Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

in respect to the heavenly bodies, with their retinue, teach us not to overvalue our world, not to set our affections upon its riches, honors, and pleasures. Our globe is but an atom floating in the regions of space; and could we obtain it all in secure possession, it would be but a meagre pittance, "for what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul." But though in relation to our globe fitly compared to the little ants on their molehill, we need not fear being overlooked, neglected, or forgotten; for God is as attentive to the formation and preservation of an insect, as of a world,—and has made man the glory of all his works. Multiplicity does not distract, nor greatness overpower, nor minuteness escape him. The little that we see of his works here, should make us continually aspire after that future existence, where, elevated to the heaven of heavens, we can stretch a broad eye over his mighty dispensations, and see as we are seen, and know as we are known. We should learn to be indifferent to all sublunary things, and keep a steady eye upon the final rewards of the conquering christian.

3. An examination of the works of God, will show the inexcusableness and guilt of infidelity. A real infidel must be a rebel against reason and human nature, as well as against God and revelation. For the same difficulties, which he finds in the bible,— that second and enlarged edition of the Creator's will,-meet him on almost every page of nature's volume; the same objections, which he raises to the bible, may be urged with equal force against the book of nature. He is confronted every where by a glaring array of incontrovertible facts; facts that correspond with, and corroborate the declarations of scripture. The universal language of nature is, that man is a sinful being, has offended his Maker, and owes his continuance in life to the forbearance of God; that God is testifying in the storm, the earthquake, the volcano, the ravages of disease and death in our world, his abhorrence of sin; that while he allows man a state of trial, for another existence, he discriminates between the righteous and the wicked, rewards the one, and punishes the other.

St. Paul declares that the wrath of God against all ungodliness was so clearly manifested to the Gentile world, as to leave them wholly inexcusable; because the works of creation every where demonstrate, that he is a God of holiness, who abhors and will punish all iniquity. He says moreover, that because when they knew him, they glorified him not as God, he gave them up to become vain in their imaginations, and darkened in their foolish heart;--to plunge themselves into the grossest idolatry, and live in the vilest practices. To their refusal to respect the character of God, as developed daily in his works, and to regulate their conduct by

ness.

the light they enjoyed, he traces the whole mass of Gentile wickedBut if the Gentiles in the apostolic age were inexcusable, and deserving the wrath of God, what shall be said of those who reject the light of revelation and of modern science?

ART. VII.-APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMON SENSE TO CERTAIN DISPUTED DOCTRINES.

Ioannis Christiani Gottlieb Ernesti Commentatio de usu communis vitæ, ad interpretationem Novi Testamenti.

In a former article on this able treatise of Ernesti, we endeavrored to show that the language of the bible, and particularly of the new testament, bears a close and designed resemblance to that of common life. From this resemblance the following principles of interpretation were derived, and stated in the language of the author."First, that we should use that simplicity in interpreting the language of the scriptures, which is so marked a trait of that of common life, not making allegories, or emphases, or mystical senses, unless the obvious design of the writer requires it; that we do not cut to the quick, or press every word to the utmost it will bear; and that we compare corresponding forms of expression in the language of common life, as we find it at the present day." We likewise endeavored to show, that the ultimate appeal, on questions of scripture doctrine, must be made to the bar of common sense-" that the decisions of the common sense or reason of mankind, are to be depended on as certain truth, in all cases in which it is competent to decide, and free from perversion; that the real meaning of any divine declaration whatever, is always in accordance with these decisions, and consequently, that the scriptures can never teach any thing positively inconsistent with them, even on those subjects which lie beyond the reach of unassisted reason; and that no passage, to which fair and just interpretation assigns a meaning known to be false, can be part of a divine revelation."

We now proceed to apply these principles to certain doctrines, which have been extensively supposed to be taught in the bible. The first which we propose to bring to the test, is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the real presence. We give this the precedence in the application of these principles, chiefly indeed because it affords a striking illustration of their correctness and importance, but likewise with the hope that, at a time when the catholics are making such efforts in our country, it may be of some use to show the real spirit of their system of interpretation.

A full statement of the doctrine in question, would be as follows; That the material body and blood of Christ, are literally eaten and

drunk, under the form and appearance of the bread and the wine, at the celebration of the Lord's supper. This notion, as we have already shown, is founded on a literal interpretation of the words of our Savior, "this is my body," "this is my blood," &c. And plainly, if the principle of literal interpretation ought to be adopted as a universal one, the doctrine in question is true. No language could be imagined more explicit than that just quoted. It was of the consecrated bread before him, that Christ declared, "this is my body," and of the wine that he said, "this is my blood." How then shall we avoid the conclusion that the bread was his body, his very flesh, only changed in its external form and appearance, and the wine his real blood, as the catholic strenuously claims? And that when he commanded his disciples, "this do in remembrance of me," he meant that they should, to the end of time, continue to do the identical thing which he had done, viz. break, distribute, and feed upon his very flesh, and drink his very blood, and that he would, at every celebration of the supper, interpose to effect a miraculous change in the elements, which would enable them to do it? On what principle, we ask, can we avoid being shut up to this conclusion? Why may not the catholic justly charge us with rejecting the obvious meaning of the bible, if we refuse to receive a doctrine which stands out in such bold relief upon its pages?

ner.

