Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE REAL PRESENCE.

with chains; again, an immense burning lake; then an underground resi dence, where only shadowy beings flit around; then a prison, with walls that cannot be scaled; now so near heaven, that Abraham and the rich man in hell can address each other; then in the extremity of the universe, at the farthest possible distance from Jehovah.

What shall we say of the floods clapping their hands, of the hills being joyful together, of the mountains skipping like rams, the little hills like lambs, of the elements singing praise to God, of inanimate nature discoursing on his glory, of the earth being turned upside-down, of its being emptied of its inhabitants, of its mourning and weeping, and a multitude of the like representations? There is not a man in his senses on earth who does not instantly reject the literal interpretation in all such instances. Reason does this instinctively; and she requires no precept, for she spontaneously decides. Both testaments abound with tropical and symbolical language. It is scarcely possible to open either of them without casting our eye on a variety of instances. Our Lord, addressing the Pharisees, said, that "they strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel." Referring to himself, he said, "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." Alluding to the efficacy of faith, he says, "Whosoever believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." We are told "we must be born again." Are we to understand this as Nicodemus did, in a literal sense? Almost every paragraph in the sermon on the mount is couched in figurative language.

It may probably be said, that the instances we have presented of the necessity of a tropical sense differ from the passage under discussion, respecting the body and blood of Christ, inasmuch as the bread and wine, if they are not to be literally understood, must be symbols, and not tropes. A moment's consideration will show us that the opinions we are controverting can derive no support from this assertion. "The only difference between trope, or parable, and symbol, is, that the former points out some resemblance by means of words, the latter by means of actions or things." "A discourse may be a parable or an allegory, or be filled with tropes or metaphors, while symbols must be significant

407

actions or things." These truths may be illustrated by a variety of circumstances. When our Lord breathed on his disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," was this breathing any thing more than a symbol? Or, in other words, was the Holy Ghost enclosed in the air which Jesus breathed? We presume no one will seriously contend for this. When the Spirit in the form of a dove descended on the Saviour at his baptism, did this dove contain and enclose the Holy Spirit, in his essential nature? We know that the infinite God is not thus circumscribed. The dove was merely the symbol of the descent of the Spirit. We may add here, relative to symbol and trope, that, however different, the mere manner of them may be, they both agree in that which is most important and essential. Both of them teach by resemblances or similitudes, and have the same general end in view.

As it is then evident, that the Old and New Testaments abound with symbolic, and tropical representations, and statements, we may, on the principle of analogy, assign a tropical meaning to the language of Christ at the institution of the supper. We have not yet heard of any one who has sufficient temerity to assert that the water of baptism is converted into the Holy Spirit; why then should the bread and wine be regarded as the flesh and blood of Christ? Probably we shall be told, that the cases are widely different. It may be alleged that the Saviour distinctly asserts, "This is my body, this is my blood;" whereas it is never said of the baptismal water, " This is the Holy Spirit." We are therefore, under the necessity of carefully examining the DICTION employed at the institution of the Eucharist, for the purpose of ascertaining, whether any argument can consistently, be deduced from it for the physical presence of Christ in the elements. What then is the import of the term body? (owμa) It cannot with any propriety, be regarded as synonymous with flesh. In writing to the Romans, Paul distinctly states what body means. "The body is not one member, but many." "As the body is one, and hath many members; and all these members of the body, being many, are one body." The body then includes flesh, bones, muscles, limbs, head, blood-in a word, the whole of the material part of man.

That such is the constant biblical usage, is abundantly evident from the fact, that the sacred writers never contrast body and blood, but flesh and blood; and the reason is obvious: the body itself comprehends the blood, as well as the other constituent elements of the human frame. From this observation, then, there can be no doubt, if our Saviour's language is to be understood literally, that the bread represented his whole body, flesh, blood, bones, nerves, and every other part. According to this interpretation, each communicant receives the body of Christ: there must be therefore as many physical frames of the Redeemer as there are communicants, at the same time, or successively.

But this cannot possibly be the import of the language; the last clause of the declaration directly forbids it. The blood is part of the body. Even the schoolmen, during the middle ages, made this discovery. The injunction, then, literally considered, to partake of the blood of Christ, after having partaken of his body, must be wholly superfluous.

