eyes of them both were opened," he says, "after they had eaten the fruit they perceived from the pain in their intestines that it was of a noxious quality." "Reason" forbade

the supposition that the waters of the Red Sea should have divided and become as a wall on either side to let Israel pass through, and therefore he concludes that the waters of the sea were driven by a strong north wind into the ocean. Such is the result of beginning (as Professor Bush does) with the deductions of reason, and ending with revelation.

Dr. Ammon, also, being unable to conceive how a few loaves and fishes could supply thousands with food, explains the passage asserting it as follows; "Jesus probably distri buted some loaves and fishes which he had, to those who were around him; and others among the multitude, influenced thus by his example, distributed in like manner the provisions which they possessed." Thiess cannot understand how Ananias could have been struck dead, as the letter of Acts v. represents; and therefore concludes, that when his dishonesty was discovered, "he fell down terrified; and probably was carried out and buried while still alive." Heinrichs, however, thinks that this is an unnatural supposition; and explains the passage thus; "Peter stabbed Ananias; and this does not at all disagree with the violent and easily exasperated temper of Peter." A thousand such instances can be produced of the application of the principle of interpretation referred to, but these may suffice.

On this principle, therefore, Semler explained away the doctrine respecting the demoniacs of the New Testament, the doctrine of the kingdom of God, and of the judgment to come. Other Rationalists, following in his footsteps have explained away inspiration, miracles, and every thing supernatural in the Bible.

On the same principle, Unitarians have explained away the atonement, Godhead of Christ, &c.

On the same principle, the Universalists have explained away the doctrine of future punishment.

Professor Bush, adopting the principle, now proposes to explain away the resurrection of Christ's body, the resurrection of the bodies of mankind; and also the doctrine of a judgment to come, to specify no other doctrines. Is the American church then, prepared for the adoption of such a principle?

SECTION II.

The View entertained of this Principle by the Evangelical Party in Germany.

A brief notice of this point will not be out of place here, as the Germans have made a fair trial of the principle referred to. I had hoped that their sad experience of the baleful effects of its adoption, would have been sufficient for the church of Christ till the end of time; but it seems that this hope was fallacious. The battle must be fought over again in this country; and it well becomes those, to whom under God, the purity and the welfare of Zion are primarily committed, to gird on their harness, and prepare for the conflict. It has been considered perfectly congenial with the principles of Unitarianism, and Universalism; and its adoption by these sectaries has created no anxiety. But if there must be an attempt made to defend it, and introduce it into American theology, the sooner the conflict comes on, and the ministers of Christ are compelled to take sides, the better.

The views entertained of it by the evangelical party in Germany are soon told. And, 1. They view it as utterly false and fallacious as a principle of interpretation. Ernesti, who was flourishing in Germany when it was introduced, hesitates not to condemn the principle at once. See his Institutio Interpret., Part. I., cap. I., §§. 18–23, and pp. 29–33; Leipsic, 1809, or the excellent translation of the same by Professor Stuart, pp. 16–19. So also Storr and Flatt, in their Biblical Theology, say: "Those who consider the declarations of Christ and his apostles concerning the Old Testament, as also many of their declarations on other subjects, as being an accommodation,' not only make a very arbitrary supposition, but they violate the fundamental and unexceptionable principles of interpretation, and deny the authority and credibility which, we are compelled to ascribe to both Jesus and his apostles." B. I. §. 13.* Hahn, (above referred to,) says in reference to it: "When the interpreta

* Their definition of accommodation is "a speaking in accordance with the erroneous opinions of their hearers, who had too exalted ideas of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and not expressing precisely and truly their own opinions;" (see ubi supra,) the same principle precisely that is asserted by Professor Bush.

tion of the Holy Scripture takes place in a spirit foreign to them, a spirit therefore not holy, and consequently profane, the Scriptures are not explained nor interpreted, but travestied." Hengstenberg, in the Prolegomena to his Authentie des Pentateuchs, Erster Band, does not hesitate to denounce such interpretation as "shallow and skeptical interpretation." Tholuck, speaking of it, says: "This is the source of the corruption which Semler introduced into all the departments of theology." Hist. of Rationalism. Such is their view of it as a principle of interpretation.

