Page images
PDF
EPUB

If Christ meant the disciples to understand the words, This is my blood, literally, why did he afterwards use the expression, this fruit of the vine? an expression from which they would naturally infer, that what he had himself drunk, and had given them to drink, was wine. The use of the expression can only be accounted for on the supposition that he meant them to understand him figuratively.

In his discussion upon parallelisms, (p. 177), Dr. W. quotes a passage from Mr Faber's Difficulties of Romanism, in which that learned writer says, "Christ does not more explicitly say of the bread and wine, this is my body, and this is my blood, than St. Paul says of the rock, whereof the Israelites drank in the wilderness, and the rock was Christ." On this passage Dr. W. thus comments:-"Let us take this very text, and compare it with the words of institution on one side, and with the first verse of St. John on the other, and see which it most resembles-to which it is more parallel. I write them thus

The word was God.

The rock was Christ.
This is my body.

Now tell me which have we most right to consider parallel." Dr. W. then infers, that if parallelism depends only upon similarity of phrase, and protestants have a right to interpret the words, This is my body, by the help of The rock was Christ, Socinians have an equal right to interpret The word was God by the very same parallelism, and explain it by "the Word represented God." This may be a good inference, on hermeneutical principles; but on the principles of common sense it certainly is not. The rock could not possibly be Christ; yet why might not the Word (the context shews that St. John is speaking of a person) be God? The former phrase can only be interpreted figuratively; the latter may be interpreted either literally or figuratively; and whether the literal or figurative interpretation is to be adopted must be determined by the context. This is precisely the case with the phrase, This is my body. We must determine its meaning, not by referring to the doctrine of parallelisms, but by carefully considering the circumstances under which it was used, and the connexion in which it stands with the words which precede and follow it.

Dr. W. finds a material distinction (p. 180) between the phrase, This is my body, and the phrases, The rock was Christ, The ten horns are ten kingdoms, &c., by which protestant writers generally illustrate it. "In the phrase, This is my body, one term is left vague and indefinite. Christ does not say bread is my body, but this is my body." The this is nothing but the body and blood; it represents nothing, it means nothing, till identified, at the close of the sentence, with the substances named. This is even more marked in the original Greek than in our language, because the distinction of genders shews clearly that the bread is not indicated, but only a vague something to be de

discrepancy in the order of the narrative furnishes, in my opinion, additional proof that the evangelists did not understand the words of institution literally. It shews that after, as well as before, the consecration, they considered the contents of the cup to be the fruit of the vine.

termined by the remainder of the sentence." So far Dr. W., according to whom, This is my body, means, This body is my body, a mode of expression which might be used with propriety on the supposition that Christ pointed to himself; but can only answer Dr. W.'s purpose on the supposition, that in the first member of the sentence Christ spoke of the transubstantiated bread, in the second of his body then reclining at the table. I must, however, contend that there is no vagueness whatever in the word this. Christ manifestly means-This, which I have taken, and blessed, and broken, and now give to you, is my body; and what Christ took was bread. If there could be the slightest doubt on this point, it must be removed by a reference to the expression which St. Luke and St. Paul state Christ to have used when he gave the cup-This cup is the New Testament in my blood; an expression, according to Dr. W. himself, equivalent to This is my blood. Is there any vagueness in the words this cup. Then, as to the distinction of genders in the original, does Dr. W. mean to affirm that the neuter TOUTO cannot refer to the masculine ó apros? If he does, I recommend to his notice the letter marked No. 2 in the Appendix to Bishop Horsley's Letters in reply to Dr. Priestley.

I have still one remark to make before I quit the consideration of the fifth lecture. In p. 162, Dr. W. insinuates that the refusal of protestants to receive the doctrine of transubstantiation, because it is against the evidence of their senses, originates in the same infidel temper which caused Julian the apostate to deny that Christ was God, because to the senses he appeared a mere man. Nothing can be more uncandid than the insinuation, or more dissimilar than the two cases. In that of the doctrine of transubstantiation, both the bread and wine on the one hand, and the body and blood of Christ on the other, fall within the cognizance of the senses. We refuse, therefore, to receive an interpretation of scripture which is at variance with their evidence. But in the case of the doctrine of the incarnation, the divine nature is not an object of sense; the senses cannot be judges: the assertion that it was united to the human in Christ's person does not contradict their evidence, and we consequently believe in that union on the authority of the express declarations of scripture. If Dr. W. had been really desirous of urging a case in point, he would have taken that, not of Julian, but of the Docetæ, who denied the humanity of Christ in opposition to the evidence of their senses; the error, as we contend, of the Romanists.