We are forced, then, upon another and different meaning of the word body, (oopa) if we are to adhere to the literal sense. "And what is this? The same, say the Romanists and others, as flesh. But let us inquire for a moment. Flesh (rap) is living, animated flesh, not dead flesh, not meat. Now if the body of Christ had been broken, and distributed among the disciples, and his blood had been poured out, before they received the sacramental elements, (and surely the words of Christ imply this), then was Christ's flesh no longer living flesh. The blood thereof, which was the life, was gone, or as the evangelist has it, was poured out. Christ's body was a (Tтμa) corpse; his flesh (kpeas) dead flesh, not (oap§), living and animated flesh. How then could the disciples eat the body of Christ, even if this means to eat of the flesh of Christ, and then afterwards drink his blood? If they ate his body, they ate the blood with it, they must have swallowed the physical frame, whole and living; for oapέ is live flesh. they ate his flesh, that is, his living flesh, then they must have eaten it before the blood was poured out from it. But this they did not; for it was the broken body of Christ which they eat,

If

if they did literally eat his body at all." We now discover at once that the literal sense of these passages, is surrounded with insurmountable difficulties. It may, however, be stated, that the whole must be regarded as miraculous. If we examine this assertion in the light of truth, we shall find that it is totally destitute of any foundation. In other instances of supernatural interposition the senses are appealed to. When Jesus transformed water into wine, the taste of the guests decided that the miracle had been wrought. When the blind were made to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, the lame to walk, the sick to rise from the bed of languishment, the dead to burst their tombs, demoniacs to be freed from their malady, all these cases were examined and judged of by the senses. And why should they be appealed to everywhere, and always in respect to miracles, and yet be utterly rejected in the case before us?

Besides, a miracle is something which is possible. It cannot involve a contradiction, nor an absurdity. But the physical presence of Christ, unperceived by any of the senses, is an absurdity,a contradiction. A man's whole body and blood cannot be masticated and swallowed, (and less than this cannot be meant by the Saviour's words, if they are to be literally taken), without a perception by at least four of the

senses.

Our opponents may, however, say, that they assume a supernatural, a miraculous eating and drinking. Very well, then, they are bound, to admit that there must be a supernatural body and blood to feed upon.

But in this case they are vanquished on their own premises, because the physical body and blood of Christ are not fed upon. If the eating and drinking be supernatural-something above us, beyond us, not carried on by any organs that we possess, then the act is not ours, it is not we who eat and drink; it is omnipotence which accomplishes certain things that are merely carried on within us, and of which we are not so much as even the conscious instruments. If it is the exclusive work of omnipotence, then how comes the work ever to be done wrongly? How can any man eat and drink damnation to himself?

We shall now proceed to show that

66

THE REAL PRESENCE.

there is nothing in the form of the expressions used which binds us to the literal sense. THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD." If the declaration, "THIS IS," renders it imperatively necessary that we should give a literal interpretation, then, of course, the same rule of exegesis must be extended to other cases of a similar nature. We are bound to be consistent and congruous in the application of a general principle.*

Every critical reader of the word of God knows," that in the very numerous cases where one thing is compared with another, or likened to another, or may be represented, or symbolized by another, the Hebrews did not usually designate this, by inserting words which literally, and directly express the idea, it is liked to or, it may be compared with, it resembles, it is symbolized by, it signifies." Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the usual and ordinary mode of asserting or expressing these and the like ideas, is by the use of the verb Is, either expressed or implied. Often the verb is designates the idea of signifies, means. Thus, in Matt. xxvii. 46, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is,” adds the evangelist, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." Also, Mark iii. 17, “Boanerges, which is, (means,) sons of thunder.'

66

"I am

Very frequently, too, the verb Is implies comparison, or resemblance, "The Lord Is my rock,-Is my fortress,-IS my buckler," &c. "The Lord Is my shepherd," "God is our sun;" and this phraseology is not peculiar to the Old Testament, it is also found in the New. "Our God Is a consuming fire." the true vine, my father Is the husbandman." Did any man of common sense ever attempt to give these, and similar declarations, which are almost withnot number, in both Testaments, a literal meaning? For example, did any one ever venture to maintain that God is a literal rock, a literal shield, a literal tower, that Christ is literally a lamb, the door of the sheep, bread which came

* All the best commentators are agreed that the sense of EσTI is represents, or signifies, an idiom common in Hebrew, which wanting a more distinctive term, made use of the verb substantive; a simple form of speech, yet subsisting in the common language of most nations. Thus the Jews answered their

