Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

that the contents of the whole of the Old and New Testaments are of a local and temporary character. This is the source of the corruption which he introduced into all the departments of theology." Storr and Flatt aver that "the theory of accommodation involves the whole of revelation in uncertainty."

Now a principle which inevitably leads to such consequences, must be fallacious and false; but such are the consequences which legitimately result from the adoption of the principle of accommodation. Nor would it be of any force to reply to this by saying that these consequences resulted from the abuse of the principle referred to; for first, the assertion would be false; and secondly, it would be of no service to Professor Bush in the present discussion, if we should even grant the assertion. Because he has made the same application of the principle which Semler did; and of course we may well expect like results to follow, when it is carried out.

2. Our next objection to the principle under discussion is, that it is wholly unphilosophical and unreasonable, and contrary to all correct principles of interpretation. This has been conclusively shown already in our remarks on Professor Bush's argument from reason, and also in the former part of the present chapter. If revelation were designed for the Jews only, and for the generations to which it was originally given, the principle would not be so glaringly absurd. But seeing that it was intended for all men, and for every age, it is utterly unreasonable to suppose that it was accommodated by God to the "local ideas" of the Jews. And how utterly unphilosophical is the position upon which the alleged necessity for the adoption of such a principle is based, has been already shown to some extent. But the following passage from Professor Stuart presents the point in a clear and striking light. "If I bring along with me (in the interpretation of the Scriptures,) my philosophical creed, or my party theological creed, or my rationalist creed, or my convictions as an enthusiast, and in my explanation of Scripture permit either of these to influence or guide me, instead of the plain principles of exegesis which nature has taught all men in regard to the interpretation of language; then I do not make an explication of the sacred text, but an implication, (non explicatio sed implicatio,) i. e., I do not unfold to others what the sacred writers meant to say, and have actually

said, but what I believe before I undertook to interpret them; I do not deduce from their words the sense which the writers gave to them; but I superinduce a sense which these writers never designed to convey. This is not to bring a sense out of the words of Scripture, i. e., it is not explication, but it is to bring IN one upon it, or to add one to it, which is implication in the Latin sense of this word."

3. A third objection is taken from the fact that it is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty the meaning of the word of God according to this principle. No two Rationalists have ever agreed in their explanations of the Bible while adhering to the accommodation theory. An illustration of this has already been given in reference to Peter and Ananias. But instead of lengthening out these remarks by a citation of other dull instances, we shall present the authority of Hengstenberg, which will be uni versally admitted to be all-sufficient. "No two of the more important critics agree in their mode of solving the most important problems. It is a war of every man against every man. We had intended to present to our readers the laughable spectacle of these contests, in order that from the confusion and contradiction of the positive results of the later criticism, which is consistent with itself no further than its champions are united by a common doctrinal interest, they might form some conclusion about the boasted certainty of their negative results. But we feel an unconquerable disgust at the business, and we cannot bring ourselves to enter upon the field of arbitrary speculation, and collect together the masses of fancies that lie scattered there. Every one can easily supply the lack by taking in hand a few of the works on this subject, and comparing them. The impression made by such a labour would be apt to resemble that which one gets on visiting a Jews' school." Hence,

[ocr errors]

4. Another objection, which is likewise fatal to this principle, is that no certain criteria can be given which shall (if this principle be allowed) enable us to distinguish between those declarations of Christ and his apostles, which they themselves believed, and those in which they accommodated themselves to the erroneous notions of the Jews. The Scriptures no where (says Storr) make a distinction

* See Prolegomena to his Authentic des Pentateuchs, Erster Band.

between what is universally true, and what is only local and temporary. And hence the theory of accommodation, as above remarked, involves the whole of revelation in uncertainty. But further,

5. It is utterly destitute of proof. Many of those coincidences between the instructions of Christ and the Jewish opinions, which have commonly been referred to accommodation, cannot be proved even to be historically true. The Rabbinical writings which are appealed to, are of more recent origin than the age of Christ and his apostles; and the works of Philo and Josephus do not uniformly exhibit the ideas which were prevalent among the Jews in Palestine. Moreover, the representations contained in these works, and also in some apocryphal books, differ in a variety of respects from the doctrines of the New Testament. But if even some of the instructions of Jesus and his apostles did coincide with the popular opinions of the Jews, it by no means follows that they must therefore have been erroneous. So far as these Jewish opinions were correct, they were worthy of the approbation of Jesus. And the providence of God may, by previous intimations of them, have paved the way for the reception of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity.*

6. Then further; the necessity for such accommodation on the part of Christ and his apostles, neither has been nor can be proved. This point has often been asserted, boldly and roundly; but the proof, though often called for, has never been forthcoming.

