For, as these words were spoken before Christ's body was broken upon the cross, and before his blood was shed, he could not pronounce them with the intention that they should be taken and interpreted literally by his disciples: nor do we find that they ever understood him thus. If the words of institution had been spoken in English or Latin at first, there might perhaps have been some reason for supposing that our Saviour meant to be literally understood. But they were spoken in Syriac; in which, as well as in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, there is no word which expresses to signify, represent, or denote. Hence it is that we find the expression it is, so frequently used in the sacred writings, for it represents or signifies. Thus, in Gen. xvii. 10. 23. 26. this is [represents] my covenant betwixt me and thee. So, in Gen. xli. 26, 27. the seven good kine and the seven illfavoured kine ARE [represent] seven years. Exod. xii. 11. This is [represents] the Lord's passover. Dan. vii. 24. The ten horns ARE [denote] ten kings, 1 Cor. x. 4. That rock was [typified or represented] Christ. Matt. xiii. 38, 39. The field is [denotes] the world; the good seed is [represents] the children of the kingdom; the tares ARE [represent] the children of the wicked one. The enemy Is [represents] the Devil: the harvest is [signifies] the end of the world; the reapers ARE [represent] Angels. Similar modes of expression occur in Luke viii. 9. xv. 26. Gr. and xviii. 36. Gr. John vii. 36. and x. 6. Acts x. 17. Gal. iv. 24. and Rev. i. 20. It is further worthy of remark, that we have a complete version of the Gospels in the Syriac language, which was executed at the commencement of the second if not at the close of the first century, and in them it is probable that we have the precise words spoken by our Lord on this occasion. Of the passage, Matt. xxvi. 26. 28. the Greek is a verbal translation: nor would any man even in the present day, speaking in the same language, use, among the people to whom it was vernacular, other terms to express, "this represents my body," and "this represents my blood." It is evident, therefore, from the context, from parallel passages, and the scope of the passage, that the literal interpretation of Matt. xxvi. 26. 28. must be abandoned, and with it necessarily falls the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation. IV. It is not, however, sufficient to know whether an expression be figurative or not, but when this point is ascertained, another of equal importance presents itself; namely, to interpret metaphorical expressions by corresponding and appropriate terms. In order to accomplish this object, it is necessary that we inquire in what respects the thing compared, and that with which it is compared, respectively agree, and also in what respects they have any affinity or resemblance: for as a similitude is concealed in every metaphor, it is only by diligent study that it can be elicited, by carefully observing the points of agreement between the proper or literal and the figurative meaning. For instance, the prophetic writers, and particularly Ezekiel, very frequently charge the Israelites with having committed adultery and played the harlot, and with deserting Jehovah, their husband. From the slightest inspection of these passages, it is evident that spiritual adultery, or idolatry, is intended. Now the origin of this metaphor is to be sought from one and the same notion, in which there is an agreement between adultery and the worship paid by the Israelites to strange gods. That notion or idea is unfaithfulness; by which, as a wife deceives her husband, so they are represented as deceiving God, and as violating their fidelity, in forsaking him. To explain this general remark more particularly, 1. The sense of a figurative passage will be known, if the resemblance between the things or objects compared be so clear as to be immediately perceived. Thus, if any one be said to walk in the way of the ungodly, or of the godly, we readily apprehend that the imitation of the conduct of those characters is the idea designed to be expressed. In like manner, when any one is compared to a lion, containing the passover-cakes being lifted up by the hands of the whole company, they unite in rehearsing: "This is the bread of poverty and affliction which our fathers did cat in Egypt," &c. Allen's Modern Judaism, p. 383. The doctrine of transubstantiation is confuted at length by the Bishop of Durham. (Tracts, pp. 355-370.) See also Mr. Fletcher's Lectures on Popery, pp. 