Page images
PDF
EPUB

the Protestant reasoning against our interpretation falls to the ground;—it remains for us to see whether the second has any better foundation; that is whether such difficulties surround the literal meaning, as drive us, however unwillingly, to take refuge in a metaphor. This disquisition will occupy your attention at our next meeting.

LECTURE THE SIXTH.

EXAMINATION OF THE SECOND POINT AT ISSUE BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS, ON THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION; ARE WE COMPELLED TO PREFER THE FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION IN ORDER TO ESCAPE FROM GREATER DIFFICULTIES, SUCH AS CONTRADICTIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF NATURE. -HERMENEUTICAL DISQUISITION ON THE SUBJECT.-PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO IT.-STRONG CONFIRMATORY ARGUMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION, FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORDS, AND FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTITUTION.

Ir might appear that, between us and Protestants, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, our contention was now closed. For they, as well as ourselves, believe in Christ's omnipotence, in the existence of mysteries unfathomable by reason, and in the infallible inspiration of the gospel. They must admit, likewise, the accuracy of the rules which I have adopted and observed most scrupulously throughout this investigation. With the principles which I have enumerated, common to us all, we may, I think, insist upon the completeness of the conclusion which we have reached, independently of every other inquiry. For if the words

spoken by our Saviour be such as admit of no other meaning but what we attribute to them, it follows that this meaning alone, with all its difficulties, must be received, or else belief in Christ's omnipotence, or in his veracity, be renounced; an idea too blasphemous to be ever entertained.

For, a question very naturally presents itself: are we to modify the conclusions drawn from the examination of a text, by other considerations? If hermeneutical principles be grounded on sound reason and correct logic, and if when applied they all converge to one interpretation of a text, and assure us that it alone can be accurate, have we a choice except between the admission of that proof, and the rejection of the facts? For instance, when I read in a profane writer the account of a miraculous action performed by Vespasian or Apollonius, if upon critically discussing the narrative I find all my rules bring me to the conclusion that the writer meant to state such facts, am I not bound to admit that such was his intention, and obliged either to believe his words with all their difficulties, or else acknowledging his intention, reject the statement as false? But am I not manifestly precluded from putting a meaning or interpretation on the expressions, which would be at variance with all the rules of his language? Here, then, having proved that in the language used by our Saviour he can only have had one meaning, we have a right to propose a similar dilemma. We cannot depart from that meaning, but can only

choose between believing or disbelieving him. If you say, that what he asserts involves an impossibility, the only choice is, will you believe what he states, in spite of its teaching what to you seems such, or will you reject his word and authority for it? It cannot be, that he does not state it, when all the evidence which can possibly be required or desired proves that he did. In a word, Christ says, "this is my body," and every rule of sound interpretation tells you that he must have meant to say it simply and literally: your selection is between belief or disbelief that it is his body; but you are shut out from all attempts to prove that he could not mean to make that literal assertion.

However, we must here, as often, condescend to the imperfect modes of reasoning pursued by those whom it is our duty to try to gain; and therefore foregoing the advantages of our previous argument, I proceed to reason upon the usual ground of necessity for departing from the literal interpretation of our Saviour's words. But first, a few remarks on the manner in which the argument is presented.

You have heard how unceremoniously Dr. Clark calls those little better than dolts and idiots, who believe in the possibility of the Catholic doctrine. The preacher, likewise, whom I quoted, appealed to the same argument; and Mr. Horne gives the same motive for departing from the letter, in the form of a rule. "Whatever is repugnant to natural reason cannot be the true meaning of the

« PreviousContinue »