Page images
PDF
EPUB

Church made up her mind regarding her belief upon this subject. In the first liturgy, framed by some of her most zealous Reformers, in 1548, it is stated that, "the whole body of Christ is received under each particle of the Sacrament." In 1552, the same men,-Cranmer, Ridley, and others,-produced their forty-two articles, in which, the real presence was clearly denied, and a reason given for the denial, which allowed no room for variety of opinion; namely, that Christ, being in heaven, could not be in the Eucharist. When the articles were reduced to thirty-nine, under Elizabeth, this condemnatory clause was omitted.* At present therefore, this Church, in her twenty-eighth article, teaches that "Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament." At the same time it is stated, that in the Lord's Supper, "to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread, which we break, is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise, the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ." Further, we are told that "the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." The catechism stands in the same form of uncertain contradiction, for in it the child is taught, that the "body and

* See Burnet, "Hist. of Reformation." B. ii. p. 105. Strype, ii. 121,208. Milner's End of Controversy, let. xxxvii.

blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper."

This variation in the doctrine was necessarily accompanied by a corresponding variation in the liturgy of the Establishment. At the end of the communion service, there is at present a declaration, which runs more like a magistrate's warrant than an ecclesiastical definition; that no adoration is intended, by the act of kneeling to receive the Lord's Supper. This existed in the oldest liturgy under Edward VI., but was expunged under Elizabeth, and only restored under Charles II.

With this curious vacillation and repeated change of opinion in the English Church, we cannot wonder that there should be as great difference of theory in its teachers and divines. In fact, many of them, in the clearest terms, teach the real and corporal presence, while others are violent against it. The testimonies of the former have been so often given in popular Catholic works, that it would be foreign to my plan and purpose to repeat them here. But the class which is most worthy of our attention, is of those who try to reconcile the two opinions, of absence and presence, by pretending to admit ą real, to the exclusion of a corporal presence. Of these there will be, however, a proper place to speak hereafter.

What I principally reprehend in most of them is, that while they decry and abuse the Catholic faith, and bring arguments to prove it false, they never think of positively constructing their own, or

establishing it on Scripture proofs. And this point also will be touched upon hereafter.

Having thus briefly reviewed the principal opinions on this dogma, I do not intend to trace its history at an earlier period, either in the east or west; as this will be more properly treated of when we come to speak of the tradition of the Church upon our dogma. Instead of such a discussion, I will this evening, premise a brief and simple view of the method in which our examination of the Scriptural testimonies will be conducted. To those who have already gone through our biblical course, it will present nothing new or unexpected; but its repetition will still serve to prepare them more immediately for the practical application of hermeneutical principles. To such as have not yet studied in detail the science of biblical hermeneutics, the observations I am about to make, will be necessary for our present inquiry, and may be useful as a compendium of what they will hereafter have to study more at length.

1. I suppose you will immediately agree, that, when we speak of interpreting an author, or speaker, we understand the discovering of that sense which he meant to convey, or, in other words, our conceiving the same ideas, while we read him, which he entertained when he wrote or spoke.* The whole

* « Cum enim interpretari scriptorem aliquem, ipsa rei natura declarante, nihil aliud sit, quam docere, quamnam sententiam ille singulis libri sui verbis loquendique formulis subjecerit, vel efficere, ut alter librum ejus legens eadem cogitet, quæ ipse scribens cogitavit.”—Keilii Opuscula Academica, Lips. 1821, p. 85.

science of such interpretation, or, as it is technically called, hermeneutics, whether applied to a sacred or profane author, depends upon one simple and obvious principle;—The true meaning of a word or phrase is that which was attached to it at the time when the person, whom we interpret, wrote or spoke. Language is intended only to convey to our hearers, as nearly as possible, the ideas which pass in our own thought; and that person possesses the best command of it, who most exactly transfuses, by his expressions, into the minds of others the impressions which exist in his own. But, as words and phrases have certain definite meanings at any given period, it follows that the speaker necessarily selects such, as his knowledge of their exact force teaches him will represent precisely his thoughts and feelings. From this we deduce, that the impression naturally made by any expressions upon the hearer, or, in other words, the sense in which he must have understood them, is, generally speaking, the proper criterion of the sense intended by the speaker. I have said generally speaking, because words are occasionally misunderstood. But this is an extraordinary case, it supposes a defect in the speaker or hearer; and we always take it for granted that our words are rightly understood, unless there is a special reason to suppose the contrary. Still, even this case does not effect my observations, nor the principles of hermeneutics, which are based upon them, because this science does not decide by impressions actually made, but by those which the words were necessarily calcu

lated to make, at that time, upon that audience; and this is the sense in which the word impression is to be understood. Whatever I say of speakers and hearers, applies, with trifling modifications, to writers and readers. These modifications result from tone, countenance, gesture, incidents proper to the former. Of course, when I speak of our Saviour's discourses being understood, I do not mean to say they were comprehended.

To illustrate this criterion by a simple comparison;-as, from the lines engraven upon a copperplate, we can argue with certainty to the exact representation which will be made upon the paper, provided the regular process of communication be properly gone through, so can we, vice versa, from the printed engraving, reason conclusively to the traces marked upon the plate which produced them. In like manner, therefore, as the speaker from the thoughts which he entertains, and from his possessing the power of correctly communicating them, can conclude what are the corresponding ideas which will be produced in others, so can we, from the knowledge of the impression necessarily made, argue conclusively back to the ideas and intentions of the agent who produced it. "For what is conversation between man and man?" asks the philosophic author of Hermes; ""Tis a mutual intercourse of speaking and hearing. To the speaker 'tis to teach; to the hearer 'tis to learn. To the speaker 'tis to descend from ideas to words; to the hearer 'tis to ascend from ideas to words. If the hearer,. in this ascent, can arive at no ideas, then he is said

« PreviousContinue »