图书图片
PDF
ePub

language." The original says, "dans toute la langage humaine❞—in the whole of the language of mankind. Suppose it were unheard-of before, or that human language did not afford another instance, the expression might still be as singular as the occasion, and be an exception to common language; as common sense would conclude it necessarily to be, from the very fact of our Saviour's personal delivery of the bread and wine.

Here also it so happens, that the argument of Bossuet proves directly the reverse of that which it was intended to prove. For, where there is no specific agreement or explanation of the use of a particular important expression, either given or required, the reason must be, that in the previous habitual use of the language, the sense of the expression was too evident to be liable to misconstruction, in the language in which it was spoken. This was precisely the case with the expression in question. Exclusive of the idiom of the Hebrew language, which is constantly elliptical, and highly figurative, as all its dialects also are, the habitual language of our Saviour was symbolical. If, therefore, he spoke the words, This is my body, in his habitual mode of expression, as when he said, I am the door, &c. the words needed neither previous special agreement nor explanation; whereas, had he intended them in their literal acceptation, then the shock it would give to their reason and their senses would necessarily have required it, and then only.

Even thus far might be a sufficient answer. But as an instance of a similar mode of expression, on a

$

similar occasion, is said to be unheard-of, what are we to think of Bossuet's authority, if more than one can be produced from the Bible itself? The giving a sign of so high a nature is a circumstance, that had not, in the divine dispensations, the occasions of frequent recurrence. The rainbow, circumcision, and the passover, are the principal signs that had been previously given. The rainbow is said explicitly to be a sign, as otherwise it could not be so understood. In the history, however, of the appointment of circumcision, an expression is used, and afterwards explained, so that a Jew could never afterwards be at a loss how to understand a symbolical expression. In* Genesis xvii. ver. 10. it is said, "This † is (or shall be) my covenant-every man-child among you shall be circumcised;" and in ver. 11. Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a TOKEN of the covenant betwixt you and me."

Here the words, This shall be my covenant, and this shall be the token of my covenant, are equivalent. In this case the explanation of such a mode of expression is given, and therefore no further explanation was ne⚫ cessary, as to future cases of the kind.

Accordingly, when the Israelites were directed to kill and eat the paschal lamb, he tells them,

Ir is

The Vulgate has it thus:-Hoc est pactum meum-Circumcidetur ex vobis omne masculinum. Et circumcidetis carnem præputii vestri, ut sit in signum fœderis inter me et vos.-N. B. The same word berith, of the original, is here translated, first, by pactum, and then by fadus.

↑ The verb substantive is omitted in the original, as usual. Exodus, chap. xii.

N

the Lord's passover. He adds, that the blood of the lamb upon the door-posts of the house would be a sign to the Lord to pass over that house: but the blood afterwards made no part of the passover; it was not to be eaten, but thrown away. How the eating of the lamb could be the action of passing over, or the sign of it, there had been no previous agreement; and Moses explains this no further than our Saviour did, as to the bread and wine. They were to be memorials; and the frequent use of symbolical memorials, among the Jews, and all other nations, made it unnecessary to do so.

What then becomes of Bossuet's rhetorical assertion, that such a mode of expression is unheard-of in the whole of the languages of mankind? One would be tempted to smile at the pomposity of the appeal from one, who could not have known a fiftieth, perhaps a hundredth, part of the whole of the languages of mankind, were not the smile repressed by regret, that he was not better acquainted with the Scripture, even through the imperfect medium of that portion of human language which he did know.

OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

On this subject a very natural difficulty occurs, and it was felt as such by Bossuet, viz. How can we know that any of the saints (whom we may believe to be such) can have any cognizance of prayers offered to them? For it would seem rather necessary to be assured of this, if we should pray to them. As Scrip

ture gives no information on the subject, the Bishop thus endeavours to prove it:-* "The church contents herself to teach with all antiquity" (a good round assertion) "these prayers to be very profitable to such who make them, whether it be the saints, by the mi nistry and communication of angels, who, according to the testimony of Scripture, know what passes amongst us, being established by God's order as ad ministering spirits, to co-operate with us in the work of our salvation; or whether it be, that God himself makes known to them our desires by a particular reve lation; or lastly, whether it be, that he discovers the secret to them in his divine essence, in which all truth is comprised." That is, in a few words, he knows nothing at all of the manner how they know it. He therefore endeavours to guess, and that not very hap pily for his subject; since he is obliged to suppose, that they have no direct and immediate knowledge of what passes on earth. The latter part of the supposition is too monstrous, even to be allowed to the ima gination of Bossuet himself, viz. that the supreme Being should communicate our prayers to the saints, in order that they may pray to himself. It is beneath further notice. When he asserts, that prayer to the saints has been the practice of all antiquity; admitting that he means only the antiquity of the Christian church, for his credit it were to be wished he knew no better. However, though this can scarcely be, it is in direct contradiction to the fact. Daille had charged the

Translation, p. 76.

Fathers of the fourth century with having admitted new doctrines, (as to saints and reliques,) into the church; and how does Bossuet attempt to answer him? Is it by producing proofs to the contrary? This he was aware was impossible; and therefore endeavours to enforce the principle out of respect to the Fathers that maintained it, and by begging the question as follows:

*

"But it will not appear very likely that Mr. Daille should understand the sentiments of the Fathers of the first three ages better than those who gathered, as I may say, as it were, the succession of their doctrine after their deaths; and this will be so much the less credible, because the Fathers of the fourth age were so far from perceiving that they introduced any novelty in that worship, that this minister, on the contrary, has quoted several express passages, by which he shews clearly where they pretended, in praying to saints, to follow the examples of their predecessors. But, without any further examination what might be the sentiments of the Fathers of the three first ages, I will content myself with what Mr. Daille himself is pleased to grant, allowing us so many great men, who taught the church in the fourth age. I hope those of his communion will have more respect for these great men."

To be so very easily contented would be much more in character to a determined partizan, than to a defender of what he believed to be true. How much more eligible would the proper mode of reply have

* Translation, F, 68.

« 上一页继续 »