2. With respect to the nature and character of the principle, their views are very decided. Tholuck denounces criticism founded on this principle as "the destructive historical criticism." And again: "Only 'Jewish local ideas' were attached to the writings of the apostles, and this contracting, shrivelling process was called the purely historical method of interpretation :" and he ascribes the transition of the German theologians, from "Christianity to infidelity," directly to the adoption and carrying out of this principle. Hengstenberg speaks of it and its development as follows: "Naturalism,―that system which seeks to explain all events by the common laws of nature*—and this tendency has its root in the estrangement of the age from God:" and he and Hahn both speak of the principle in its results as producing an utter want of interest in the doctrinal precepts of the Bible. In one word, for it is needless to dwell upon this point, they consider it not only a preposterous and unwarrantable, but a perfectly atrocious principle, and one, which, in its legitimate results, cannot fail to introduce skepticism and an utter subversion of all religion. And with this view the venerable father of our sacred literature in this country entirely coincides. Speaking of the remarks of De Wette and others in open denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, he says: "Little prepared, as we in general are in this country, for such avowals with regard to the sacred writers, STILL, I DEEM THEM FAR PREFERABLE TO THE FASHIONABLE 6 ACCOMMODATION' DOCTRINE of the generation now passing off the stage in Ger

* Hengstenberg refers to both Naturalism and Rationalism; and asserts that they are substantially the same thing. The quotation is, therefore, proper here; for Professor Bush's argument from reason is the great principle of Naturalism; and his accommodation notion, the great principle of Rationalism.

many. We know where to meet those who openly make such avowals; and although we cannot agree with them in opinion, we may commend their frankness and honesty." Professor Stuart, in Biblic. Repos. I., p. 60. This strong language is more than justified by the facts in the case.

SECTION III.

A brief history of the development and adoption of this Principle.

The consideration of this topic here might well be deemed irrelevant, were it not that the principles avowed in the work of Professor Bush are illustrated, and their nature and inevitable tendencies with singular accuracy established, by a reference to this history. The principle asserted in the "Argument from Reason," lies at the foundation of the early Naturalism of the seventeenth century. This will be questioned by no one who will read Lord Herbert's (of Cherbury) writings, or only Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation, chapters iv., xi. and xiv. A brief extract or two will establish the truth of this statement. Says he, "The truth of all revelation is to be judged by its agreement with the religion of nature." "Whatever is true by reason can never be false by revelation; and if God cannot be deceived himself, or be willing to deceive men, the light he hath given to distinguish between religious truth and falsehood, cannot, if duly attended to, deceive them in things of so great moment." "To suppose any thing in revelation inconsistent with reason, and at the same time pretend it to be the will of God, is not only to destroy that proof, on which we conclude it to be the will of God, but even the proof of the being of a God." "And to suppose any thing can be true by revelation which is false by reason, is not to support that thing, but to undermine revelation; because nothing unreasonable, nay, what is not highly reasonable, can come from a God of unlimited, universal, and eternal reason.—I shall not be surprised, (continues this noted infidel,) if for so laudable an attempt, as reconciling reason and revelation, which have been so long set at variance, I should be censured as a freethinker; a title, that however invidious it may seem, I am far from being ashamed of." And how does he attempt to reconcile reason and revelation? Why precisely as Professor Bush does. He begins

with "the irrefragable deductions of reason," and then endeavours to explain revelation in accordance therewith; instead of beginning, as Bishop Butler does, with revelation. Again: "The gospel, since it is impossible for men at the same time to be under different obligations, cannot command those things which the law of nature forbids; or forbid what it commands." Why? Simply because “no two truths in the universe can clash with each other." For like Professor Bush, this infidel made no distinction between truth itself and that which a man thinks is true.* These extracts are sufficient. For they express the views also of Herbert, Morgan, Shafisbury, Bolingbroke, and the whole tribe of the older English infidels.

In reference to these principles, and their effect in developing the Rationalistic theory of Germany, and the principle of accommodation, Professor Tholuck speaks as follows: "The influence, direct and indirect, of English Deism upon Germany was much greater than would at first be supposed, or than has generally been believed. In England, we find what existed neither in France, nor in Holland and Italy. It possessed, as early as the first half of the eighteenth century, a tolerably complete system of Rationalism. A full view of what the English Deists effected in the departments of criticism, interpretation, theology, ethics and church history, will show how little of the doctrines of the Rationalists belongs exclusively to recent times; and how unfounded is the assertion of Bretschneider, that Rationalism is the fruit of the unexampled progress of science in the nineteenth century."+

It may be remarked, however, that the English deists were not the first to assert this doctrine. On the contrary, they became infidels by following out to its legitimate results, the forementioned principle, which had been incautiously admitted by several divines. Le Clerc and Spencer had asserted it in the time of Lord Herbert; and even Dr. Tillotson; Hoadly also, and Dr. Clarke, subsequently. These men took it for granted without sufficient examination, but did not carry it out to its results. This was, however, done

*See "Christianity as Old as the Creation," Chap. IV. and XI., pp. 62, 63, 154, 155.

This is very like Professor Bush's "Knowledge of Revelation Progressive," as applied by him to the illustration of his theory. A Historia Dogmatis, is sometimes very valuable.