told they accused Daniel, it is said, “They went and eat a morsel of Daniel before the king." There is no other expression; and this is admitted. I could quote authorities which I have put together from all the first writers on the Hebrew and other oriental languages-such as Michaelis, Winer, Genesius, and several others, all of whom expressly in different parts of their works, have attested that the expression does mean, and can mean no other.

Now, then, let us come to the application of this point. The Jews, so far as we have any means of ascertaining the signification which they attached to the phrase of eating flesh, had not only a literal meaning, but a figurative one-a figurative one, perfectly established among them, which signified to do a grievous injury; and especially by calumny. According to the obvious canon, or rule of common interpretation, we can have no choice. We will put ourselves in the position of the Saviour's hearers, we will place ourselves among them, and will thus enter into the minds of those whom primarily our Saviour addressed, and by whom he necessarily wished to be rightly understood. We have no choice, except the literal signification, or the only figurative one which prevailed among them. I will be bold to say,

no one would venture to choose the figurative one-therefore I ask for equal demonstration, that any other expression that is proposed, was in use among the Jews, in such use as to supersede in their minds this other signification. I ask for any one single proof, that our Saviour could have used it in that sense, with any chance of being understood.

So far, therefore, for the examination of the phraseology. We find one sort of phrase in the first part of the discourse, which can be understood of faith, and which our Saviour explained of faith, and we find in the second part of the discourse, an expression of a totally different character, which no criterion that the Jews possessed, could have led them to interpret otherwise, than either in a literal sense, or that one figurative sense, from which all must recoil.

But there is another ground of manifest distinction, which is based upon the figure now used by our Saviour-that is, of drinking his blood, as well as eating his flesh. I observed that no person who is interested in having his doctrine received by those whom he addresses, could well be supposed to have used an expression in any sense that could be odious. It would appear that it contained something carnal, something against the conscience of the Jews, and the positive law of God.

Now, I observe two things:-in the first place, the simple drinking of blood under any circumstances, in any extremity of necessity, was considered a very great transgression of the law of God. In the second place, that it was considered still more than that; it was considered the greatest curse which God could possibly fix upon mankind-the par.

taking of human blood. Now, I would ask, is it credible that our Saviour, wishing to propose to his hearers one of the most consoling and agreeable doctrines, would have chosen to conceal it under such a frightful, and such revolting images: for it is obvious that he had always literal, ordinary phrases at command; and he could have simply said as he said before-" You must believe in me, you must believe in my passion, you must believe in my death, you must believe in my redemption, if you wish to be saved." There was nothing to prevent him saying this; and if, therefore, he did depart from the literal expression for a figurative one--supposing this to be figurative—can we imagine for a moment, that he would select, of all others, this, which would convey the most disagreeable and painful ideas to his hearers? This, I think, is manifestly at once repulsive. For instance, with regard to the simple drinking of blood, it was forbidden, under any circumstances, in consequence of a law much older than the Mosaichaving been one of the first statutes given by God, after the deluge, to the renovated human race. Gen. ix. 4. But in the law of Moses, we read, "If any man, whosoever, of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, eat blood, I will set my face against his soul, and will cut him off from among my people." Lev. xvii. 10. We find, consequently, that it is never mentioned, except as a dreadful transgression. When the army of Saul had slaughtered their cattle in the blood, it was reported to him, that "the people had sinned against the Lord, by eating of the blood; and he said, ye have trangressed." Ezekiel is commanded to proclaim, “Thus saith the Lord God, ye have eat up blood; shall ye possess the land by inheritance?" And in the book of Judith, which, whatever may be the opinion regarding its canonical authority, is, at any rate sufficient to inform us what were the feelings of the Jews among whom it was written, it is said, For drought of water they are 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 given up to destruction." So that, even in the case of the last extremity of a besieged town in which there was no water, it was supposed, that should they, under any extremes, proceed so far as tɔ taste of blood, there was no chance of God protecting them; but they were sure to be given up to destruction. But if we come to speak of eating human flesh, and drinking human blood, it was something much more repulsive, for it is never mentioned, except as the last extreme, as the final curse which God could inflict on his people. Thus, it is said, "For instead of a fountain and ever-running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust." And again, in Isaiah xlix. 26, "I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine." And Jeremiah is commanded to prophesy,

"6

as a plague that should astonish all mankind, that the citizens shall be obliged "to eat the flesh every man of his friend." Now with such feelings, then, I ask again, can you conceive that our Saviour, wishing to recom→ mend the doctrine to the acceptance of his hearers, would have clothed it under imagery of such a nature as this, which had never been used by God, except on the one hand, even in its most innocent form, to express a great transgression of his law; and on the other, for the purpose of denouncing his most signal judgments and curses. I am therefore war

ranted from this again in concluding, that necessity obliged our Saviour to use these expressions—that is to say, that, as they were of literal meaning, as he could not possibly depart from them, wishing to teach the doctrine which had the literal meaning they conveyed, therefore he was obliged to present it, however disagreeable, however revolting it might be to his hearers, because he could not possibly present it to them in any other form: and the meaning which corresponds to this canon, to this key of interpretation, is the only literal one.

But, my brethren, hitherto we have been, as it were, going on vaguely, making use, that is, of such expressions, such means of illustration, as we could collect from other points. We must now come to the best and surest canon of interpretation.

