por-
tion of the assertion on which the argument
is based; that the expression, "fruit of the
vine" was applied to the sacramental cup.
It is, indeed, evident from St. Luke, that
these words were spoken before the conse-
cration, or the institution of the Eucharist.
This appears from the very narrative.
"With desire," says our blessed Lord, "I
have desired to eat this pasch with you
before I suffer. For I say to you, that from
this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled
in the kingdom of God. And having taken
* Luke xxii. 18; Matt. xxvi. 29.
"Difficulties of Romanism," p. 60.
+ "Elements of Theology," vol. ii. pp. 484-486.
LECTURE VIII.
327.
the cup, he gave thanks and said, Take and
divide it among you; for I say to you, that
I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till
the kingdom of God come." Then comes
the institution of the Eucharist first as re-
gards the bread, followed by the words, "In
like manner the cup also, after he had
supped," &c. Here it is clearly stated that
the words, placed vaguely by St. Matthew
at the conclusion of the rite, were in reality
spoken of the paschal banquet, before the
institution. But I do not wish to insist fur-
ther on this circumstance, otherwise than to
note it as an inaccuracy in the statement of
the argument; for the difficulty stands good,
if only the expressions in St. Paul be admitted.
1. The first observation which I will make
in reply to this form of argument, may be
drawn from a mystery to which I have
already more than once referred. The doc-
trine of the Trinity, like every other great
dogma, is necessarily evolved from the con-
sideration of a number of texts, which prove
it, if I may say so, by parts. In one place,
the Son is declared to be God; in another,
he and the Father are pronounced equal;
in a third, the Holy Ghost is associated with
328
LECTURE VIII.
the two in attributes or in operations; and
thus chiefly is this fundamental doctrine
worked out. How is it opposed? By the
Protestant process of discovering texts ap-
parently in contradiction with the great
conclusions thus drawn, and giving them
individually a power of proof equivalent to
their united force. Thus a Socinian will
select the words, "The Father is greater
than I,"* or the acknowledgment that "the
day of judgment is unknown to the Son of
Man;Ӡ and maintaining that these texts are
incompatible with equality between him and
God the Father, and refusing to allow that
they may be spoken with reference to the
humanity alone, withstand the clear evidence
of positive texts to the contrary. The or-
thodox divine replies, that, as contradictions
cannot be allowed, and as one text must
yield to the other, the one which will bear a
consistent explanation must give way; and
that, as equality with the Father is an idea
that will bear no modification, but implies
divinity, while inferiority is admissible by
referring it to Christ's human nature, so
both classes of texts are correct in his sys-
+ Matt. xiii. 32.
* Jo. xiv. 28.
LECTURE VIII.
329
1
tem, while one is inapplicable in the other.
Similar are our respective positions in this
controversy. We stand upon the compli-
cated proofs which I just now summed up,
drawn from passages spoken, on a variety of
occasions, under different circumstances, but
all manifestly converging into one simple doc-
trine. But St. Paul calls the Eucharist, not
indeed simple bread, but emphatically "this
bread;" therefore all this complication of
proof is worth nothing! We then reply, as
the Protestant does to the Socinian, Is it
fair to balance one word, so written, against
the entire weight of our proofs? For, as in
the case alleged, if we take your views, we
must, for the sake of one phrase easily
brought into harmony, refuse to admit the
clear and obvious meaning of many passages
which cannot be brought into agreement
with your idea, without sacrificing all right
principles of interpretation. But in our
view, we preserve the simple signification
of all these, and bring this into accord
by the very process used in the other contro-
versy; as Christ is said to be an inferior, or
a man, from the outward form in which he
subsisted, so is this called bread, from the
330
LECTURE VIII.
appearances under which the body of the
Lord is veiled.
2. We may further remark, that we
Catholics call the sacred elements by the
names of their appearances, after the conse-
cration. In the canon of the mass, we call
them " panem sanctum viæ æternæ, et cali-
cem salutis perpetuæ:" again, we say,
66 panem cœlestem accipiam." Now, would
any one seriously argue that we do not
believe in the Real Presence, and in Tran-
substantiation, because we continue to speak
of bread being still upon the altar after
consecration? Certainly not; for it is natu-
ral to call by this name the sacred gift, both
from its appearance, and from its properties.
It can, therefore, be no more inferred, from
similar phraseology in St. Paul, that he ex-
cluded our belief.
3. These reflections will be greatly strength-
ened by comparison with other passages of
Holy Writ. In the ninth chapter of St.
John, we have a detailed account of a miracle
wrought by our Saviour, in the cure of a
man born blind. Nothing can be more
minute; we are told how our Lord healed
him, how the Pharisees, annoyed, undertake
་
K
^
LECTURE VIII.
6
331
a captious investigation of the case; they
interrogate the man himself, his friends
and even his parents. No one doubts, after
this, the truth of the miracle, the reality of
the change wrought on the poor man's eyes.
