mathematical course which makes them the subject of severe and minute demonstration? Our case is precisely similar. If the texts for the real Presence appear to you to be intuitively convincing, this arises, as in the instances adduced, 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 produced conviction upon others, it is only fair to try what the more rigid course of exegetical discussion may effect, especially upon those who are learned, and able to appreciate 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 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.* * These words were written long before I thought an opportu

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 availableness (Allgemeingultigkeit) of the Bible: and thereby, came unfortunately to be mixed up with the concerns of religion another perfectly foreign and earthly science-philology,-whose destructive influence cannot but be recognised from that moment.” "* 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 plan and only true rule of Church authority continued 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 allowing

I

nity would ever be afforded me, of trying this method, upon so large an audience as attended the lectures at Moorfields' Chapel. * Novalis, Schriften, 2 Th. s. 195, 4 Ausgabe.

themselves to be led by Protestants into a war of detail, meeting them as they desired in partial combats, for particular dogmas, 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 concessions, the state of controversy at the present day renders it necessary to treat these questions separately, and expedient to treat them philologically.

And therefore, in reply, I would first observe, 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 interpretation 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 defined. Further, 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 interpretation which sound hermeneutical principles 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 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 approve 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 Catholic belief of a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the B. 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 composing one whole. From the first to the twenty-sixth verse, we have a historical detail of the splendid miracle whereby our Saviour fed five thousand persons with five loaves, and of

* Ernesti Institutis, p. 29.

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 verses. The discourse is a striking counterpart 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 vacillating perplexity of his chosen twelve.

It was a practice with our Saviour and his apostles to adapt their discourses to the circumstances 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 Samaritan woman at the well, by allusions to his request that she would allow him to drink. Thus in the fifth chapter of St. John, he 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.‡

* Jo. iv. 10.

† v. 24.

Jo. ix. 39. See Bp. Newcome's Observations on our Lord's conduct as a Divine Instructor. 3d. ed. Lond. 1820. pp. 101, seqq.