Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

diency, what God must or must not do, is a very unsafe course of proceeding in our reasonings about the divine conduct; especially when he has given us the means of judging from his own acts. If he has, in fact, given us a revelation which requires unusual qualifications fully to explain; then undoubtedly, it is entirely consistent with the divine wisdom and goodness, that he should adopt this course in communicating with mankind: and as to this fact, we are as well qualified to judge, as of any other fact in the divine adminstration.

But it is not necessary in order to establish the importance and necessity of critical skill in religious teachers, to deny that even the lowest attainments in knowledge will be sufficient to guide the diligent and faithful inquirer in the way of salvation. It may be safely admitted, that the humblest christian, who can read his bible, when placed in circumstances, where all aid from others is denied him, may still find out so much of his duty, as to secure him from essential error; yet no general conclusion can be drawn from this fact, as to the requisite qualifications of public religious instructors. It may be still necessary that those who interpret the bible, should be furnished for their employment with much subsidiary learning; and, indeed, it seems to be one principal reason why a distinct order of men is needed in the church as interpreters of the word of God,that without them, this word would be almost universally misunderstood, and wrested to the support of error.

Perhaps it will afford some aid in the illustration of this part of the subject, briefly to inquire, what is the just rule of scriptural interpretation; that is, on what general principle must we proceed, în settling the meaning of the sacred writings. In such an inquiry, the answer almost of course returned, is, we must understand the bible in its literal or grammatical sense. But the question arises, how is this literal or grammatical sense to be determined? Is it that sense, which may be supposed to occur at this time, to a

man of common understanding in reading the scriptures; or that which would occur to such a man, in the age and nation in which the several writers lived; and for the immediate instruction of which age and nation their writings were produced? That there is an important difference in the acceptation in which persons so differently situated, would receive very many parts of the sacred volume, that what would be the literal and grammatical sense to the one, would be often not the literal and grammatical sense to the other, is undeniable. If there be any hesitation in admitting this, it should be considered, that the instruction conveyed to us in almost the whole bible, and especially in the new testament, is contained in discourses and precepts very intimately connected with the occasions on which they were delivered. The discourse, for instance, with Nicodemus has particular reference to the character of the man, and to the religious ceremonies and peculiar religious phraseology of the Jews. The epistle to the Galatians refers, in the same way, to the circumstances of the church in Galatia, and to the questions, which, at that time, were in agitation among its members. To understand this peculiar language, these circumstances, and these questions, is not so easy, that a reader in the nineteenth century, with education, habits and language so different from what prevailed in Jerusalem and Galatia, can rely, in many cases of importance, on his first impressions, as the literal meaning of St. John or St. Paul. The literal or grammatical sense of the scriptures, then, is conceded to be the true sense; but this sense is that which was apprehended by those originally concerned. The literal sense of the discourse to Nicodemus, is that which Christ intended to convey, and which Nicodemus, in his circumstances, must be supposed to have received; and the literal sense of the epistle to the Galatians, is that which St. Paul meant to express, and which was actually put upon it by the Galatian church: and the same is true of

many other parts of the bible. Some have denominated this the historical sense of the scriptures, in distinction from the literal or grammatical sense; but it is a distinction for which there seems to be no very good reason.* If the literal or grammatical meaning thus understood, of the sacred writers, is allowed to be their true meaning, then no laboured course of argument is necessary to prove the importance of critical skill in a public teacher of Christianity.

If, however, it be still objected, that what is necessary to be known, is in such plain language, that all must of course understand it; and that the essential truths of the bible may be efficiently taught by men, who to good sense unite a respectable acquaintance with human learning; and that it is only in the illustration of the more difficult passages of scripture, which, in the language of the reviewer, are of "minor importance," that the aid of philology is to be sought; it may be useful to inquire a little more particularly, and see how the scriptures are in fact understood.

Now it is notorious that almost ev ery variety of doctrine, which has been derived from the scriptures, has been supposed by its abettors to rest, for its certainty, on some plain declarations of holy writ. Thus the believer in the divinity of Christ, refers to the testimony of John as decisive of this point; "the word was God" (John i. 1.) and the declaration of Paul, that Christ is, "over all, God blessed forever." (Rom. ix. 5.) The Unitarian appeals confidently to the language of Christ himself, in which he understands the Saviour to disclaim divinity.