409

down from heaven; that his apostles are salt, and light, and a city on a hill? &c. No, among all the ravings and crudities of commentators on the Bible, none have ever reached such an eminence of folly and extravagance and stupidity as such an exegesis would indicate. There is another shade of meaning to the verb Is, which is still more important and direct to our purpose. It is this, viz., symbolizes, betokens, represents. Examples in which it has this meaning are found in abundance in the scriptures. Joseph, when he interprets Pharaoh's dream, says, “The seven kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years;" &c. When Jotham proposed the fable of the trees going forth in quest of a king and seeking in vain for one that would reign peaceably over them; no one will contend that this did not represent the men of Shechem seeking to make Abimelech their king. When Isaiah sung his song respecting the vineyard, that brought forth wild grapes, was there any difficulty in understanding him when he said, "The vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant?" Look at the parable of the sower. "The seed sown by the way-side, is he that heareth the word and speedily hath it taken from him by the wicked one," &c. So also in the parable of the tares. "The field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom, the tares are the children of the wicked one, the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the angels are the reapers." See 1 Cor. x.; Rev. xvii. To all these passages we must of course give a tropical sense. The only question now before us, is, whether the words connected with the eucharist stand on the same basis, and must be interpreted by a reference to the same principles of exegesis? If it can be made evident that any other than a tropical interpretation would involve absurdities, impossibilities, or incongruities, we shall at once be able to

children, who asked respecting the passover, "What is this?" "This is the body of the lamb which our fathers ate in Egypt."-Vide Bloomfield's, Greek Testament, Vol.II. p. 160. Bishop_Marsh's Lectures, p. 332 - 335. Dean Turton's, Reply to Dr. Wiseman's Lectures.

dispose of the question. No appeal can be made from this test.

In attending to this department of the subject, we notice, that there are unanswerable arguments against a literal exegesis.

I. The literal interpretation is highly improbable. The idea of eating flesh and blood-above all, of eating human flesh and blood commingled, or of eating blood at all, was, and is abhorrent, both to the Old and New dispensation. Gen. ix. 4; Lev. iii. 17; Acts xv. 20. Now is it to be supposed that the apostles ever regarded their Master as having taught them really and actually to eat his own flesh and drink his own blood? and taught them to do this, not once only, when he was with them, but down to the time when he should come to judge the world? Had they understood him in this way, how could they have refrained from the highest degree of astonishment and horror? Not only as Jews would they have shuddered to their inmost soul, but as the Saviour's friends, their astonishment would have been irrepressible, their horror beyond expression. But we find no trace of anything of the kind.

II. Let us advert to the POSSIBILITIES of feeding on the real body and blood of Jesus. "This is my body, which is broken for you, eat ye all of it. This is my blood which is shed for you; drink ye all of it." What is this? Here is his body first of all, that is, the whole of his frame with all its parts, including the blood. This is presented to them as broken, and they are to eat it. But how is this possible in the literal sense? The body of Jesus was not then broken. The Saviour was sitting before them, clothed, sound, unmaimed. To say that the disciples ate his broken body before it was broken, is to affirm, that a thing can be and not be at one and the same time. The same statement holds good with regard to the blood.

III. It is evident that one concrete, specific thing, or object, cannot at one and the same time be another and different concrete, and specific thing, or object. A man, for example, may be a father, a magistrate, and the like, or he may be amiable, gentle, intelligent, learned, benevolent, or the reverse, and yet be one and the same man: but all these are mere qualities or attributes of

the substance or man. But a man cannot be a tree or a stone at the same time that he is a man. It is, then, plain, that the body and blood of Christ cannot, in the nature of things, be at the same time bread and wine; and bread and wine, as such, cannot, in the nature of things, be the body and blood of Christ. And if it be endeavored to avoid the force of this, by asserting that transubstantiation only maintains that the bread and wine go over into and become the body and blood of Christ, this will not satisfy a sober inquirer. All the attributes of bread and wine still remain after consecration, and it is impossible, therefore, that the substances themselves should not still remain.

IV. Another consideration is, that the real human body and blood of Christ have now no actual exsistence, and have not had any for more than 1800 years. The proof is incontrovertible. Paul says, "that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," &c. "That a human body is sown a natural body, and raised a spiritual one." The Saviour, it is true, is in heaven, extending his dominion over the whole universe, and his presence is every where. But he is not in heaven in a body of flesh and blood, but in a glorified body. Nor is his body of flesh and blood in the tomb, where it was once laid. is not there, but has risen from the dead." More than 1800 years ago, Jesus's body became a spiritual one. Can physical organs devour spiritual existences?

