(4) The disciples understood our Lord to speak of a real eating of His flesh and blood, such as takes place only in the Eucharist, and understood Him correctly. Their words (verse 61), and their departure for ever from Him (verse 67), show that they understood Him of a real eating; otherwise why should they be offended or desert Him? What had He said that was new, or hard to take in, if He merely spoke of the necessity of faith in Himself or His doctrines? Their action, then, shows in what sense the disciples understood Him; and His action in permitting them to depart, shows they understood Him correctly. (5) The Jews understood Him of a real eating, which was quite different from belief in His doctrines or in Himself, and which has no meaning unless in reference to the Eucharist. “_How_ can this man give us _His flesh_ to eat?” they said (verse 53); and His solemn asseveration, negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse 55), shows that He is inculcating the very truth which they had questioned, and which they were bound to accept on His testimony, even though they could not see _how_ it was to come to pass. II. CHRIST SPEAKS OF A REAL, ORAL RECEPTION OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD, AND NOT MERELY OF A SPIRITUAL RECEPTION THROUGH FAITH EXCITED BY THE SACRAMENT. (1) The manna with which Christ compares the bread that He will give (verses 49, 50, 59) was really eaten; therefore, also the bread, which is His flesh (verse 52), is to be _really_ received. (2) After the Jews had murmured, Christ declared His flesh to be _truly_ meat, and His blood to be _truly_ drink (verse 56), and therefore it must be truly and really received. (3) In any sense other than the literal, Christ’s meaning would be obscure, and His words misleading; and our Evangelist, according to his ordinary practice (i. 41, 42; ii. 21; iv. 2; xii. 33), would explain. But he does not explain; therefore the language is not obscure, and therefore the literal sense was meant. (4) See arguments (3), (4), and (5) for the preceding proposition. And now, having satisfied ourselves that there is reference to the Blessed Eucharist in this chapter, and to a real, oral reception of Christ in the sacrament, let us try to decide where that reference begins. Some (as Wiseman, _Lect. on Euch._, p. 51, and foll.) say at verse 48; others, at 51; and others, at 52. But it seems much more probable that the reference begins before any of these points; and Wiseman is certainly mistaken when he states, on page 48: “That Protestants and Catholics are equally agreed that the discourse, as far as the 48th or 51st verse refers entirely to believing Christ. St. Cyril of Alex., Theophy., Toletus, Lucas of Bruges, had held, before Wiseman’s time, that the reference to the Blessed Eucharist begins in verse 27”; and since his time, Beelen, Perrone, Corluy, Franzelin,(58) and others have held the same.