Page images
PDF
EPUB

who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For they that are according to the flesh, mind the things that are of the flesh; but they that are according to the Spirit, mind the things that are of the Spirit. For the wisdom of the flesh is death; but the wisdom of the Spirit is life and peace." Because the wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God, &c. "But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." After two or three other verses he sums up, " Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh." Through this passage, therefore, we have it clearly intimated, what is the meaning of flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other-the flesh is the carnal man, the imperfect man, undignified, unstrengthened by grace. The spirit is the inward man, the active principle in him of God's grace, which guides men to do that which, through human weakness, they could not perform. But to satisfy you, that this meaning cannot be applied in the passage under consideration, I will refer to a few authorities on the meaning. Bloomfield, in his commentary, observes, "This interpretation" (that is, supposing our Saviour meant by these words to intimate, that the words were to be used spiritually) "cannot be proved from usage of speech in the New Testament; and, therefore, it cannot be proved to be our Saviour's meaning." He rejects it in consequence, because no meaning ought to be admitted which cannot be proved. In this passage, however, he is only referring to the words of another more extensive foreign commentator, Kuinoel, upon the same passage. In citing the popular interpretation he says, "But this interpretation of the words cannot be proved by the usages of speech among the writers of the New Testament. I prefer, therefore, their reasoning, who, by the spirit, understand the more perfect sublime method of speculating and reasoning, which Christ's doctrine proved; by the flesh a low and mean way of thinking, such as was that of the Jews, who cherished their popular ideas regarding the temporal reign of Messiah ; and, therefore, the sense is, that they must bid adieu to carnal and previous opinions, and must adopt that more sublime and perfect reasoning, which alone could enable them to understand or believe his doctrines." A third authority I will quote, is that of Mr. Horne, than whom no one can be more ready to seize every opportunity of saying any thing against Catholic doctrines. On this passage he says, in his second volume, "The Holy Spirit is put for his effects, as in 2 Cor. iii. 6: "Who hath made us able ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." Here, by the word letter, we are to understand the law, written on tables of stone, which required perfect obedience, and which no man can perform, because of the corruption of his nature; therefore the law

or letter killeth, that is, can pronounce nothing but a sentence of condemnation and eternal death against man. But by the spirit, is intended the saving doctrine of the Gospel, which derives its origin from the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who teaches or instructs, and prepares man for eternal life. In the same sense Jesus Christ says, John vi. 63, "The words that I speak they are spirit and life; that is, they are from the Spirit of God, and, if received with true faith, will lead to eternal life." In another passage in the fourth volume he says, "Flesh is used for the exterior of man; first, for the external action; and, secondly, for the external appearance, condition, circumstances, and character. The flesh profiteth nothing;' the external circumstances, the natural condition of man profiteth nothing, it is only the spirit that can do it." There are other quotations which I would not give you, because it is only a repetition of the same argument, and I advert to them merely to show, that these are not single exceptions to the ordinary interpretation. I will just refer you to authors, who have written express dissertations on this very subject. Koppe has written "Nine dissertations on the Epistle to the Galatians, and the meaning of the word flesh." Storr's Commentary, entitled "on the Genuine Sense of the Words Flesh and spirit," 1732. Schmid, “ On the words Flesh and spirit in the New Testament," written in 1785. Roller, "On the words "Flesh and spirit, in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, printed in 1778. These authors have written to illustrate these expressions, and they agree, more or less, in the meaning given to them, that they do not mean a spiritual sense, but only mean the power of believing, signifying, "It is true, you cannot believe this doctrine by the mere power of man, you require special grace to believe it; and I should say dispassionately, considering these circumstances, that these, instead of being objections to our argument, are a strong confirmation of it. It certainly does not require any very great strength of faith to believe, that Christ could give any man a means of believing in him; but it does require a strong extension of power to believe in the supposition, that Christ could give a man really his body and blood for food. Therefore, when he makes the strong asseveration, it is a confirmation instead of an explanation.

These two examples seem to me the principle, and seem to me the only necessary ones, and are brought merely to show, that nothing can be easier than to meet the objections; and, in these two respects, I hope they have been satisfactorily met.

To come, therefore, now more directly to the matter in hand, I have read you the words of St. Matthew, regarding the institution of the Lord's Supper. You are aware, that the same circumstances, very nearly in the same words, are related by two other of the evangelists, and also by St. Paul, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. It is not

necessary to read over the passages in them all, because it is only with reference to the words which are common to them all, that I wish principally to speak this evening; that is, the two forms of expression, "This is my body-this is my blood."

I must own, that to construct an argument from these words is more difficult than with regard to the sixth chapter of St. John, principally and solely for this reason, that it is impossible to add strength or clearness to the expressions; it is impossible, by any commentary, or any paraphrase which I might make, to explain our Saviour's words more clearly, to reduce them to a form more simple, and more completely expressive of the Catholic doctrine, than they are in themselves. "This is my body, this is my blood." The Catholic doctrine believes, that it is Christ's body and Christ's blood; and, consequently, it would appear, that what we have to do here, is simply and solely to rest at once upon these words, and to leave it to others to show reason why we should depart from the interpretation which we give them.

