Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

examine it fully and impartially. Here were a series of bold assertions; that in a certain language there was not one word that signifies 'to represent;' that it was common to express the idea of representation by the verb 'to be;' and that consequently our Saviour, when He wished to say, "this represents my Body," was compelled to say, "this is my Body." I determined to look into them as into simple questions of philological literature; to see whether the Syriac was so poor and wretched, as not to afford a single word implying representation. I looked through the dictionaries and lexicons, and I found two or three words, supported by one or two examples, enough to confute the assertion; but still not enough to satisfy my mind. I saw that the only way to ascertain the fact, was to examine the authors who have written in this language; and in a work which I now have in my hand, I published the result of my researches; entitled, "Philological Examination of the objections brought against the literal sense of the phrase in which the Eucharist was instituted, from the Syriac language, containing a specimen of a Syriac dictionary." In other words, simply considering the question as interesting to learned men, I determined to show the imperfection of our means for acquiring that language, and, by a specimen, to lay open the defects of our dictionaries. The specimen consisted of a list of such words as mean "to represent, to denote, to signify, to typify," and are either wanting in the best lexicons, or have not that meaning in them.

What do you think is the number that this list contains, which extends through upwards of thirty or forty pages? In other words, how many expressions does the Syriac language, which was said by Dr. Clarke not to possess one word for "to denote or represent,"-how many do you think it does possess? The English language has only four or five, such as "to denote, to signify, to represent, to typify;" and I think with these, you are arrived pretty nearly at the end of the list. The Greek and Latin have much the same number. I

doubt if there be ten in either. How many then does the poor Syriac language present? Upwards of forty! Forty words are here collected, with examples from the most classical authors; hardly one of them without several, some with twenty, thirty, or forty,-a few with nearly a hundred; and in some cases, not one half the examples have been given.

Here then is the first assertion, that in the Syriac language there is not one word for an idea for which it has forty-one! More, I will venture to say, more than any language of the present day can afford.

I dwell on this matter, not merely for the sake of its confutation, but as a general specimen of how easy it is to make bold assertions, relative to subjects not much studied. Thus, any person not acquainted with the language, and knowing Dr. Clarke to have been a learned man, and of course believing him to be honest in his statements, will take it for granted that his positive assertions are accurate, and on his authority reject the Catholic doctrine. Those assertions, however, are most incorrect: the Syriac has plenty of words, -more than any other, for the purpose required.

*

The second assertion is, that it is common with persons using that language, to employ the verb 'to be,' for 'to represent.' This point, also, I have, to the best of my ability, examined: and I have no hesitation in denying that it is more common with them than with any other nation, as I can show in a very simple manner. I find, for instance, in the oldest commentator on the Scripture in that language, that these words meaning to represent, are so crowded together, that they will not stand translation. In the writings of St.

* A correspondent has requested me to give some of these words, in publishing this lecture, stating that my assertions in the pulpit had been called in question. Were I to do so, I should only give a list of unintelligible sounds. But if any one be inclined to doubt my contradiction of Dr. Clarke's fearless assertion, I beg he will consult the book referred to "Horæ Syriacæ," Rome, 1828, pp. 18-53, of which a copy will be found in the British Museum.

Ephrem, the oldest in the Syriac language, although he tells us that he is going to interpret, figuratively or symbolically, through all his commentaries, and consequently prepares us for corresponding language, yet the verb 'to be,' occurs in the sense of 'to represent,' only twice, or at most four times, where words which signify 'to represent,' occur at least sixty times. In his commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, he uses the verb substantive six times in that sense, but words significative of figure, seventy times; so that the proportion of the two is nearly as six to seventy. In the second place, I find that he avoided this use of the verb 'to be,' in such an extraordinary way, and crowded the other words so thickly, that it was necessary, in some cases, in the Latin translation, to substitute the verb 'to be,' for them; so that it was easier to use it in that sense in Latin than in Syriac. In the third place, I find that words meaning to represent,' came so close together, that in eighteen half lines (for the text occupies one half, and the translation the other half of each page, -so that there are often only three or four words in a line,) he uses the words that mean 'to represent,' twelve times. This is in page 254, of vol. i. Page 283, he uses these verbs eleven times in seventeen lines. St. James of Sarug employs them ten times in thirteen lines; and Barhebræus, another commentator, uses them eleven times in as many lines.* So much for the frequency with which, it has been asserted, that these writers use the verb 'to be,' for 'to represent.'