Now, we think, there is no answer to these questions, except on the principle which we have stated above, viz. that the very nature of things forbids the literal interpretation of these passages, or in other words, that we must first know that a declaration can be true, before we can receive it as part of the word of God. We are aware that Faber, in his Difficulties of Romanism, has placed the argument on another basis. He maintains that the principle of homogeneous interpretation, as it is called, is sufficient to decide a question like the one before us-that the passages which assert the bread and wine to be Christ's body and blood, are to be interpreted figuratively, because we interpret similar passages in that manBut, we would ask, what constitutes the similarity between these and such other passages? Why is the declaration, "this is my blood," analogous to that other, "I am the true vine," or to these, "I am the way," "I am the door"? Why may we not reject the idea of a man's being, literally and truly, a vine, bearing grapes, or a real door, and still, with perfect consistency, hold that in the bread and wine, we do truly eat and drink our Savior's body and blood? Is it because the mere form of expression is so much alike in all these cases, that they must come under the same rule of interpretation? We are at a loss to see the necessity arising from this kind of similarity. On the same ground we might prove that the declaration, "I am the the first and the last," and even this.

"I am Jesus of Nazareth," are to be understood figuratively; for they obviously resemble the passages in question, in the general form of expression. Will it be said that the ancient christians, those who lived near the time of the apostles, regarded the language of Christ as figurative? But this is denied by the catholic. And even could this figurative import be proved to have come down to them by tradition, how did the first disciples, from whom the tradition was derived, form their opinions on the subject? Why did not they understand the words, "this is my body," literally? We have no reason to suppose from the history, that any explanation was added by our Savior. He did indeed speak of the fluid in the cup, after its consecration, as the fruit of the vine; but he had also said of it, that it was his blood. Which of the two declarations then, were they to understand literally? Considering the circumstances, the form and manner of expression merely, we, in common with the catholic, should say without hesitation, the latter. What saved them, then, from such an interpretation? Simply the principle we have stated, the dictates of their own common sense, the obvious impossibility involved in the declaration, if literally understood. Here then we come to the real basis upon which the principle of homogeneous interpretation, as it is called, rests. We interpret certain declarations alike figuratively, or alike literally, because other previously known TRUTH requires us to do so; and that truth is established by observations, which our own reason makes upon the the nature and relations of things. It is upon this solid ground, too, that every principle of interpretation, which is of any value, must be built. The reason, the justice of no principle can be shown, without referring it back to this origin. It must be shown to have its foundation in the dictates of common sense respecting what is true or possible, and what is false or impossible, in the nature of things.

It is upon this ground, then, and only this, that we reject the doctrine of the real presence. It would be the height of absurdity to suppose that the disciples actually ate the flesh and drank the blood of Christ, while he was standing before them, or sitting at the table with them, clothed in the very same body on which they were then feeding. If such a thing is possible, then any thing of which we can conceive is possible. It is equally impossible too, and contrary to the known truth of things, that the glorified body in which our Savior now exists, should become the bread and wine of the sacramental supper, while at the same time, he is " ever at the right hand of the Father," clothed in that very body, making intercession for his saints. It is a settled axiom, we believe, that the same thing cannot be in two different places, or be actually two different things, at the same identical moment. Yet it involves this

glaring absurdity, to make either of the foregoing suppositions. It is not indeed impossible, in the nature of things, that the body and blood of Christ, should have been changed into bread and winethis simple idea involves no contradiction, no impossibility, any more than the changing of water into wine at Cana of Galilee. But the contradiction lies in this, that the disciples should be supposed to be eating and drinking the material body and blood of Christ in the form of the bread and wine, while, at that identical moment, the same body and blood constituted a living, breathing, human being, whom they saw in that form before their own eyes. Any one who can believe that even omnipotence can make flesh bread, and let it still, at the same identical moment, remain flesh, must be pronounced, in this matter at least, as regardless of common sense as he would be, if he were absolutely destitute of reason.

We have stated already, that all decisions of this kind must, to be relied on, have two qualities; first, the subject must be one on which reason is competent to decide, (and this distinguishes the present doctrine from that of the trinity,) secondly, the decision must be unperverted. Both these qualities belong to the present decision. Reason is competent to decide whether it is possible for the same thing to be two different things, and in two different places, at the same moment. If it cannot decide this, it cannot decide any thing. Nor can its decision on this point, be shown to be perverted. There is no possible inducement for any one to reject the doctrine of the real presence, save its obvious inconsistency with other known truth. But the catholic has a point to gain by his interpretation. He wishes to establish the belief of a constantly recurring miracle, in order to impress common people with awe and reverence for his system of worship and its ordinances, thus hoping to make the bands of delusion and oppression stronger. Here, then, the unhallowed lust of power and influence, and of every gratification that they can secure, is enlisted to pervert the decision of the catholic. His decision, then, in favor of the doctrine in question, is likely to be the one that is perverted; while that of the rest of the world against it, is one of common sense, of reason, both competent and unperverted.

The catholic, likewise, in his interpretation, obviously "cuts to the quick, or presses every word to the utmost it will bear." The expressions, "this is my body," "this is my blood," he understands just as if each specific word must be made to mean the same thing as it would if it stood by itself, and could not possibly depart from its single original signification. This is putting language to the torture; or rather, it is putting it into a strait jacket, like a maniac. We have seen that we are not to interpret the language of the sacred writers, as though it were in fetters. It is a mystical sense too, which the catholic makes out, and that in a

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »