Page images

broke," which corresponds to the participle which he selected of the two, in his formulary." (p. 221.)

According to my own feelings, the preceding observations strongly confirm the impression, that the figurative interpretation is the true one. To break and to give is, in the New Testament, the common phrase applied to bread; and cannot be certainly affirmed, as the learned author admits, to be applied to any thing else. Our Saviour broke and gave bread to the disciples; and in presenting it, spoke of that which was broken and given: but the rite then instituted, being designed "to show the Lord's death, till he came" (1 Cor. xi. 26), could not but be symbolical of that event: and thus the bread broken and given represented, by a striking figure, Christ's body broken (wounded) and given for the sins of the world. Dr Wiseman may devote his whole life to minute verbal criticism on the words of Institution; but his efforts, to establish the Roman Catholic interpretation on sure ground, will be to no purpose. He may dwell, as long as he pleases, upon the word TOUTO; but he will never persuade any man of plain understanding, that it is "identical with the o@ua or body." When he affirms that "the phrase, "This thing, which is broken and given, is my body,' forms a more definite expression, much more difficult to be applied to express a figure, than the vague this"-he will be told that "this thing" means "this bread;" and will be reminded of his own principle--that, "when

two material objects appear to be identical, we are compelled to fly, by a positive repugnance and contradiction, to another (a figurative) sense." In short, when every particle of the expression has been twisted in every possible way, it will still be found that the figurative meaning is the most obvious and the most natural.... The specific connexion of "this" with the cup, in the other part of the Sacrament (τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον), and the analogy between the two parts, as I have already observed, deprive Dr Wiseman of all ground for maintaining, that "this," in the former part, can refer to any thing but the bread.

The learned author mentions three particulars, relating to the circumstances in which the words were spoken, as confirming his literal interpretation. 1. "Our blessed Saviour, alone with his chosen twelve, on the point of suffering, is here pouring out the treasures of his love:"-and this he did as effectually, and as affectingly, according to the figurative, as according to the literal interpretation. 2. "He is making his last will and testament, an occasion when all men speak as simply and as intelligibly as possible :"-and does not this afford good evidence that he was not proposing, to the disciples, a doctrine which has bewildered the understandings of many of the acutest men-ever since it was promulgated as a tenet of the Latin Church? 3. "He tells his dear friends and brethren, that the time is come when he would speak plain and without

[ocr errors]

parables to them:"-was that then the time at which we are to suppose him to have uttered—what, if taken in the Roman Catholic sense, must have been the most enigmatical language that had ever proceeded from his mouth? If Dr Wiseman should persevere in writing after this fashion, he will thoroughly convince the world, that the doctrine, of the Real, Corporal Presence in the Eucharist, has nothing to rest upon, but the authority of the Church of Rome.




DR WISEMAN, in his seventh lecture, professes to notice "the objections made by Protestants," to the Roman Catholic interpretation of the words of Institution; but he seems to have mainly intended a reply to some strictures, on a preceding work of his, by Dr Lee, the Regius Professor of Hebrew in this University. So far as I can perceive, the origin and progress of the controversy may be easily stated....Calvin, Melancthon and other reformers "argued against the literal interpretation of the words, on the ground that our Saviour spoke Hebrew, and not Greek; and that, in the Hebrew language, there is not a single word meaning to represent. Hence they concluded, that any one wishing to express in that language, that one object was figurative of another, he could not possibly do it otherwise than by saying that it was that thing*." The answer to this was, that our Lord did not speak Hebrew, but Syro-Chaldaic. Dr Adam Clarke however affirmed that neither did the Syro-Chaldaic contain any word signifying to represent; and Mr Hartwell Horne adopted the opinion. In 1828, Dr Wiseman published a tract- which I have

Lectures, p. 231.

not seen-entitled "Horæ Syriacæ;" in which he maintained that the Syriac language possessed many words with that meaning. Dr Lee, in a note to his Prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglot Bible, put forth some animadversions on the "Horæ Syriacæ;" allowing, at the same time, that Dr Wiseman had correctly stated the fact, with regard to the Syriac language. Dr Lee's animadversions having reference to the doctrine of the Syrian Church with regard to the Real Presence, as well as to Dr Wiseman's accuracy in alleging certain writers, in connexion with that subject-these are the points principally discussed in the seventh lecture....I mention these circumstances, to show that, in passing over that lecture, I am omitting nothing which is required by my undertaking.

I may, however, observe that the peculiarity in question is allowed to belong to the Hebrew language: that that language-by itself and by its representative, the Septuagint-had great effect upon the language of the New Testament: that, in deciding the meaning of the words of Institution, the idiom of the Hebrew and the Septuagint cannot but, as in other cases, be taken into account: and that the idiom, prevailing in those ancient authorities, tends strongly to confirm the figurative interpretation which is contended for by Protestant Communities.

« PreviousContinue »