It is not often that we have the advantage of having it recorded in so many words, what was the meaning attached to the words by those who heard them. We are generally obliged to investigate, as well as we can, and as we have done hitherto, entirely from the force of the expressions themselves, compared with the resources which we have in other quarters. It is very seldom that the hearers themselves, and still seldomer that the speaker tells us what is meant. This is, therefore, the strongest, and certainly the most convincing method of proceeding. It is evident that the Jews, in the former part of our Saviour's discourse, when he spoke to them about coming down from heaven, and so on, had only misunderstood him so far, as to call in question his having come down from heaven. Our Saviour explains it, and goes on again and again repeating the necessity of believing in him. The Jews make no farther objection, and consequently they are satisfied that so far as the doctrine goes, there was nothing to be said against it. If they had understood our Saviour's discourse in the latter part of the chapter, to be only a continuation of the former one, why they could have had consequently no more reason to object to it, than they had before. Their only doubt had been removed, as to his coming down from heaven, and they murmured no more upon it. How comes it, therefore, that they did not feel satisfied with what came afterwards? It must be, necessarily, that they conceived he had passed into a new subject. So far as he kept up the old train of argument, they said nothing, it is only when

there is a change in the phrases, from which it is evident, they believed, that he spoke of something else, that they complained; for our Lord no sooner says, "The bread that I will give is my flesh," than they instantly murmured and said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They, therefore, who were the persons to whom primarily the discourse was addressed, did not understand that the same topic was continued which had been before laid under their consideration, and a new difficulty now arises, a difficulty grounded necessarily upon the change of the subject. Now, what was the difficulty? Manifestly the difficulty, or impossibility of receiving the doctrine. If he meant believing in him, there was nothing easier than to understand how it was to be done. They had already been satisfied that that could be done. But the very form of the expression, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" instantly implies that it appeared to them an impossible thing to be performed. They did not, they could not conceive, how it was to be carried into effect. This at once establishes, that they understood it in a literal sense; and not only so, the fact is agreed on all hands, for it is commonly said, that we Catholics are carnal like the Jews; that we are like the men of Capernaum; that we take our Saviour's words in a gross, literal, carnal sense. Therefore it is acknowleged, that the Jews, those who heard the words, understood them as we do. So far, therefore, we have every reason to say, that they who, in ordinary circumstances are to be considered the most sure interpreters of any expression, agreed that our Saviour's words could convey to them at least no meaning but the literal one. I say in ordinary circumstances, because, were you, on any occasion, to read an account of what had taken place many years ago, and there was an expression in it which was obscure, which you did not understand, and you found one who had been at the spot, and who explained it, and told you what it meant, you would take his interpretation as the sure one, because you would believe that he, being a man of those times—a man present, must have known what the speaker meant. Therefore, so far as the Jews are concerned, and so far as the hearers are the proper judges of the meaning of any expression, we have their testimony with us, that our Saviour's expressions in the latter part of the discourse, were such as could not refer to faith, on which they were satisfied, but referred to a new doctrine repugnant to their feelings, because it appeared to them impossible.

But we need not, and we must not, be satisfied with this discovery; for a great and important question arises. The Jews, I say, believed the words in the literal sense, even as we do; but the inquiry is, whether they were right in doing so, or whether they were wrong. If they were right in taking our Saviour's words literally, we also are right; if they

were wrong-if they had no business to take them literally-then we are wrong also; and the whole question now hinges on this, to ascertain, if we can, whether the Jews were right or wrong. Now, taking our Saviour in a literal sense, we must discover a criterion by which to ascertain whether they were right or wrong.

The criterion which I propose is a very simple one. Let us examine, in the first place, all those passages of the New Testament where our Saviour's hearers wrongfully understood a figurative expression, in a literal sense; and, in consequence of this wrongful interpretation, raised an objection to the doctrine. We will see how our Saviour always acts upon such occasions. We will then take all the other examples where they took his words literally, and were right in doing so, and rose objections upon that literal interpretation, rightly taken of the doctrine. We will see how our Lord acts in these cases. We shall thus have two rules for ascertaining whether the Jews were right or wrong; we shall see to which class of passages our case belongs, and of course we cannot refuse to abide by such a judgment.

Now, therefore, in the first place, I say that there are eight or nine passages in the New Testament, in which our Saviour meant to be taken figuratively in what he said, and the Jews, through perversity or ignorance, took his words in a literal sense, and object, that the doctrine is impossible. I find in every one instance, without exception, our Saviour corrects them, and tells them plainly, "I do not mean to be taken in that sense; I mean to be taken in a figurative sense." Just let us look at all the passages. The first that I shall propose to you is the well-known one of our Saviour's interview with Nicodemus, recorded in the third chapter of John. Our Saviour said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Now, Nicodemus takes this just as the Jews did in our case: "How can a man be born again when he is old?" He takes the words literally-the being born again; and he objects to the doctrine as being impracticable, as being absurd. Upon which our Saviour instantly corrects him. He says, "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”—a manifest modification and explanation of the doctrine; because he tells him, "I mean a person born again of the Spirit”—that is, spiritually being born again through the agency of water. He does not allow Nicodemus to remain in his mistake, which arose from misinterpreting a figurative expression. In the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew, and the sixth verse, Jesus says to his disciples, "Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and Sadducees." They understood him literally; they conceive that he is speaking of bread-of the bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees. "But they thought within themselves, saying, Because we have taken