[ocr errors]

The third and more important assertion was, that any person wishing to institute such a rite now-a-days, must compulsorily use this form; that, if he wished to appoint a figure of his body, he would be driven to say, "this is my body." I accepted the challenge in the strictest sense, and determined to verify it, by seeing if this was the case. I found an old Syriac writer, Dionysius Barsalibæus, not a Catholic writer, who uses this expression; "They are called, and are, the body and blood of Jesus Christ in truth, and not

* Ibid. p. 56.

figuratively." This passage shows there is a means of expressing the idea of figure. Another passage is from a work by an old writer in Syriac, the original of which has been lost, but which was translated into Arabic, by David, Archbishop in the ninth or tenth century; and as it is a question of language, the translation will tell sufficiently well how far the assertion be correct. It says, "FT. gave us His body, blessed be His name, for the remission of our sins He said, 'this is my Body,' and He did not say, 'this is a figure of my Body."" Now, supposing the Syriac language had no word to signify represent,' how could this writer have expressed in the original, that our Saviour did not tell us "this is the figure of my Body?" According to Dr. Clarke's reasoning, that they who speak the language have no alternative, the passage must have run thus, "He did not say, this is my Body, but He said, this is my Body!" There is another and a still stronger passage from St Maruthas, who wrote 300 years after Christ, and is one of the most venerable fathers of the oriental Church, and it is written in the very language in question. "Besides this, the faithful who came after His time would have been deprived of His Body and Blood;”— he is giving a reason why Christ instituted the Eucharist. "But now, as often as we approach to the Body and Blood, and receive them in our hands, we embrace His Body, and are made partakers of Him; for Christ did not call it a type or figure of His Body; but said, verily This is my Body,this is my Blood.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

So far, therefore, from the writers of these passages believing that our Saviour wished to institute a figure, and that He had no means of using a specific word for that purpose, they expressly tell us that we must believe our Saviour to have instituted a real presence, because, speaking their language, he said, "this is my Body," and did not say, "this is the figure of my Body."

I appeal to you now, if any knowledge which I may possess * Pp. 57-60.

of these languages, little though it may be, is any reason for my rejection of a doctrine supported by such rash assertions as these, which a very elementary acquaintance with their source enabled me to confute? Let this serve as a warning not easily to believe general and sweeping assertions, unless very solid proof is brought forward; not to be content with the authority of any learned man, unless he give you clear and strong reasons for his opinion. I have entered more into detail, and come forward more personally than I could have wished, and than I should have done, had it not been for the manner in which I was taunted, however privately, with maintaining doctrines which my own peculiar pursuits should have taught me to reject. "If I have been foolish, it is you who have forced me."

I must not forget to mention one circumstance, in justice to my cause, and perhaps to an individual also. I have said that Mr. Horne had adopted that passage of Dr. Adam Clarke, in which this assertion was made. This transcription was reprinted through the different editions of his work, till the seventh, published in 1834, in which he expunged the passage;* showing, consequently, that he was satisfied with the explanation and the confutation given to the assertion. of Dr. Adam Clarke. This was only to be expected from any honest and upright man; but it proves he was satisfied that the assertion which he had until then repeated was incorrect. Dr. Lee, Professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge, in his Prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglot Bible, acknowledges that his friend, Mr. Horne, was decidedly wrong in making such an assertion. These concessions do not leave the confutation to rest on my individual assertion; they prove it to be acknowledged on the other side that the question is at an end.

The second objection to which I wish to reply, contains a similar misstatement. It has been often said, that the Apostles had a very natural clue to the interpretation of our Saviour's words, by the ceremony, or formula, ordinarily used in the *Vol. ii. p. 449. F 3

VOL. II.

« PreviousContinue »