FIRST ARGUMENT FOR THE REAL PRESENCE, FROM THE I CLOSED my last lecture by resolving the controversy between ourselves and Protestants, upon the sixth chapter of St. John, into a proposition strictly within the limits. of hermeneutical investigation; and I endeavoured 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 indications of a new section of the discourse commencing 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. 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 phraseology 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 application of bread or food to wisdom or doctrines, by which the mind is nourished, was one in ordinary use among the Jews and other Orientals; consequently, it could present no difficulty here. The figure is used by Isaiah (lv. 1, 2): "All you that thirst, 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 precisely the same image: "With the bread of * Compare Ecclus. xxiv. 5. † Prov. ix. 5. 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. masters of doctrine, as it is said, 'Come, eat my bread."" Again, the Glossa on the treatise 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 expressions 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 Sanskritsprache," Frankf. 1816, p. 272) has given the sense more accurately. |