Page images
PDF
EPUB

opinion, till a monitor stood at his side, "I know not," he emphatically adds, "whether he were white or black," who suggested to him this important text. He expounded it next morning, and convinced his hearers that, on the strength of it, the doctrine of the Real Presence was to be abandoned!

Such is the account given us of the first discovery of a text sufficient to reject the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that text is the one which I have just quoted to you from the 12th chapter of Exodus, 11th verse. "This is the Lord's passover." I waive several considerations which might be drawn from the circumstances in which these words were spoken, of a natural tendency to teach the Israelites that a typical institution was made, whereas at the Last Supper there was nothing done or said, which could intimate that any such intention existed: also some remarks regarding the phrase itself as intelligible to the Jews, from the custom of calling sacrifices by the name of the object for which they were offered. For, in truth, the text is of no value whatever towards establishing the point that 'to be' signifies 'to represent.'

In fact, one of the most learned of modern Protestant commentators observes, that the construction is such as always signifies, "this is the day or feast of the Passover sacred to the Lord." The grounds of this translation can hardly be understood, without reference to the original language; in which, as he observes, what is translated by a genitive, "the Lord's," is dative, and in this construction signifies "sacred to the Lord;" and then the verb is has its own obvious signification; as much as when we say, "this is Sunday," which certainly does not mean, "this represents Sunday." To prove this point, he refers to two or three other passages, where exactly the same form of expression occurs, and shows that it always has a similar meaning. For instance, in Exodus xx. "This is the sabbath of the Lord,” the dative form is here used; "This is the sabbath to the Lord," meaning the sabbath sacred to him. Now the construction in the original is

10,

precisely the same in both texts: nor is it ever used in the sense of a thing being an emblem or a sign. In another text, (Exod. xxxii. 5) "the festival of the Lord," the same construction occurs, signifying the same; and finally in the 27th verse of the very chapter in question, we have, "this is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover;" that is, according to the original, "the sacrifice of the passover (sacred) to the Lord." From these parallel expressions, where in the original ex actly the same construction occurs, he concludes that the verb 'to be' is here literally taken.* Hence, this text affords no aid to the argument which would consider the verb substantive to mean 'represent,' in the words of institution; the interpretation put upon it is incorrect, and consequently, when Zuinglius learnt it from his monitor as a sufficient ground for rejecting the Catholic doctrine, may we not conclude that it was not a spirit of truth that appeared to him, and that he rejected our doctrine on grounds not tenable, and by attributing to words a meaning which they cannot have?

I have thus first set these passages aside,—because, according to the system I have endeavoured to follow, I wish my answers to be strictly and individually applicable to each part of the case; although the remarks which I shall make on the first class of passages, where I own that 'to be' means 'to represent,' will apply to almost every one of them.

Well, then, it is argued that the words "this is my Body, this is my Blood," may be rendered by "this represents my Body, this represents my Blood," in other words, figuratively, because in certain other passages quoted, it is obvious that the two terms are equivalent. The only way in which the argument can hold, is by supposing that the texts quoted form what are called parallel passages, to the word of institution. But first, I will ask a simple question. In these passages, the verb 'to be,' means 'to represent:' but there are some thousands of passages in Scripture, where the verb 'to be' does not mean 'to represent.' I ask the reason, why the * Rosenmüller in loc.

words of institution are to be detached from these thousand passages, and interpreted by the others? I want some good reason to authorize me in classifying it with these, and not with the others. It is no reason to say, that it is necessary or convenient to take it so; I want some reason why it must be so. Therefore, merely considering the question in this indefinite way, we have a right to ask, why these words should be detached from the multitude of places where 'to be' has its proper signification, and joined to the few that are always to be considered the exception.

But let us join issue a little more closely. What are parallel passages? Are any two passages where the same word occurs to be considered parallel? There must be something more, necessary to constitute parallelism. Well, I am willing to take Horne's rule for this source of interpretation. It is briefly this: that when struck with any resemblance between passages, you must not be content with similarity of words; but examine, "whether the passages be sufficiently similar, that is, not only whether the same word, but also the same thing, answers together."* The rule is translated from another writer, and is more clearly expressed in the original, which says, that we must see "whether both passages contain the same thing, and not only the same word." And the commentator on this author makes this remark: "We must therefore hold that similitude of things, not of words, constitutes a parallelism."

