the Temple given from Villalpandus in Part III. ch. iii. §. 4. of the Historical Geography of the Old Testament. For there are several particulars, wherein the learned are not agreed, and which cannot be determined from Scripture. For instance: some will have the court of the Gentiles to be added by Herod, as is here related: but others assert, that in the first Temple built by Solomon there was such a court; and among these is Villalpandus. And indeed this seems to be the most probable opinion. Chap. V. §. 10. To which our Lord subjoins the indispensable necessity that lies on all Christians to partake of the sacrament in order to obtain eternal happiness: for, saith our Lord, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat (not only by believing in me crucified, but also sacramentally) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, John vi. 53.] That these words of our Saviour are to be understood (though not solely or exclusively of believing in Christ crucified, yet also) of partaking of the Eucharist, is confirmed by St. Cyprian, in his exposition of the Lord's Prayer. And, indeed, there cannot a more rational account be given, why our Saviour should thus distinctly express himself as to the eating his flesh (or body) and drinking his blood, than that he designed thereby to denote the two parts of the Eucharist. As for the common objection, that the Eucharist was not then instituted, when our Saviour spoke these words, it is, I think, of no manner of force; and will prove as well against the necessity of believing Christ's crucifixion being intended in these words, forasmuch as Christ was not then crucified, when he spake these words. To pass by a great deal more that might be offered to prove, that our Saviour's discourse in John vi. concerning eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, is to be understood of receiving the Eucharist, I shall content myself here to observe but one particular relating thereto. It is then evident, that what gave occasion to this dis course of our Saviour, was the Jews saying, that their fathers eat manna in the wilderness, &c. Now, it is evident, from 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. that the manna was formerly, as the sacramental bread is now, a symbol of Christ's body; and the water that flowed from the rock was formerly, as the sacramental wine is now, a symbol or sign of Christ's blood. For the Apostle asserts, in the forecited texts, that the Israelites did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, as do we Christians in the Eucharist, (for that this is referred to is evident from ver. 16. of the forecited chapter;) what then could be more natural, than for our Saviour to take occasion, from the Jews mentioning their fathers eating manna, to instruct them, that the said manna was no other than a sacramental type or symbol of his flesh, or body, which he should give for the life of the world. Agreeably hereunto our Saviour says, John vi. 55. My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Where it is observable, that the word rendered by us indeed is ans. And, therefore, as by åλýdeia, John i. 17. is denoted reality, in opposition to typical representations; so by aλnds, John vi. 55. is to be understood the like. Whence our Saviour's words amount to this: My flesh, or body, is the real meat, whereof manna was only a type; and likewise my blood is the real drink, whereof the water that flowed out of the rock was only a type. Wherefore, since manna was no other than sacramental bread, and the water of the rock no other than sacramental drink, when our Saviour takes occasion from the mention of manna to instruct them, that, except they eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, they had no life in them; either these words must be understood of sacramental eating and drinking, or else they are altogether foreign to the purpose. And here, by the way, we have another consideration, which offers itself, and quite takes away the force of the above-mentioned objection. For although the Christian Eucharist was not then instituted, yet the Jewish Eucharist had been long before instituted, and was then in use, viz. the eucharistical sacrifices, the parts whereof were symbols of Christ's body and blood, as are the bread and wine in the Christian sacrifice. Wherefore, when our Saviour says to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh, &c. he may very well be understood to denote thus much to them, viz. that, Except, when they did eat and drink of their legal eucharistical sacrifices, they did eat and drink of them as sacramental symbols of his flesh and blood, their eating and drinking was of no use or benefit to them, or would avail them nothing towards the attainment of eternal life. So that, in short, the great lesson our Saviour then taught the Jews, and which they were then capable of understanding, was this, that even their sacrifices, which they laid such stress on, were of no benefit to them, but as they derived their worth from him, of whose body and blood they were symbols, and consequently representations of his meritorious death. A great deal more could be added, would it not be improper in this place; where I have rather insisted too long already upon a point, which falls in here only by the by. But I could not forbear saying thus much in asserting the true scope and importance of the forementioned words of our blessed Saviour, in reference to the necessity of receiving the sacrament; which, as it is a duty of the highest importance, so the Devil has shewn a master-piece of his wiliness and cunning, in bringing things so about, as to make this text not to be understood in a sacramental sense, even by many learned and pious men. Chap. VI. §. 2. The island of Tyre, in its natural state, seems to have been of a circular figure, containing not more than forty acres of ground.] It must be observed, that Mr. Maundrell (whose words these are) says, that the isle of Tyre in its natural state seems to have been circular, and to have contained no more than forty acres. Whereby he plainly intimates, that by artificial methods the isle had been enlarged, and consequently might contain a very large and populous city, without any contradiction or repugnancy to what he says of it. Chap. VI. §. 15. He sent two of his disciples to the village over-against them, to fetch him an ass with its foal, our Lord determining to ride upon them.] It is observable, that the words of the prophecy of Zechariah, which were fulfilled by this action of our Saviour, expressly run thus: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion;behold, thy king cometh unto thee -riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass, Zech. ix. 9. And as it is here foretold, that the Messiah, or Christ, should come to Jerusalem, riding upon an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass; so St. Matthew expressly relates, Matt. xxi. 7. that the disciples having brought the ass and the colt, which our Saviour had sent them for, put on them their clothes, and set him (i. e. Christ) on them. Now the relation of St. Matthew thus literally agreeing with the prophecy of Zechariah, and both expressly asserting, that our Saviour rode upon the ass as well as her colt; I cannot see any good reason, why the forementioned texts should not be understood in their literal plain meaning, rather than to seek for salvos by figurative expressions, only because in the other Evangelists there is mention made only of Christ's riding upon the colt. It being said by the other Evangelists, that Christ rode upon the colt, does not imply any necessary contradiction to his riding also upon the ass; and therefore both the relations may be true in a literal sense: Christ might ride part of the way upon the one, and the remaining part upon the other. And since he might do so, it seems much more rational and modest, to suppose he did so in agreement to the prediction of Zechariah, and the relation of St. Matthew, than to suppose the contrary, because we cannot conceive any good reason for his changing the beast he rode on in so little a way. In my opinion it is a very good reason for his so doing, that he might thereby exactly fulfil the forecited prophecy. In a word, I think it is esteemed by all judicious persons the safest and fairest way to understand Scripture in its literal acceptation, whenever there is not an absolute necessity, which there is not here, for understanding it in a figurative sense. There is much a like instance in reference to what is related concerning our Saviour's bearing his cross: for St. John xix. 17. relates, that he, (i. e. Christ himself,) bearing his cross, went forth, &c. whereas another Evangelist relates, how as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross, Matt. xxvii. 32. And so also St. Luke xxiii. 26. Now how is this diversity of relation solved by Expositors? Why, by supposing both relations to be literally true, inasmuch as our Saviour bore or carried his cross some part of the way himself, till he was able to carry it no further, when the Jews compelled Simon to take it up. Now methinks after the same manner exactly may the different relations concerning our Saviour's riding to Jerusalem be best solved. And therefore I wonder there should be any Expositors, that should in this last case rather betake themselves to poor salvos by figures, than understand the texts of Zechariah and St. Matthew in a literal sense. |