Page images
PDF
EPUB

LECTURE THE SEVENTH.

OBJECTIONS TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WORDS

OF INSTITUTION ANSWERED.
CALLING A REPRESENTATION BY THE NAME OF THE THING
SIGNIFIED. SECONDLY: OBJECTIONS DRAWN FROM THE CE-
LEBRATION OF THE PASCHAL FEAST; AND THIRDLY : FROM
THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH OUR SAVIOUR SPOKE.
DR. LEE'S ALLEGATIONS.

FIRST: ORDINARY PRACTICE OF

NOTICE OF

Ir now becomes my duty to notice the objections made by Protestants to the interpretation of the words of Institution, according to our belief. In this Lecture I shall only treat of such objections as affect this particular point; reserving the general ones brought by them, from scripture, against the belief itself, till I have completed my proofs, in the next, by commenting on some passages of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians.

The first and most popular argument urged by Protestants is, that nothing is more common than to call a figure by the name of the object. You will remember how the reverend preacher whom I quoted at the beginning of my last lecture but one, exultingly demanded: "For let me ask, what is more common than to give to the sign the name

of the thing signified?" and then by way of illustration, to cite the examples of a portrait or a map. Dr. Clarke uses the same argument; and asks whether any one would have a difficulty, if in a museum, busts should be pointed out by the phrase "This is Plato, that is Socrates ?* In short, this exemplification is quite trite, and to be found in almost every Protestant writer. Among others, Mr. Townsend brings it forward with great pomp, and seems quite satisfied of its sufficiency.†

• The confutation of this reasoning is so obvious, and strikes the sense so immediately, that it is most wonderful to me, how such an illustration could ever have been brought. First as to the principle itself: the obvious difference between the class of instances brought and the case to be elucidated is this; that the one speaks of images already instituted, the other of the actual institution. Had bread and wine been before constituted symbols, the words might have been compared with a representation already made; then the phrase "this is my body" might possibly have led the hearers to a right understanding. But surely it is a very different thing to institute the symbol by such an expression. Let us take the very example. On entering the Vatican museum, you see a number of busts: you must know, if you have eyes, that they

* Ubi sup. p. 54.

t

"New Testament chronologically arranged," Vol. i. p. 457.

represent the human head and countenance; all your ignorance is as to whose features they exhibit. The words in question, "this is Plato," only informs you of this point; they are not intended to convey the marvellous intelligence, that the piece of marble is an image, at all: this your own eyes have told you. But in the words of institution, the inquiry is not, of what this is the symbol, but whether it be one; for neither eyes nor reason have told you, or could have told the apostles, that the bread was such a symbol. Let us press it a little further. Suppose that, on entering the Belvedere court of that museum, I call you solemnly to stand beside one of the porphyry pillars there, and pointing to it said, "this is Magna Charta ;" would you understand me? You would be sadly confounded, and perhaps think me a little beside myself. Suppose then, that I answered you thus: "Foolish creatures! you understood me quite well, when I showed you a bust in the gallery and told 'you it was Plato; that is, that it represented Plato. Is it not precisely as easy to understand that I now mean this as a symbol of Magna Charta, the support of our constitution?" You would reasonably ask; "when was this pillar, or any other, constituted a symbol of it?" and to preserve the parallelism, I should have to answer; "why, I instituted it for the first time, by those words which I uttered." I ask, would such language be intelligible, or would you consider the person rational who used

it? Yet this fancied scene accurately represents the two forms of expression which are brought together in that popular argument, for the figurative interpretation of the Eucharistic formulas.

Then, coming to the specific examples, those chosen are anything but fortunate. For, not only are they of objects which already and conventionally represent others, but of such as actually have no possible existence except as representations. Symbol is their very essence, the very law of their being. A portrait, or bust, cannot exist save as the image of a man; this idea enters into every possible definition which you can give of it; you cannot describe or explain it, except by calling it a representation. So it is with a map, which is but the miniature portrait of a given country, and has no other cause of being but its destination for that purpose. Is such the case with bread, in relation to the body of Christ? If I hold up a coin, and pointing to the king's image, say, "this is William IV." every one understands me. If I show a blank piece of gold, and use the same words, no one would comprehend that I want to declare the metal to be a symbol of him.

A second objection, which at first appearance, looks rather more plausible, is often drawn from the forms of expression supposed to have been in use among the Jews, at the celebration of the paschal feast. "When they eat of the unleavened bread," says Dr. Whitby, "they said, this is the bread of affliction,' (that is, the representation or memorial

[ocr errors]

of that bread,) which our fathers did eat in the land of Egypt.' What, therefore, could men, accustomed to such sacramental phrases, think of the like words of Christ, but that it was to be the representation or memorial of it?”* We are sometimes told, that the head of the family, solemnly holding a morsel of unleavened bread in his hand, pronounced these words; by which the apostles would interpret the similar ones that followed.

Before giving what cannot fail to be a complete answer to this objection, I may premise, that under no circumstances could the words signify "this represents the bread of affliction." For, if I hold up in my hand a morsel of bread of a different sort from what we habitually use, and say, "this is the bread they eat in France," you do not understand me to mean, that it is a type or symbol of such bread, but simply that it is the same sort of bread. So, as the Jews eat unleavened bread on going out of Egypt, any person exhibiting a portion of such bread, and saying, "this is the bread, &c." would be understood to designate identity of quality.

But, the fact is, that these words could have done the apostles no service, towards reaching a figurative sense in our Saviour's words; because they were not used at all, as is stated, in the celebration of the passover. First, we have a very detailed account of the ceremonial of this solemnity

* "Commentary on the New Testament." Vol. i. p. 256. Lond.

1744.

« PreviousContinue »