We have a rule, then, laid down, that two passages are not parallel, or, in other words, that we may not use them to interpret one another, merely because the same word is in them, unless the same thing also occur in both. Let us, therefore, ascertain whether the same thing occurs, as well as the same words, in all the passages of this class. But first, as an illus tration of the rule, let me observe that, when in my last discourse I quoted several texts, I not only pointed out the same words in them, but I was careful to prove that the same circumstances occurred, that is, that our Saviour made

*Vol. ii. p. 531.

† Ernesti, p. 61.

use of expressions which were taken literally when He meant to be understood so, that objections were raised, and that He acted precisely in the same manner as in the text under examination; and from this similarity of things, I reasoned, considering the passages as parallel in consequence of it. What is the thing in all the passages united in this class, that we may see if it be likewise found in the words of Institution? We may exemplify the rule in these passages themselves. Suppose I wish to illustrate one of them by another, I should say, this text—“ The seven kine are seven years," is parallel with "The field is the world," and both of them with the phrase "these are the two covenants;" and I can illustrate them one by another. And why? Because in every one of them the same thing exists;—that is to say, in every one of these passages, there is the interpretation of an allegorical teaching—a vision in the one, a parable in the second, and an allegory in the third. I do not put them into one class, because they all contain the verb 'to be,' but because they all contain the same thing-they speak of something mystical and typical, the interpretation of a dream, an allegory, and a parable. Therefore having ascertained that in one of these the verb 'to be' means 'to represent,' I conclude that it has the same sense in the others; and I frame a general rule, that wherever such symbolical teaching occurs, these verbs are synonymous. When, therefore, you tell me that "this is my Body" may mean "this represents my Body," because in those passages the same verb or word occurs with this sense, I must, in like manner, ascertain, not only that the word 'to be' is common to the text, but that the same thing is to be found in it as in them; in other words, that in the forms of institution there was given the explanation of some symbol, such as the interpretation of a vision, a parable, or a prophecy. If you show me this, as I can show it in all the others, then I will allow this to be parallel with them.

This similarity of substance will readily be discovered by looking closely into those passages quoted by Dr. Adam

Clarke as parallel, which I have placed in this class." The seven kine are seven years," Joseph is interpreting the dream of Pharaoh; " And the ten horns are ten kings," Daniel is receiving the interpretation of his vision; "The field is the world," our Saviour is interpreting a parable; "The rock was Christ," St. Paul is professedly explaining the symbols of the old law, and tells us that he is doing so, and that he spoke of

spiritual rock; “These are the two covenants," St. Paul again is interpreting the allegory upon Agar and Sarah; "The seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches," St. John is receiving the explanation of a vision. All these passages belong to one class, because they refer to similar things;therefore, before I join to them the words "This is my body," you must show me that it enters into the same class by the same circumstance; you must show me that not only the verb "to be," which occurs in a thousand other instances, is there; but that it is used under the same conditions, in a case clearly similar to these by the explanation of allegories or dreams or parables, or of any other mystical method of teaching, that you please. Until you have done this, you have no right to consider them all as parallel, or to interpret it by them.

But, before finishing this consideration, allow me to observe, that not only, in every one of the instances I have quoted, is it manifest from the context that a parable, a vision, or an allegory, is explained; but the writers themselves tell us that they are going to interpret such things. For, in the examples from Genesis, Daniel, and St. Matthew, it is said, “This is the interpretation of the dream"-"This is a vision which I saw""This is the meaning of the parable which I spoke;”—so that we are expressly told that the speakers are going to interpret a byure. St. Paul to the Galatians is equally careful," which things are an allegory, FOR, these are the two covenants." In the words of Institution, Our Saviour does not say this is an allegoryHe does not give such a key to interpret His words as in the other cases. St. Paul to the Corinthians, "All these things were done to them in figure, and they drank from the spiritual

« PreviousContinue »