Before taking my position completely, I wish to make two or three observations on the popular way in which these texts are handled, for the purpose of overthrowing the Catholic belief. It is evident, from the words simply considered, that there was no question about any apparent possibility or impossibility. If it were about some other matter, it would be at once believed by any one who believed the words of Christ he would say, “Christ has declared that this is such a thing, and I believe it on his word." There must be a reason, consequently, for the departure, in this case, from the ordinary, simple interpretation of the words, and the giving them another meaning. It is for those who say that Christ, by these words, "This is my body," meant no more than this is a figure of my body, to give us a reason why their interpretation is right. The words themselves express, that there is the body of Christ, and whoever tells me that the body of Christ is not there, but that it is a figure of Christ's body, must show me that the expression" This is my body," can be equivalent to the other phrase "This represents my body." I will show you just now, how this is necessarily the position in which the controversy has to be placed; but I state this to show the difficulty in which persons, wishing to establish that argument, sometimes find themselves, and the extremely unphilosophical methods which they sometimes follow to establish it. I will take as an illustration a passage from a sermon, delivered a few years ago at a chapel in this metropolis, forming one of a series of discourses against Catholic doctrine, which were delivered by preachers selected for that purpose, in Tavistock Chapel. There is one sermon on the subject of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, directed to prove that it is unscriptural, and that it cannot be maintained. This is the reasoning of the preacher on the subject:

"We contend that we must understand the words" (speaking of the text from St. Matthew) figuratively, because there is NO NECESSITY to understand them literally, and because it is morally impossible that the disciples could have so understood them. For, let me ask, what is more common, in all languages, than to give to the sign the name of the thing signified? If you saw a picture, would you not call it by the name of the person represented? Or if you looked at a map of a particular country, would you not describe it by the name of that country? What are the canons of biblical interpretation on which this passage is grounded? In the first place, no passage of Scripture is to be taken literally, unless necessity can be shown for that purpose." That is the reasoning! "In the first place we contend," he says, "that we are not to take these words literally, because there is no necessity for it; so that, therefore, those who choose the literal interpretation of any passage, are under the obligation of proving the necessity of taking it literally." I should have thought that the general rule was, that the obvious, plain sense of Scripture was to be taken, unless there was a necessity for departing from it. I should wish to hear how this reasoning would sound, if used against those who deny the divinity of Christ. If the scheme is, that we are not to take any passage literally, unless there is a necessity for it, when Christ is called God, or the Son of God, or such expressions are used, you must first prove the necessity of believing in his Divinity, before you are justified in interpreting these passages literally. In the next place," It is a moral impossibility that the disciples could have so understood him." That requires proof, for it is the point on which hangs the whole question. "The apostles could not have understood him so;" then that is proof that it is not so! But does it not require some proof, strong proof, strong evidence, that they could not have so understood him? I will show you subsequently, whether or no it was an impossibility that they could understand him otherwise. What is brought to illustrate this? "It is morally impossible that the apostles could have understood our Saviour literally, because nothing is more common, in any language, than to call a thing by that which it signifies." So that, as a general principle, because, in every language, it is common sometimes to use figures; it follows, that in a special instance, the apostles could not have understood the passage literally? I ask, is that logic, is it reasoning, is it, I would almost say, common sense? But still further, What are the examples chosen? The example of a map, and of a portrait, as if there were no difference between my taking up bread and saying, "This is my body," and my taking up a picture and saying, "This is a king;" as if, in the common usages of language, the ordinary understanding of all mankind, gave the picture the very name. But more than this; is it not the very essence of a picture to be an

emblem? I ask, what existence has a portrait, even in this very abstract idea, except inasmuch as it is a representation of a person? There can be no mistake, because it can be nothing else; if it is not a portrait, if it does not represent an object. Therefore, there is the reason why you call a portrait by the name of the thing it represents, because it is the name of that which gives it existence. And what is a map but a representation of a country? What existence has a map, but as depicting to you the form of a country? If it did not, it would not be a map; therefore, when I say it is a country, I again name that of which it is only the representative, but through which alone it can exist. But when you say of bread, "This is my body," there is no natural connexion between the two; there is nothing which can tell a man that you meant—This is an emblem of your body. I might say, this paper, this pulpit, or any thing else, was an emblem. But if there seemed nothing to be represented by it, who would understand me, who would ever comprehend that I meant to insinuate that it was an emblem, upon the ground that the portrait was called by the name of the person whom it represented? In all this there is declamation, but no proof, nothing that ought to show, that the Catholic interpretation is to be rejected.

I will quote a similar passage from the author whom I mentioned just now, and whom I shall probably have occasion to mention more frequently in the course of the evening. Mr. Horne, in his Introduction to the Scriptures, says, that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, is erected" upon a forced and literal construction of our Lord's declaration," a forced and literal interpretation of the passage. I would ask, where on earth were these two words put in juxta-position in any argument before? He calls the literal meaning a forced meaning! I wish to know, if any one but a controversionalist in religion, could have allowed himself to fall into such an expression! I wish to know how any individual, who had a case before a judge and jury, would be satisfied if he heard his counsel, in defending his case, open it by saying that the case must certainly be adjudicated to his client, because the adversary had nothing in his favour except the literal and forced construction of an act of parliament. I should wish to know whether he would not consider it equivalent to the betrayal of his cause by conceding that the literal meaning was on the other side, whether it would not be like granting that there was nothing to be said on his side? Now to reason on an introductory book on the study of the Scriptures, that the Catholic doctrine may be rejected because there is nothing but our Saviour's literal words, is surely to students of religion, or even to ordinary readers, an unsatisfactory method of reasoning on texts of Scripture even to characterize it in no severer terms.

These may serve as specimens of how far it is from easy to establish grounds with any sort of plausibility for rejecting the Catholic interpre

« PreviousContinue »