I proceed to the sixth lecture, in which Dr. W. professes to consider the second point at issue between Romanists and protestants respecting the words of institution-whether, in order to avoid absurdities or falsehoods, or at least great difficulties, we are compelled to adopt the figurative interpretation? He begins with stating that protestants must admit the accuracy of the rules which he has adopted and observed most scrupulously throughout this investigation: "that, according to those rules, the language used by our Saviour could only have one meaning, the literal one-that he says, This is my body; and every rule of sound interpretation tells us that he must have meant to say it simply and literally; that our selection is between belief and disbelief

that it is his body; and that we are shut out from all attempts to prove that he could not mean to make that literal assertion." I have already stated my opinion to be, that Dr. W.'s rules afford no help whatever in determining whether a particular passage is to be understood literally or figuratively, because the interpretation of each passage must rest on its own peculiar circumstances. I have also stated my reasons for thinking that Christ's words must be understood figuratively; and one of those reasons is, that a literal interpretation is at variance with the evidence of our senses. But Dr. W. assumes that protestants reject the literal interpretation because, in their opinion, it involves an impossibility; and his whole argument in the sixth lecture turns on this assumption. It may be that some protestants have so expressed themselves. But the real question is, not whether the doctrine of transubstantiation involves an impossibility, but whether Dr. W. can produce any instance in which Christ requires us to disbelieve the evidence of our senses on a point which falls within their cognizance ; and if he cannot, whether we are not warranted in adopting a figurative interpretation, which is not-rather than a literal interpretation, which is at variance with their evidence.

Dr. W. quotes, with exultation, a passage from Mr. Faber's Difficulties of Romanism, in which that learned writer thus expresses himself:-"Our business most plainly is, not to discuss the abstract absurdity and the imagined contradictoriness of transubstantiation, but to inquire, according to the best means we possess, whether it be indeed a doctrine of holy scripture. If sufficient evidence shall determine such to be the case, we may be sure that the doctrine is neither absurd nor contradictory. I shall ever contend that the doctrine of transubstantiation, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is a question of pure evidence." Doubtless the question is, whether transubstantiation is or is not a doctrine of holy scripture ?—that is, whether the evidence in favour of a literal or a figurative interpretation of the words of institution preponderates? But do the consequences following from a literal interpretation form no part of the evidence? I think, for reasons which I have already assigned, that the evidence derived from the context is decidedly in favour of a figurative interpretation of the words; but I must confess, that my confidence in this conclusion is greatly strengthened by the fact, that a literal interpretation contradicts the evidence of the senses.

Though, however, Dr. W. denies that the words of institution can, according to legitimate hermeneutical principles, receive any other than a literal construction, and contends in consequence that he is not called upon to inquire whether that interpretation does or does not involve a contradiction or an impossibility, yet he generously consents to waive this advantage, and to argue the question upon the ground taken by his opponents. He says (p. 203) that Bishop Tomline has placed it upon its proper basis, by referring the argument to the apostles, and considering its probable working on their minds; and he proceeds to inquire whether they were likely to reject the literal interpretation on account of any contradictions, or apparent impossibilities, or violation of unalterable laws, involved in it. They were, he says,

men

"illiterate, uneducated, and by no means intellectual men among whom you would seek in vain for any profound notions on the subject of impossibility or contradictoriness, and who would rather consider it a contradiction to speak about anything being impossible to Omnipotence." Let me here repeat a remark which I have already made, that this is not an accurate statement of the point at issue. Learned, as well as illiterate men, would consider it a contradiction to speak about anything being impossible to Omnipotence; but the question is, not whether the apostles deemed it impossible for Christ to transubstantiate bread into his body? but whether, when they collected from the evidence of their senses that what they ate was bread, they would conclude that Christ meant them to reject that evidence, and to understand the words this is my body literally? All the arguments adduced by Dr. W. to prove that they would be disposed to believe that all things were possible to Christ are nothing to the purpose. I have already considered what Dr. W. has said on the subject of Christ's miracles. Before he can class transubstantiation among the number, he must invent a new definition of the term.