7. The moral character of Jesus and his apostles, likewise renders the supposition that they would thus countenance error, utterly inadmissible.

8. The supposition also, if received, must plainly ruin the character of our Lord as a safe and infallible guide to truth. For if he taught any thing clearly he taught clearly the doctrines which are produced as examples of mere accommodation. Even Professor Bush is compelled to admit this in reference to the doctrine of the resurrection.

9. The supposition that Christ and his apostles propogated (as this theory asserts) falsehood under the garb of truth, is

* See Storr and Flatt's Theology; and an excellent article on the subject of "Accommodation," in the Encyclop. of Rel. Knowledge; Dr. Knapp also, in his Theology, handsomely "uses up" the same wretched subterfuge of unbelief.

destroyed by the fact that they proved the truth of their doctrine by miracles.

10. And finally, this theory is at total variance with every thing recorded of our Lord's freedom of speech, sincerity, and fidelity. Would not even Professor Bush consider it wrong in himself to countenance errors in the manner in which he represents our Lord and his apostles to have done? His whole book evinces that he would deem it disgraceful for himself to do so. And so far indeed was our blessed Lord from accommodating his teachings to the errors of the age in which he lived, that, as Paley remarks, he is distinguished not only by a perfect freedom from popular errors himself, unparalleled by any other teacher of any nation and age; but by the unshrinking and martyr courage with which he perpetually confronts and answers them. Hence on one occasion, when informed that his exposure of a popular error had given offence to the leading sect among his countrymen, he unfolded the great maxim of his ministry, in these decisive words: " Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." Matt. xv. 13.

The reader can now judge whether Professor Bush ought to have had "no fear of being convicted before an enlightened tribunal, of having periled the weal of the sacred oracles, by the advocacy of a false principle of interpretation," (Anastasis p. 29.) while we, having proved this principle of Professor Bush's hermeneutics to be erroneous, shall proceed briefly to announce the principles which shall regulate our interpretation of Scripture in the present discussion.

SECTION V.

True Principles of Interpretation.

To the question, "which of the different modes of interpretation that are followed, and which of the hermeneutical theories that have been set up, is the right one?" Hahn, in his celebrated essay thus replies, "That the right interpretation is that one, which deduces from the Holy Scriptures the very sense which the writers of them intended to convey." On which felicitous definition, Professor Stuart truly remarks, "From this simple and intelligible statement it follows, that all accommodation of the Scriptures to our own preconceived notions of truth and propriety, unless indeed

these entirely agree with those of the sacred writers, is foreign to the business, of true interpretaton. This concerns itself exclusively and solely with the sentiment of the writer to be interpreted. All the principles of language and criticism which it applies to exegesis, are only means which common sense has pointed out, as necessary and proper to be used in the explanation of any written or spoken language." Biblic. Repos. I. 139.

The meaning of the Spirit of God, who speaks in the Bible, therefore, is the meaning of the words which he employs, as educed by a fair and grammatical interpretation. When we have clearly and grammatically ascertained this, we have ascertained what God has truly announced in his word. And can any thing be more absurd than to suppose that this meaning is to be ascertained by a primary resort to the deductions of reason, or philosophy; or to the principle of accommodation?

Another, and very obvious principle is, that every writer best explains himself, and that no intelligent writer, will, as such, be inconsistent with himself. This has been sometimes called the analogy of faith; but more correctly the analogy of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptura Scripturæ interpres. This is a canon which is likewise almost perpetually violated by Professor Bush. He sometimes, it is true, resorts to it; but he oftener resorts to his accommodation principle, or to his argument from reason, and his axiomatic application of it, "no two truths in the universe can conflict with each other."

Another canon, and one also referred to by Bacon* is thus stated by Hahn; "Since the writings of whose interpretation we are here speaking, are holy writings, i. e., composed by men of holy minds and lives; and since they profess to contain a divine revelation, respecting truth and the means of becoming truly good and happy; we must, in order to be or to become capable of fully understanding them, come to the reading of the Holy Scriptures with a holy feeling, or with a heart open and longing for all that is good and true and divine. Then will the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures reveal themselves to us. In the contrary case, or if we are already prejudiced against them, although they contain the word of God, they will yet address us in language unintelligible and without effect. Indeed, it

* See De Augment. Scient. Lib. IX. cap. I.

« PoprzedniaDalej »