Page images
PDF
EPUB

his character, his intention, his principles, his situation; and it is obvious, that any explanation of his words, at variance with his well-known methods and character, cannot for a moment be admitted. Any interpretation of a passage in Plato, which supposed him to abandon his inductive and discursive method, and argue in a synthetical and formal manner, or which made him represent Socrates as a haughty overbearing despot in discussion, would be instantly rejected, as incompatible with the known character and principles of that philosopher. In like manner, any explanation of words spoken by our B. Saviour, which should be at variance with his usual and constant method of instructing, or which should suppose him to be aught but meek, humble, conciliating, and charitable, must be unhesitatingly rejected.

III. These considerations will necessarily lead us also to take into account such data as may be presented by the circumstances in which the words were spoken, the feelings, the habits, the very prejudices of the audience addressed. For Burke has well observed, that "in all bodies, those who will lead, must also, in a considerable degree, follow; they must conform their propositions to the taste, talent, and disposition of those whom they wish to conduct."* Of course, you will not for a moment confound this supposition with the doctrine of the

* "Reflections on the Revolution in France," 11th ed. Lond. 1791, p. 59.

rationalists, that our Saviour framed his dogma so as to accord with the errors and prejudices of the Jews, an opinion as unhermeneutical and absurd, as it is blasphemous. I speak of the manner, and not the matter, of his instructions. It is evident that a kind and skilful teacher will ever select words and phrases which, while they are most intelligible, may, at the same time, least shock the natural feelings and just prejudices of his audience; he will never study to make his doctrines as repulsive and odious as possible; he will, on the contrary, divest them of these qualities, if they appear to have them, so far as is compatible with their substance. In like manner, he will address himself very differently to friends or to enemies, to those who are hearkening in order to learn, or those who are listening only to find fault. He will reason in a different strain with a learned or an uninstructed auditory; he will never argue with the latter from principles of which he knows them to be completely ignorant, or which he is aware could not recur to their minds at that moment, as criterions for interpreting his expressions.

It is thus evident, that the inquiry into the meaning of words and phrases at any given period, and also into the local or personal circumstances which modify them, is an inquiry into a matter of fact, and consequently partakes, especially as to the latter research, of a historical character.* Hence,

"Scire autem et docere, quid cogitaverit, aliquis, verbisque

the learned Kiel proposed to modify the term which I used above, of sensus grammaticus, and adopt that of sensus historicus, interpretatio historica.* In order, however, to explain his meaning more clearly, he compounded the two terms, and called it the historico-grammatical interpretation.†

4. The sum of all these remarks is, that, if we wish to understand an author, for instance the New Testament, we must transport ourselves from our age and country, and place ourselves in the position of those whom our Saviour or his disciples addressed. We must understand each phrase just as they must have done; we must invest ourselves with their knowledge, their feelings, habits, opinions, if we wish to understand the discourses which were

significaverit, nonne erit rem facti intelligere? Summa igitur similitudine cum historici munere conjunctum est interpretis munus."-Keil, ubi sup. p. 86.

* Tittman has justly observed, that the terms historical and grammatical, when applied to interpretation, mean precisely the same. Opuscula Theologica, Lips. 1803, p. 661.

t "Hinc eadem (historico-grammatica interpretatio) primum omnium postulat hoc, ut verba quibus auctor mentem expressit, adcurate examinentur, quo non solum significatio et sensus singularum vocum et enunciationum, sed earum invicem junctarum nexus etiam et ambitus singulis locis obtinens recte constituatur. Deinde animum advertere illa jubet ad genus orationis....item ad consilium....nec non ad argumentum libri explicandi....Denique eadem etiam interpretem graviter monet, ut ad Scriptoris a se explicandi omnem indolem et rationem, quantum eam noverit, semper respiciat, neque in enucleando ejus libro de eo quærere negligat, qua ille scientia, ingenio, animo, moribus, quo loco qua conditione, quibus hominibus usus sit."-Keil, p. 380.

addressed primarily and immediately to them.This we will attempt in the lectures which will be addressed to you on the real Presence. We will sift every phrase, when necessary, till we discover the exact ideas which it must have conveyed to the Jews or the Apostles; and for this purpose, we must enter into minute and detailed reasoning,from parallel passages, from the genius of the language used, from the context, and every other philological source within our reach. We will study diligently and exactly our Saviour's character, and discover his constant line of conduct, and we will pry, too, into the habits and character of those whom he addressed.

1. Proceeding thus by a perfectly analytical method, when we have discovered a signification for a text, which alone can be reconciled with all these data, I shall feel justified in concluding that signification to be the only true one.

2. We will apply the same principles as a test to try the validity of objections. We shall simply have to ask the question, could the hearers of Christ, or the readers of St. Paul, have understood him in that manner? If not, we shall be authorised to conclude, that such interpretations are of no value whatsoever. This method of proceeding will strip from our researches much of their controversial form, and reduce them to a literary and impartial inquiry.

But, at the same time, I must entreat you not to be discouraged by the apparent prospect of barren

verbal disquisition, or the idea of having to discuss words or passages of languages unknown to you. I flatter myself, that you will find our inquiry interesting and satisfactory, in a sufficient degree to compensate any difficulties which may at first sight appear to encumber it; and I even dare to hope, that such difficulties will, as we proceed, be discovered to be merely imaginary.

Before, however, proceeding to our theological discussion, I feel it prudent to notice two objections, which may occur to you upon the method I have promised to pursue. Your own reflection will I dare say, anticipate my reply the moment I state the difficulties.

The first is, do I mean to say that the method which has been followed by controvertists is not sufficiently exact, or that their arguments have not satisfactorily demonstrated the real Presence? Most assuredly not. The texts whereby any dogma is proved may be so clear, that they demonstrate it, at first sight, yet may consistently be submitted to the most rigid examination. For instance, is not the Divinity of our Lord so clear in scripture, that an unprejudiced mind is satisfied with the simple recital of the texts relating to it; yet, who has ever blamed the learned treatises which submit them to

a more rigid analysis? Several properties of mathematical figures might be pointed out, which strike the mind almost immediately, upon inspecting the diagram, or which may be proved by the most simple methods; still who has ever criticised the

« PreviousContinue »