صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

"I go to the world to which I belong, and you cannot come to it, as you do not belong to it."

In all these cases our blessed Saviour explains his expressions and there are three or four other passages of a similar nature, in every one of which he acts in a similar way. We have thus our first canon or rule, based upon the constant analogy of our Lord's conduct. Where an objection is raised against his doctrine, in consequence of his words being misunderstood, and what he meant figuratively being taken literally, he invariably corrects them, and lets his hearers know that he meant them to be taken figuratively. I know but of two passages which can be brought to weaken this rule; one is, where Jesus speaks of his body under the figure of the temple; "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." The other is, where the Samaritan woman understanding him to speak of water literally he seems not to explain, that he spoke only in figure. Now, if I had sufficient time to enter into an analysis of these two passages, which would occupy a considerable time, I could show you, that these two instances are perfectly inapplicable to our case. I ground their rejection on a minute analysis of them, which takes them out of this class, and places them apart quite by themselves.* But as the instances already cited establish the first rule quite sufficiently, I shall proceed at once to the other class of texts; that is, where objections were brought against Christ's doctrine, grounded upon his hearers taking literally what he so intended, and on that correct interpretation raising an objection.

In the 9th chapter of St. Matthew, our Saviour said to the man sick of the palsy ; "Arise, thy sins are forgiven thee." His hearers took these words in the literal sense, when he meant them to be literal, and make an objection to the doctrine. They say-"This man blasphemeth;" that is to say, he has arrogated to himself the power of forgiving sins, which belongs to God. He repeats the expression which has given rise to the difficulty, he repeats the very words that have given offence; "Which is it easier, to say thy sins are forgiven thee, or to take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." We see, therefore, in the second place, that when his hearers object to his doctrine, taking it in the literal sense, and being right in so doing, he does not remove the objection, nor soften down the doctrine, but he insists on

* See it in "Lectures on the Eucharist,” pp. 104–115.

being believed, and repeats the expression. In the 8th chapter of St. John,-" Abraham, your father, rejoiced to see my day. He saw it and was glad." The Jews take his words literally, as though he meant to say that he was coeval with Abraham, and existed in his time. "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?" They here again take his words literally, and are correct in doing so, and object to his assertion; and how does he answer them? By repeating the very same proposition,-" Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am." In the 6th chapter of St. John, in the very discourse under discussion, we have an instance where the Jews say; "Is not this Jesus, whose father and mother we know,-how is it then, that he saith I came down from heaven?" They object to his assertion, and he insists on it, and repeats it again and again, even three times, saying, that he had come down from heaven.

Thus, then, we have two rules for ascertaining, on any occasion, whether the Jews were right or wrong, in taking our Lord's words to the letter;-first, whenever they took them literally, and he meant them figuratively, he invariably explained his meaning, and told them they were wrong in taking literally what he meant to be figurative. Secondly, whenever the Jews understood him rightly in a literal sense, and objected to the doctrine proposed, he repeated the very phrases which had given offence. Now, therefore, apply these rules to our case. The difficulty raised is, "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" If the words were meant figuratively, Jesus, according to his usual custom, will meet the objection, by stating that he wished to be so understood. Instead of this, he stands to his words, repeats again and again the obnoxious expressions, and requires his hearers to believe them. Hence we must conclude that this passage belongs to the second class, where the Jews were right in taking the different expressions to the letter, and consequently we too are right in so receiving them. Take the three cases together.

THE PROPOSITION.

1. "Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

2. "Abraham, your father, rejoiced to see my day: he saw it and was glad.'

3. "And the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

VOL. II.--12

THE OBJECTION.

1. "How can a man be born again when he is old?" 2. "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?"

3. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

THE ANSWER.

1. "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."

2. "Amen, amen, I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am."

3. "Amen, amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you."

In the propositions and objections, there is a striking resemblance; but the moment we come to the reply, there is manifest divergence. In the first text a modification is introduced, indicative of a figurative meaning; in the second there is a clear repetition of the hard word, which had not proved palatable. And in the third does Jesus modify his expressions? Does he say, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man in spirit and by faith, ye shall not have life in you?" Or does he repeat the very expression that has given offence? If he does, this passage belongs to the second class, when the hearers were right in taking his words literally, and objected upon that ground; and, therefore, we must conclude that the hearers of our Saviour, the Jews, were right in so taking these words in their literal sense. If they were right, we also are right, and are warranted in adopting that literal interpretation.