On what ground do we attach credit to the testimony of the apostles? We say that they were men of integrity, incapable of deceiving others; and of sound understanding, so that they were not likely to be themselves deceived. Illiterate they might be, but they were capable of reasoning from one fact to another. In all cases when Christ wrought a miracle, their senses told them that a miracle had been wrought. What then would be their conclusion in the case of the institution of the eucharist? That, as their senses advertized them of no change in the bread and wine, no change had taken place, no miracle had been wrought; and that consequently our blessed Lord spoke figuratively.

Dr. W. proceeds to remark upon the presumption of defining the essential properties of matter so nicely as to say that we are at liberty to weigh them against a divine declaration. (p. 213.) But we are guilty of no such presumption; we say nothing about the essential properties of matter; what we say is, that God having given us our senses, in order that by them, under the correction of our reason and experience, we may judge of things falling within their cognizance, their evidence must be taken into account in judging of the meaning of a divine declaration. I enter not into the question, whether a body can be in many places at once? whether Leibnitz, as quoted by Dr. W., is right or wrong in saying, that "though the natural order of things requires that matter should be definitely circumscribed, yet no absolute necessity requires it"? though I would ask what notion have we of a body, excepting as matter definitely circumscribed? These subtleties are, in my opinion, altogether beside the purpose. Whether we know anything about the essential properties of matter or not, the only means which God has given us of distinguishing one portion of matter from another is by the evidence of our senses; and why are we to set that evidence aside in the single case of the eucharist? But, says Dr. W., you do not reject the doctrine of the trinity, though all the experience and observation of philosophers must have led them to VOL. XI.-Feb. 1837.

T

conclude that the very term triune, or three in one, was opposed to natural reasoning. Why, then, do you reject the doctrine of transubstantiation? We ask, in turn, where is the resemblance between the two cases? Is the divine nature an object of sense? We find it ex

pressly declared in scripture that God is one; we also find the attributes of divinity ascribed to the Son and to the Holy Spirit; we believe the Son and the Holy Ghost to be divine persons, on the same authority on which we believe the unity of God-the authority of scripture. Here is no question about natural reasoning, or the evidence of the senses; the divine nature is not an object of sense, nor is it directly comprehensible by human reason; we collect the existence and attributes of God from his acts and operations; those acts and operations, if performed by man, would be the result of certain qualities in him; and we, in consequence, ascribe to the Deity the same qualities in an infinite degree, and purified from all imperfection. But whether the flesh and blood of Christ are present in the eucharist, is a question falling within the cognizance of the senses, and their determination is in the negative.

I do not feel myself called upon to defend Dr. A. Clarke's commentary on the words of consecration of the cup; but from St. Paul's account of the institution of the rite* (p. 221), Dr. W. draws two inferences:-one, that the word TouTO is there positively defined to be identical with the oua, or body; the other, that the thing broken and given could not be bread, because the expression for you, vrèp vuur, could not be used of it, but only of Christ, who was alone our redemption. The former inference he grounds on an observation of Schleusner, that the word kλáw is never used in the New Testament but of bread or food. We have here another instance of the different impressions made upon different minds by the same facts. My inference is, that the thing broken (rò Kλwμɛvov) in the second member of the sentence, can be nothing but that which Christ broke, ekλdaσɛ, in the first, that is, bread; and the conclusion naturally resulting from the construction, in my opinion, is, that St. Paul understood Christ's words, Toutó μov torì rò owμa, figuratively.

Dr. W. concludes his Sixth Lecture with stating three historical circumstances which appear to him to confirm the literal interpretation. The third he thus states:-" He (Christ) tells his dear friends and brethren, that the time is come when he would speak plain and without parables to them." Dr. W. refers to John, xvi. 29; but Christ's words are given in ver. 25.† The disciples are the speakers in ver. 29. Dr. W. would have dealt more fairly with his readers if he had told them that Christ's words were spoken after the institution of the eucharist; and that although his disciples, in ver. 29, say, “Now (vov) speakest thou plainly," his own words, pxeraι pa, in ver. 25, have a future signification, and do not mean is come, but is coming.

* “ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾧ παρεδίδοτο, ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε· καὶ εἶπε· Λάβετε, φάγετε· τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.

+ I observe that in my second letter, John, xvi. 28, is printed instead of John, xvi. 25.

« PreviousContinue »