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 intentions, nay, of common sense, for any speaker to use forms of language, having established and conventional significations, in a sense never before heard, noways intelligible from the nature of the phrases, and unattainable by any conjecture which might be expected from the habits, feelings, 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 himself, 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 another subject. Furthermore, we have seen that the phrases used in the latter portion were such as left the hearers, and consequently us, no choice between the literal sense, and an established metaphorical one of calumniating our Saviour. This must instantly 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 necessity 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. Townsend, the writer to whom I allude, proceeds as follows:-"It may be observed here, that an acquaintance with the Jewish traditions would materially assist the theological student 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

• "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.

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, 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 conventional, and more so in figurative language, which is only intelligible in as much as it is conventional, such extraordinary substitutions must be proved. That this one cannot, has been sufficiently evinced by this lecture, which has shown that the two phrases had conventional meanings essentially distinct and I have already shown the passages, for which he refers the theological student to Lightfoot, to belong to the illustration of the first part of the discourse.

But while Mr. Townsend thus refers to imaginary passages which nowhere exist, but by 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. Lightfoot, 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 classical writers; but the conclusions which he draws are general, and apply to all other authors, sacred and profane.

"They appeal," he writes, "to the usus loquendi 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 expression were clearly unheard of, by any authors, and are peculiar to our Lord alone; therefore can we nowise appeal to their custom of speech." This candid

"Provocant ad usum loquendi scriptorum profanorum, 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 sig

admission from such an authority, must more than counterbalance 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.* It is a saying of Hillel's, mentioned more than once in the Talmud,

בימי הזקיה אין משיח :in the following words Israel will have » להם לישראל שכבר אכלוהו

66

no Messiah, because they eat him, in the days of

nificatu; eos vero hoc tali modo usus fuisse formulis edere carnem et bibere sanguinem alicujus id doceri potest ne uno quidem exemplo. Istæ formulæ plane inauditæ fuerunt scriptoribus omnibus, et tantum uni Domino propriæ; quare adeo ad illorum loquendi consuetudinem provocari nullo modo potest."-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 Jo. 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, 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 illustratum." 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,