But suppose that a rationalist stepped in,
and said, "Hold! all your reasoning from
these clear expressions, and from this simple
narrative, may be very plausible; but there
is one little expression which destroys it all,
and lets us into the true secret. For, in
verse the seventeenth, after all these clear
assertions, it is written, they say again to
the blind man.' The man, then, was still
blind; no change could have been wrought;
for if it had, he could not be still called
blind." I ask, would not such reasoning, if
it deserve the name, be rejected with indig-
nation? And yet it is precisely what is
pursued against us. Again, in Genesis,
after Aaron's rod on the one side, and those
of the Egyptian magicians on the other, are
said to have been changed into serpents,
it is added, "but Aaron's rod devoured their
rods."*
Therefore the infidel may again
* Gen. viii. 12.
332
LECTURE VIII.
conclude that no change had taken place
in the rods. Another example we have in
Jo. ii., where the account of the marriage-
feast at Cana is recited. We read (v. 9),
"And when the chief steward had tasted
the water made wine, and knew not whence
it was; but the waiters knew, who had drawn
the water."* Here it is called water, though
transubstantiated into wine. From which
examples we may fairly conclude, that it is
usual in Scripture to continue to call sub-
stances, after they have been changed into
others by the name which they bore before
the change occurred. No argument, then,
against a change of substance in the Eucha-
rist, can be brought from a corresponding
change not being always found in phraselogy
concerning it.
I will only indulge you with one more
objection, which exemplifies all that I have
said of the imperfect and inaccurate reason-
* The verb here used to draw," evidently applies
to the broaching of the vessels which contained the new
made wine. For the same word is used by our Saviour
in the preceding verse, after the vessels had been filled.
"Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward." In
both cases, the same verb avtλew occurs.
LECTURE VIII.
333
ing pursued by our opponents. Mr. Horne
gives this rule:-" An obscure, doubtful,
ambiguous, or figurative text, must never
be interpreted in such a sense as to make it
contradict a plain one." The defect of this
rule is, that in application, you have first
to ascertain which is the figurative text, and
which the plain one: in other words wish-
ing to apply it to our controversy, to make
up your mind first, to an opinion on the point
in dispute, whether it be a figurative or a
literal text. No matter, however; only let
us see the sagacity of this writer's application.
"We may further conclude, that the sense
put upon the words, this is my body,' by
the Church of Rome, cannot be the true one,
being contrary to the express declaration of
the New Testament history; from which it
is evident that our Lord is ascended into
heaven, where he is to continue 'till the
time of the restitution of all things' (Acts
iii. 21), that is, till his second coming to
judgment.
""*
Now, for this argument to have any force,
would be necessary that the Catholic doc-
* Vol. ii. p. 414, 7th ed.
334
LECTURE VIII.
trine should deny Christ's being in heaven
till the restitution of all things, which we
believe as much as Protestants. The ques-
tion resolves itself into this: whether Christ's
being in heaven is incompatible with his
being on earth too; in other words, into the
philosophical question, whether a body con-
stituted like his, so as to pass through closed
doors, can be in more places than one at a
time. St. Paul assures us that he had seen
Christ after his ascension, which again is
incompatible with the interpretation put upon
these words. But this is an instance of an
objection raised upon a passage that has no
connection with the subject, but it is made
to counterbalance strong and explicit decla-
rations with which it is not in the least at
variance.
*
If I wished to convince any one of the
extreme difficulties under which Protestants
labour, who endeavour to construct a figura-
tive reasoning for the Eucharistic formulas,
I would refer him to Eichhorn's attempt.
at an explanation of them, grounded upon
hermeneutical principles. He begins by
* 1 Cor. xv. 8.
LECTURE VIII.
335
supposing that all the sacred historians drew
their narrative from the Hebrew prot-evan-
gelium, or primitive gospel, as it is called.
He then surmises, that into St. Luke's and
St. Paul's accounts glosses have crept, and
that the former did not understand the original
well! Having thus stated his problem, he
proceeds to make substitutions of what he
considers equivalent quantities, as ingeniously
as an Algebraist could do: till we have the
following equation.
Τουτο εστι το σωμα
μου,
This is my body,"
equal to
And this again is equal to—
Τούτο εστιν ὁ ἄρτος
του σωματος μου.
This is the bread
of my body."
Τούτο εστιν ὁ αρτος της διαθηκης δια του εμου
θανατου εγκαινισθησομενης.
"This is the bread of the covenant to be
renewed through my death."* So that by
the word "body" the apostles were to under-
stand the idea of "bread of a covenant to
be renewed by death!" No wonder that the
* "Ueber die Einsetzung-Wörte des heiligen Abend-
mahls,” in his "Allgemeine Bibliothek," vol. vi. pp.
759-72.
336
LECTURE VIII.
}
author himself exclaims in conclusion, "How
enigmatical! truly enigmatical and obscure."*
·
But this one example may suffice. In
concluding these lectures on the Scriptural
proofs of the Real Presence, I will simply
say, that throughout them, I have spoken of
this doctrine as synonymous with Transub-
stantiation. For, as by the Real Presence I
have understood a corporal presence, to the
exclusion of all other substances, it is evident
that the one is, in truth, equivalent to the
other. On this account, I have contended
for the literal meaning of our Saviour's
words; leaving it as a matter of inference,
that the Eucharist, after consecration, is the
body and blood of Christ. The arguments
which you have heard will receive their full
development from the overwhelming force
of tradition, which yet remains to be unfolded
before you.
* Page 776.
THE END.
•

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
}
i
3 9015 06391 2003
+

TA
た
​