Here we find Estius, as well as the Rhemish commentator, attributing to the Jews the grossest conceptions of eating the flesh of Christ :-conceptions which he declares to have been condemned by our Lord, as carnal—and rejected by the fathers, as barbarous and flagitious. To the same effect writes Dr Wetham, a Roman Catholic Professor at Douay-the editor of an English Testament, with annotations, published in 1730. In a note on v. 63, he denounces "the gross and carnal imaginations of those Capharnaites, that our Lord meant to give them his body and blood to eat, in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St Augustine, is sold in the market and in the shambles."...On entering upon the consideration of this point, I naturally wished to put the reader in possession of the sentiments of Roman Catholic divines, in relation to it; and having done so, by means of two or three instances, I need only state in addition, that, so far as I know, there is, among Protestant commentators, a perfect agreement with them in opinion, upon the subject. The case,

indeed, is too clear for dispute. Such, then, was the Jewish interpretation of our Lord's expressions; and that was the strictly literal interpretation. Now a large portion of Dr Wiseman's lectures, on John vi. is employed in arguing against all figurative meanings, in the case, as prohibited by the very nature of the phrases themselves: in vindicating the rigorously literal meaning of those phrases:

A

in proving that they could not but be understood literally—that they were understood literally—and that they ought to be understood literally that, in short, the Jews were perfectly right, in their views of the matter. To avoid the risk of misrepresentation, I once more transcribe his own words. In the latter part of our Lord's discourse, there is, he writes, "a totally different phraseology; which to his hearers could not possibly convey that [figurative] meaning [which prevails through the first part] nor any other, save that of a real eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood." Here we have the Jewish interpretation distinctly stated; and we afterwards find it as stoutly maintained. This moreover is done, in opposition, not only to common sense and human feeling, but to the general sentiment of his own Church, as well as of the whole Christian world. On principles which we have already canvassed, he decides that the phrases do not admit of figurative meanings; and for reasons which will afterwards appear, he infers that, if the Jews had mistaken their import, our Lord would have corrected them. My conclusion from all this is, that imagination cannot conceive any man more heavily fettered to a particular tenet, than Dr Wiseman here is to the Jewish interpretation. By what means, then, does he render that interpretation subservient to his own purposes? This I shall now endeavour to

explain.

G

The truth appears to be as follows: When Dr Wiseman has fairly persuaded his readers that he is discussing the Jewish interpretation, he contrives-no one sees how or when, but with a dexterity which cannot be too much admired, and a disingenuousness which cannot be too severely reprobated-to substitute-as if it were the same thing the sacrament of the Eucharist. Now, this sacramental interpretation is not the same as the Jewish interpretation. No sane man has yet, I believe, ventured to say that the Jews were thinking of the sacrament. The unwarrantable substitution here pointed out is, apart from all other considerations, absolutely fatal to Dr Wiseman's argument, as conducted by himself; but I hope to render some service, by tracing a few of the consequences flowing from the substitution.

Dr Wiseman holds that the phrases, in the second part of our Lord's discourse, are not susceptible of a figurative interpretation: but Dr Wiseman interprets those phrases of the Eucharist which is a figurative interpretation:Therefore Dr Wiseman holds contradictory propositions-which cannot both be true. To prove

that to interpret those phrases, of the Eucharist, is to interpret them figuratively-although no proof is wanted-I appeal to the Rhemish annotator, as already quoted. He writes of a "sweet sense" as existing in our Lord's "hard, mystical or figurative words"-"to be fulfilled in a sacra

ment, mystery and a marvellous divine sort.” In fact, if the phrases be interpreted of the sacrament, they cannot but be interpreted figuratively. The phrases must either be understood literally or figuratively. The Jews understood them literally, and assigned to them the only literal meaning the words could possibly bear. For that meaning, no man-not even Dr Wiseman himselfwill really contend. The phrases, therefore, must be understood figuratively; however people may differ about the import to be attached to them :some persons explaining them sacramentallyothers spiritually-and others again, both sacramentally and spiritually. All these persons, however, adopt a figurative interpretation. It is sad work to have thus to revert to the most elementary considerations; but I have had recourse to the expedient, from an impression, that I might, by such means, the most effectually dispel the darkness, in which Dr Wiseman has contrived to involve the whole subject.

The learned author, as we shall soon see, undertakes to prove, at great length, that if the literal interpretation of the Jews had not been right, it would have been corrected. Why, then, does he not himself adhere to the literal interpretation? Why adopt a figurative interpretation of which the Jews could not possibly have had the slightest notion? The truth is he would fain interpret the same phrase literally and figuratively, at the

same time; and thus combine, for his own purposes, the significations peculiar to each method. Now, that is permitted to no one. Dr Wiseman may take his choice between the two methods; but he cannot secure the advantages of them both. Should he decide in favour of the literal interpretation, the phrase cannot be applied to the Eucharist --and the controversy respecting the sixth chapter of St John is at an end. Should he prefer the sacramental interpretation, he must abandon the literal signification of the phrase; which must then be understood figuratively—that is, with reference solely to the sacrament. When an object is to be considered in a figurative sense, there is something so preposterous in the supposition—that the actual, physical properties of that object are thereby transferred to that sense-that I would not beforehand do any one the injustice to believe him capable of holding such an opinion. Yet such an opinion is held by those who apply the latter phrases of our Lord's discourse to the Eucharistand at the same time maintain, from the same expressions, that the actual flesh is to be eaten in that sacrament. The inference which ought to be drawn, by those who interpret that part of the discourse of the Eucharist, is-that the literal sense, of eating the flesh, is excluded by the mode of interpretation; and that the Eucharistical sense can be decided by those parts of Scripture only, which expressly treat of that sacrament. Let me