"He

V. We further observe, that if the real presence in the elements is to be maintained, then Christ's human body and blood must be ubiquitous, that is, every where at the same time. This statement requires only a brief illustration. The supper may be in actual celebration at the same moment on different sides of the globe. Now, according to the doctrine in question, Christ's human body and blood must be present in all these places; and what is more, each individual communicant masticates and swallows the whole. The material body of Jesus, then, must be not only ubiquitous, but indefinitely multiplied at one and the same time. But this is plainly an impossibility and an absurdity. If it be denied that there is any such actual bodily presence, then the literal interpretation is given up.

66

[ocr errors]

REVIEW.

What possible advantage can be derived from this doctrine? Religion is essentially spiritual. We deny not the importance of human instrumentality, but spiritual truth is the grand means in the conversion and sanctification of men. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimonies of the Lord are sure, making wise the simple." Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Even those dispensations of Divine Providence which are often regarded as instrumental in conversion and edification accomplish the great end, by impressing on the mind some momentous religious truth. Truth "is the proper aliment of the spiritual man, and all expectation of being spiritually renovated, or nourished, without Divine truth, is like the expectation of receiving bodily nutriment by feeding upon the air." How is it possible with the word of God in our hands, to suppose that the mere eating and drinking of the proper physical body and blood of Jesus is spiritually saving, or salutary in its nature? The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

66

"Even the most strenuous advocates of the bodily presence of Christ in the

411

eucharist, are constrained to acknowledge that unbelievers can derive no profit. So then, by their own statement, faith is indispensably requisite. But faith is the belief of something, and not the eating of flesh and blood. Faith is the giving of credit to divine truth, and it fixes, of course, upon truth as its proper aliment. A faith which spiritually profits at the Lord's table, must then be a faith which fixes upon and receives the truths there taught. But what is there taught must be that which is there symbolized, or betokened, not what is eaten, or drunk."

It is now evident that we must have recourse to the symbolic exegesis. The elements are emblems of the Saviour's broken body and shed blood. We partake of them to call afresh to mind our crucified Lord. We believe the atonement of Christ to be the glory of Christianity. "We have redemption in his blood, even the forgiveness of sins;" The symbols at the supper are "To SHOW FORTH HIS DEATH until he come;" to pourtray the mysterious transactions which are the basis of our hope. With what emotions of gratitude, of love, of solemnity, ought we to approach the Lord's table! What trembling of heart ought we to experience lest we should eat and drink unworthily! Reader what is thy conduct?

REVIEW.

NARRATIVE OF A MISSION OF INQUIRY TO THE JEWS, from the Church of Scotland, in 1839. Edinburgh; W. Whyte and Co. Third Edition. 1844.

WE have read this work with great interest, though not with exactly the kind of interest we had anticipated. We have met with much valuable information on the present condition of the chosen nation, though, in this respect, we confess it has not equaled our desires and expectations. The deputation consisted of four ministers of the church of Scotland, who appear to have been every way fitted for the important embassy to which the General Assembly appointed them. One of the num.. ber, while the present edition was passing through the press, finished his course. When approaching Jerusalem, he ran before his companions, that he might obtain the first sight of the holy city. He has entered "the heavenly Jerusalem " before them. The most interesting parts of the work, in our opinion,

are those in which they minutely describe the scenery of the holy land, and the feelings which the sight of it enkindled. They tell us, that the emotions of that hour when they entered Jerusalem, hallowed to the christian mind by a thousand interesting associations, could not be spoken. Absorbed in thought, and indisposed for converse, they entered the city where "God manifest in the flesh" suffered for the sins of the world. The precise site of Calvary, they inform us, cannot be ascertained; but it appears, that the spot which interested monks have pointed out as that where our Lord was crucified," has little or no claim to be thus regarded. We were struck with the reflections which they make on this circumstance. "It is wisely ordered that a cloud of oblivion should rest over the spot where Immanuel died; and there is something pleasing to the mind in reflecting, that the turf that was stained with his blood, and the rocky tomb where he lay, are left unprofaned by the followers of a

« PreviousContinue »