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 expressions, which would recall those of the former discourse, and would lead them to understand, that now he was giving them that body to eat, and that blood to drink, which he had before promised. And to increase 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 recurrence. 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 comparison 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 phraseology, 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. This is a serious point; it consists in defining the consequences of an unworthy participation; there is no room for poetry or exaggeration. How does he write? Why, he characterises the transgression in a twofold 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 produce the appearance of one doctrine's being simply taught; without any of these teachers or historians, our Saviour, St. Paul, and the four Evangelists, once using the obvious literal exposition or statement of their doctrines,or letting slip the idea that only symbols 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 same subject, and understands every phrase and word, not as a new and unheard of trope, but as the simplest expression possible of our 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 phraseology 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 objections 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 remains a certain 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 doctrine, 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 subsidiary 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 somewhat resembling the words under examination; and, overlooking all the mass of accumulative evidence which we possess, maintain that it must all give way before the hint 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 Caphernaum. 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 institution considered with all their circumstances; every thing tells us; but St. Paul, interpreting an allegory, said "the rock was Christ" therefore Christ when not interpreting 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.

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 Protestant interpretation alleged by Mr. Faber,† and more at length by the Bishop of Lincoln. I will not stay to deny the first portion 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 consecration, or the institution of the Eucharist. This appears from the very narrative. "With desire," says our blessed

* Luke xxii. 18; Mat. xxvi. 29.

"Difficulties of Romanism," p. 60.

"Elements of Thcology," vol. ii. P.

484-486.