139–169. who does not immediately understand that strength of limbs, firmness of nerve, and magnanimity, are the ideas intended to be conveyed? In Gen. xlix. 9. Judah is styled a lion's whelp, and is compared to a lion and lioness couching, whom no one dares to rouse. The warlike character and the conquests of this tribe are here prophetically described: but the full force of the passage will not be perceived, unless we know that a lion or lioness, when lying down after satisfying its hunger, will not attack any person. Mr. Park has recorded an instance of his providential escape from a lion thus circumstanced, which he saw lying near the road, and passed unhurt.1 2. As, in the sacred metaphors, one particular is generally the principal thing thereby exhibited, the sense of a metaphor will be illustrated by considering the context of the passage in which it occurs. This rule particularly applies to images, which do not always convey one and the same meaning. Thus, light and darkness not only denote happiness and misery, but also knowledge and ignorance; which of these two significations is to be preferably adopted, the context alone can show. In Psalm. cxii. 4. we read: Unto the upright there ariseth light in the darkness. Bishop Horsley thinks that this is an allusion to what happened in Egypt, when the Israelites had light in all their dwellings in Goshen, while the rest of Egypt was enveloped in darkness. Be this, however, as it may, since the design of the psalm in question is, to show the blessedness of the righteous and the final perdition of the ungodly, the context will plainly indicate that happiness is the idea intended in this verse; for, if we consult what precedes, we shall find that temporal prosperity is promised to the righteous, and that, among the particulars in which his prosperity is stated to consist, it is specified that his seed shall be mighty upon earth; the generation of the upright shall be blessed; wealth and riches shall be in his house. On the contrary, in Psal. xix. 8. where the commandment of Jehovah is said to enlighten the eyes, the idea of spiritual knowledge is intended, and this phrase corresponds to that in the preceding verse, where the testimony of Jehovah is said to make wise the simple. In the New Testament, light and darkness are of frequent occurrence, and in like manner designate a state of knowledge and a state of ignorance. It tmay be sufficient to refer to Luke i. 78, 79. Acts xxvi. 18. Rom. i. 21. Eph. iv. 18. and v. 8. 1 Peter ii. 9. 3. The sense of a metaphor is often known from the sacred writer's own explanation of it. In common with profane writers, whether in prose or verse, the inspired penmen of the Old Testament frequently subjoin to metaphorical expressions, proper or literal terms, and thus explain the meaning intended to be conveyed by the images they employ. Thus, in Esther viii. 16. it is said that the Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honour: here the explanatory synonymes mark the greatness of their prosperity and joy. In Psal. xcvii. 11. light is said to be sown for the righteous: the exposition immediately follows, and joy for the upright in heart. In like manner, when the prophet Hosea complains that a spirit of lascivi ousness had driven the Israelites astray (Hos. iv. 12.) he explains his meaning not only by subjoining that they forsook their God, but in the following verse he states in clear and literal terms the eagerness with which they committed idolatry; upon the tops of the mountains they sacrifice, and upon the hills they burn incense, &c. 4. The sense of a figurative expression may also be ascertained by consulting parallel passages; in which the same thing is expressed pro perly and literally, or in which the same word occurs, so that the sense may be readily apprehended. The Hebrew prophets very often represent Jehovah as holding in his hand a cup, and presenting it to men who are compelled to drink it up to the very dregs. The intoxicated stagger, and, falling prostrate on the ground, shamefully vomit forth the wine they have drunk. This metaphor is frequently repeated in various ways by the sacred poets, who sometimes only glance at it, while at others they more fully illustrate it. Compare Obad. 16. Nahum iii. 11. Habak. ii. 16. Psal. lxxv. 8. Jer. xxv. 15-27. and Ezekiel xxiii. 33, 34. Now, if there were any doubt as to the meaning of the image occurring in these passages, its sense might be immediately ascertained by comparing the following parallel passage in Isaiah li. 17-23., in which the prophet portrays Jerusalem as a woman so intoxicated as 1 Travels in the Interior of Africa, p. 310. London, 1807, 8vo. or in Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages, vol. xvi. p. 848. 