After this argument, I need only proceed in as summary a way as possible, to analyze our Saviour's answer; because I am not content with showing that he merely repeated the phrase, and thereby proving that the Jews were right in their version; but I am anxious to confirm this result, by the manner in which he made his repetition, and by the particular circumstances which give force to his answer.

The doctrine is now embodied into the form of a precept; and you all know that when a command is given, the words should be as literal as possible, that they should be couched in language clearly intelligible. For thus, our Saviour goes

on to enjoin this solemn precept, and to add a severe penalty for its neglect. "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." Here is a portion of eternal life to be lost or gained by every Christian; and can we suppose that our heavenly Master clothed so important a precept under such extraordinary figurative language as this? Can we imagine that he laid down a doctrine, the neglect of which involved eternal punishment, in metaphorical phrases of this strange sort? What are we therefore to conclude? That these words are to be taken in the strictest and most literal sense; and this reflection gains further strength, when we consider that it was delivered in a twofold form, as a command, and as a prohibition. "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever;" and, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you." We have, therefore, the compliance with its promise, the neglect with its penaltíes, proposed to us. This is precisely the form used by our Saviour in teaching the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism. "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be condemned." The two cases are parallel, and being precepts, both must be taken in their literal

sense.

2. In the second place, our Saviour makes a distinction between the eating of his body and the drinking of his blood; and does so in a very marked and energetic manner; repeating the expressions over and over again. If this be a figure, there is no distinction between its two parts. If it be only descriptive of faith, if only an act of the mind and understanding be here designated, we cannot, by any stretch of fancy, divide it into two acts, characterized by the two bodily operations.

3. Again, Christ subjoins a strong asseveration; "Amen, amen," which is always used when particular weight or emphasis is to be given to words; when they are intended to be taken in their most simple and obvious signification.

4. In the fourth place, we have a qualifying determinating phrase, because it is said, "my flesh is meat indeed,"-that is to say, truly and verily," and my blood is drink indeed." These expressions should certainly go far to exclude the idea that it was only figurative meat and drink, of which he spoke. When a person says that a thing is verily so, we must understand him, as far as it is possible for language to express it, in a literal signification.

2. It is evident that our Saviour is compelled to use that

strong and harsh expression, "he that eateth me," a phrase that sounds somewhat painfully harsh when repeated, however spiritually it be understood. We can hardly conceive that he would, by preference, choose so strong and extraordinary an expression, not only so, but one so much at variance with the preceding part of his discourse, if he had any choice, and if this had not been the literal form of inculcating the precept.

I have given you a very slight and almost superficial analysis of our Saviour's answer. I might have quoted many other passages, had time served, to confirm the result at which we have arrived, and to prove that the Jews were perfectly warranted in literally determining the meaning of our Saviour's expressions. We now come to another interesting incident. The disciples exclaim, "this is a hard saying,"-the meaning of which expression is, "this is a disagreeable, an odious proposition." For it is in this sense that the phrase is used by ancient classical authors. "This is a hard saying, and who can hear it? "It is impossible," in other words, "any longer to associate with a man who teaches us such revolting doctrines as these." I ask, would they have spoken thus, had they understood him to be speaking only of believing in him? But what is our Saviour's conduct to the disciples? What is his answer? Why, he allows all to go away, who did not give in their adhesion, and at once believe him on his word; he says not a syllable to prevent their abandoning him, and "they walked no more with him." Can we possibly imagine, that if he had been speaking all the time in figures, and they had misunderstood him, he would permit them to be lost for ever, in consequence of their refusal to believe imaginary doctrines, which he never meant to teach them? For if they left him, on the supposition that they heard intolerable doctrines, which, indeed, he was not delivering, the fault was not so much theirs; but might seem, in some manner, to fall on him whose unusual and unintelligible expressions had led them into error.

In the second place, what is the conduct of the apostles? They remain faithful,-they resist the suggestions of natural feeling, they abandon themselves to his authority without reserve. "To whom shall we go?" they exclaim, "thou hast the words of eternal life." It is manifest that they do not understand him any more than the rest, but they submit their judgments to him, and he accepts the sacrifice, and acknowledges them for his disciples on this very ground. "Have I not chosen you twelve ?”- "Are you not my cho.

« السابقةمتابعة »