74 VOL. II. to be unable to stand; but in which he introduces some words that clearly mark the sense of the metaphor. The passage itself, Bishop Lowth justly remarks, is poetry of the first order, sublimity of the highest proof. Rouse thyself, rouse thyself up; arise, O Jerusalem! Who hast drunken from the hand of JEHOVAH the cup of his fury; The dregs of the cup of trembling thou hast drunken, thou hast wrung them out.. There is not one to lead her, of all the sons which she hath brought forth; Neither is there one to support her by the hand, of all the sons which she hath educated. These two things have befallen thee; who shall bemoan thee? Desolation and destruction; the famine and the sword; who shall comfort thee? Thy sons lie astounded; they are cast down: At the head of all the streets, like the oryx1 taken in the toils; Drenched to the full with the fury of JEHOVAH, with the rebuke of thy God. Wherefore hear now this, O thou afflicted daughter; And thou drunken, but not with wine. Thus saith thy Lord JEHOVAH; And thy God, who avengeth his people; Behold I take from thy hand the cup of trembling; The dregs of the cup of my fury: Thou shalt drink of it again no more. But I will put it into the hand of them who oppress thee; Who said to thee, bow down thy body, that we may go over : And as the street to them that pass along. 5. Consider History. Bishop LowтH's Version. A consideration of events recorded in history will very frequently show, how far and in what sense any expression is to be understood figuratively. Thus many and various things are said relative to the coming of Christ, his kingdom, government, and adversaries. Now history informs us, that he came, at the destruction of Jerusalem, to rule and govern far and wide by the spreading of the Gospel. In Matt. x. 34. Christ says that he came not to send peace on earth, but a sword. In the parallel passage, Luke xii. 51., he says that he came to cause division. The general import of these two passages is, that he would cause discord, and as it were sow dissensions. But in what sense could the blessed Saviour mean that he would cause discord? We learn from history, that in consequence of the diffusion of the Christian religion, nations and families became divided, so that some embraced it while others rejected it, and the former were persecuted by the latter on account of their Christian profession. A further exposition of this passage is given in p. 592. infra. 6. Consider the connection of doctrine, as well as the context of the figurative passage. A consideration of the connection of doctrine, as well as of the context, will often lead to the origin of the figurative expressions employed by the sacred writers, and consequently enable us to ascertain their meaning: for very frequently some word precedes or follows, or some synonyme is annexed, that plainly indicates whether the expression is to be taken properly or figuratively. For instance, the words sin and iniquity, which are of such frequent occurrence in the law of Moses, are tropically put for punishment: and that the phrase, to bear one's sin or iniquity, is equivalent to the suffering of the punishment due to sin, appears from the synonymous expressions of being cut off from the people, and dying, being very often annexed. As in Levit. xix. 8. Exodus xxviii. 43. Numb. xiv. 33. and xviii. 22. 32, &c. Thus also diseases and infirmities are called sins, because they are considered as the punishment of sin, (as in Isa. liii. 4. with Matt. viii. 17.) the figure in which passage is subsequently explained in verse 5. Compare also verse 12. and Psalm xxxviii. 3-5. Ezek. xxxiii. 10. and John ix. 2, 3. So likewise in Gen. xxxi. 42. 53. the context manifestly shows that the fear of Isaac, and the fear of his father, are put for Jehovah, the object of fear and reverence. Once more; when, in 1 Pet. ii. 5. 9. believers are said to be living stones, a spiritual house, and a royal priesthood, as these expressions are derived from the Old Testament, we must recur to Exodus xix. 5, 6. in order to ascertain the full extent of their privileges. The general tenor of the apostle's address then 1 Or wild bull. will be, "Consider yourselves as forming part of a nobler temple than that of the Jews, and in which a much more spiritual sacrifice is offered to God through Christ. You, who have embraced the Gospel, are considered by God as inheri tors of all those holy blessings which were promised to the Jews." 7. In fixing the sense exhibited by a metaphor, the comparison ought never to be extended too far, or into any thing which cannot be properly applied to the person or thing represented. In other words, a comparison which ordinarily has but one particular view, ought not to be strained, in order to make it agree in other respects, where it is evident that there is not a similitude of ideas. For instance, in Isa. xl. 6. we read all flesh is grass; that is, all mankind are liable to wither and decay, and will wither and decay like grass. But this metaphor would be tortured to a meaning, which, as it is foolish and absurd, we may be sure was never intended by the inspired writer, if we were to say that mankind were like grass, or were grass in colour or shape. What wild, and indeed what wicked abuse, would be made of the Scripture expression concerning our Lord that he will come as a thief in the night (Rev. xvi. 15.) if we were not to confine the sense to the suddenness and surprisal of the thief, but should extend it to the temper and designs of the villain who breaks open houses in the night ?1 Hence, though one metaphor may be brought to signify many things with respect to some different qualities, and diverse attributes, it nevertheless is very evident that that sense ought chiefly to be attended to, which appears to be designed by the Spirit of God, and which is obviously figured out to us in the nature, form, or use of the thing, from which the metaphor is taken. Thus, Christ is called a lion (Rev. v. 5.) because he is noble, heroic, and invincible; Satan, the grand adversary of souls, is called a lion in 1 Pet. v. 8. because he is rapacious, roaring, and devouring. And wicked men are termed lions in Job iv. 10, 11. and 2 Tim. iv. 17. because they are fierce, outrageous, and cruel to weaker men. 8. In the interpretation of figurative expressions generally, and those which particularly occur in the moral parts of Scripture, the meaning of such expressions ought to be regulated by those which are plain and clear. All mere maxims, whether plain or figurative, must be understood in a manner consistent with possibility and the rules of humanity. The rule just stated is especially applicable to the right interpretation of Matt. v. 38-42., which enjoins us not to retaliate, but to bear small injuries, and Matt. vi. 19. 31. 34., which prohibits thoughtfulness about worldly concerns; which injunctions have been objected to, as being impracticable general duties, inconsistent with natural instinct and law, and altogether destructive of society. If, however, the present rule be kept in view, and if we attend to the auditors and occasion of this discourse and to the context, the true sense of the precepts before us will be evident. The auditors were the multitude and the disciples of Christ, as appears from the context both preceding and following the sermon, and also from the conclusion of it.2 The multitude and the disciples were likewise the auditors of the same, or a similar, discourse recorded by Luke.3 They were both, therefore, intended for general instruction to all Christians. Particular appropriate instructions to his apostles, and to the seventy during his ministry, Christ gave to them when he sent them forth to preach and work miracles ;4 and upon other occasions when they were in private.5 After Jesus had been delivering some similar instructions to those in the sermon on the mount, he tells Peter that they were designed for general use.6 Our Lord, therefore, probably delivered the precepts we are considering in such language as was intelligible to the multitude. Now they, instead of viewing them as impracticable, inconsistent with natural law, and destructive of society, expressed their great admiration of the wisdom and dignity with which he taught.7 The occasion of this sermon was, towards the beginning of his ministry, to teach the true nature of the Messiah's kingdom, to give laws suitable to it, and to cor 1 Numerous similar instances are given by Glassius, Philologia Sacra, (edit. Dathii) lib. ii. · pp. 918-921. 2 Matt. v. 1.; vii. 24. 28.; viii. 1. 3 Luke vi. 17. 47-49.; vii. 1. 4 Matt. x. Mark vi. 7-11. Luke ix. 1-6.; x. 1-24. 5 Matt. xiii. 10-23. 36-43. 51. John xiv.-xvii. Luke xii. 41-48. 7 Matt. vii. 28, 29. rect the false and worldly notions of it, which the Jews in general entertained. They were filled with ideas of conquest, and revenge against the Romans, and of enriching themselves by plunder. But Christ, instead of countenancing a vindictive temper, enjoins lenity, forbearance, and kindness to those who injure us. These directions accord with the dispositions which, in the introduction to the sermon, he pronounces to be requisite to true happiness; with his plain injunc tions to forgive injuries; with the general strain of his discourses, with the condition of humanity; and with the context, both in Matthew and Luke. In connection with the precepts we are considering, in both Evangelists, doing to others as we would have them do to us,' and doing good to our enemies, in imitation of our heavenly Father,' are enjoined. These plain comprehensive rules are introduced as including the figurative ones here specified, which point out small injuries. And trivial instances are here specified, probably to point out the necessity of extending a lenient and forbearing disposition to small circumstances, in order to pervade every social sentiment and action with the temper of kindness, and to prevent a vindictive spirit from insinuating itself by the smallest avenues into our hearts. That these commands are not to be taken literally, as enjoining the particular actions here specified, but the disposition of forgiveness and benevolence, is apparent, not only from its being usual in the East to put the action for the disposition;2 and from the manner in which the precepts are introduced, but also from our Lord's own conduct. For he mildly reproved the officer who struck him at his trial.3 Though he had before voluntarily given himself up to the persons who were sent to take him, bade Peter sheath the sword with which he had maimed one of them, and himself miraculously cured him: yet even here he gently reproved them for the manner in which they came to apprehend him.4 These instances of Christ's different behaviour under a variation of circumstances, show that he meant these precepts to be interpreted, according to the nature and reason of the case. He might express them the more strongly in order to contradict Ecclus. xii. 4, 5. 7., and similar improper sentiments and practices which at that time prevailed in Judæa. Neither did Paul act agreeably to the literal sense of the commands in question.5 The injunction, not to lay up treasures upon earth, but in heaven,6 according to the Hebrew idiom, means, to prefer heavenly to earthly treasures. The reason given for it is, because, making earthly treasures the chief object, beclouds the moral eye, the guide of life, and is inconsistent with the love and service of God. Christ adds, therefore take no thought,' or as it should be translated, 'be not anxious about food, drink, or clothing, but with moderate care only about them, trust the providence of your heavenly Father. Let your first and chief care be to do your duty. Do not anxiously anticipate the cares of the morrow. All this accords with our best natural sentiments, and with the other instructions of our Lord. The auditors, and occasion of the discourse, together with the language and connection in which the directions are given, show these to be the ideas which Jesus meant to convey.7 Lastly, in explaining the figurative language of Scripture, care must be taken that we do not judge of the application of characters from modern usage; because the inhabitants of the East have very frequently attached a character to the idea expressed, widely different from that which usually presents itself to our views. The inhabitants of the East, from their lively imaginations, very often make use of far-fetched comparisons, and bring together things which, in our judgments, are the most dissimilar. Besides, since the Hebrew mode of living differed greatly from ours, and many things were in use and commended by the Israelites which to us are unknown, -we ought not to be surprised, if there be a very wide difference subsisting between the metaphorical expressions of the Hebrews, and those which are familiar to us, and if they should sometimes appear harsh, and seem to convey a different meaning from that which we are accustomed to receive. Thus, in Deut. xxxiii. 17. the glory of the tribe of Joseph is compared to the firstling of 1 Matt. v. 43-48. Luke vi. 27-36. 2 Matt. v. 38. Luke xxii. 36.; xix. 13, 14. John xiii. 14, 15. 17. 3 John xviii. 22, 23. 4 Mark xiv. 48. Matt. xxvi. 55. Luke xxii. 50-53. John xviii. 10. 5 Acts xxiii. 3.; xvi. 37. 7 Blair on Christ's Sermon on the Mount. p. 30. part i. chap. 1. sect. 9. 6 Matt. vi. 19-34. John vi. 27. Newcome's Observations on Christ, |