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John xvii. 3.) The believer in the necessity of special divine influence

[blocks in formation]

on the heart in regeneration, quotes the following as express to his purpose. "No man can come to me except the father, which hath sent me draw him." (John vi. 44.) His opponent alleges the following text, understanding it to contain the contrary doctrine. "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. xxii. 17.) The believer in baptismal regeneration and its necessity for salvation, quotes the express words of Christ to Nicodemus. "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom, of God." (John, iii. 5.) The advocates for a short creed rely absolutely. on the following plain declaration: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom. x. 9.) "Swear not at all," (Math. v. 34.) is quoted by those who deny the lawfulness of all oaths whatsoever, as containing a command of Christ express to their purpose. Those who believe that religion chiefly concerns the external conduct, and consists especially in acts of charity, rely much on the following text, which appears to them to take the form of a definition; "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the father, is this, to visit the fatherless and widows. in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (I. John, i. 27.) He who maintains that faith is a necessary prerequisite in baptism, quotes the language of Philip to the Ethiopian. "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." (Acts, viii. 37.) Those Christians who adopt the practice of washing each others feet, as a religious rite, suppose they act in obedience to an express injunction of Christ himself. "If I, then, your lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one anothers feet." (John, xiii. 14.); and they are confirmed in their belief by the language of St. Paul, who enumerates having "washed the saints' feet," (I.

Tim. v. 10.) among the tests of christian character. The doctrine of tran

substantiation, as is well known, is defended by the catholics, on the ground of express declarations of scripture. "This is my body," "this is my blood," (Mark, xiv. 22, 24.) And when the Jews "strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in deed." (John, vi. 52 &c.)

The words of St. James are alleged as proof of the sacrament of extreme unction. "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick." (James, v. 14, 15.)

It would be very easy to produce hundreds of similar texts, which, from a supposed literal import, are customarily referred to as proof passages: these, however, now quoted, will serve as a specimen. Yet of these few texts it may be safely asserted, that no man, whatever his other qualifications may be, can interpret them satisfactorily to those who would have clear views of christian faith and practice, without much knowledge of the use of language generally, nor without particular reference to the original language of the new testament, to the peculiarities of Hebrew phraseology, and to Jewish customs and manners. And it might be found convenient likewise, in interpreting this short list of passages, to question the integrity of the common Greek text. To erase criticism, then from the number of requisite qualifications of a religious instructor, is to separate things which ought to be indissolubly united. Undoubtedly much of the bible conveys the same meaning in our language, as in the original. It is an important part of the business of criticism to determine in what cases it is necessary to depart from the apparent literal

sense; and to establish such plain rules applicable to such cases, that a public expounder of the word of God, may make that word appear, as it in fact is, consistent with itself. It is not pretended that even the best critics agree in all cases in their explications of scripture. Human infirmity, prejudice, and passion, have here their influence, and produce too often their usual effects. It is, however, believed that whoever will look at the progress of biblical interpretation from the days of Origen to the present time, will be fully satisfied, that critical studies have done much in freeing the sacred writings from a load of absurd commentaries, and in establishing general principles of exposition, which are producing a gradual approximation of opinion, among christians.

Another objection to the utility of biblical criticism, as actually pursued at the present time, is, that it partakes too largely of the rules and methods adopted by the learned in settling the texts and ascertaining the meaning of other works of antiquity; when the truth is, as the objectors maintain, that the criticism of the sacred books is of a peculiar character, and ought not to be confounded with the criticism of profane writings. From the first view of this objection a suspicion might naturally arise in the mind of one, who had not particularly considered this subject, that the criticism of the Greek and Roman classics, is made up chiefly of the fancies and reveries of the learned; and that reason and common sense have had little to do in settling the laws of the 'critical code. But what is the fact? Let the most approved edition of any one of the principal classics, as Cicero, by Ernesti, or Virgil by Heyne, be taken as a specimen of what profane criticism is, and let a decision be formed of its nature and value, from what, on examination, actually appears. What then, is the general method adopted by each of these critics for revising the text, and elucidating the meaning of his author? It is no other than this;-the existing manuscripts

are compared, and their value determined from their antiquity, and the care which appears to have been taken, in their execution. The earliest printed editions are next sought out, especially such as appear to have been copied from manuscripts; and if the manuscript used by any early editor is known to have been lost, the edition, according as it bears the marks of care and general circumspection, approximates, in its character, towards manuscript authority. The remarks of the ancient commentators are likewise consulted, and from their references and explanations, the correct reading of disputed passages is often ascertained. To all this is added a comparison of the opinions of preceding critics.

Now in what respect does this process for obtaining a correct text of Cicero and Virgil, differ from that which ought to be pursued, or which is in fact pursued, by critics, in settling the text of the old and new testaments. The sacred writings have been transmitted to the present time, in the same way, as the writings of the chief orator and poet of Rome. These writings, indeed, differ in their import; but in the mode of communication from age to age, they exactly agree. The books of the bible, and the writings of Cicero and Virgil, were both preserved for ages in manuscript, both suffered from the unavoidable errors as well as carelessness of transcribers; and in neither case by any other than human means, can it be now determined, when variations occur, what reading is to be preferred. So far is there from being a supposable difference, that the analogy is most exact: the difference of the subjects of the two classes of works, very evidently having no place here.

If it should be said that a special divine superintendence is to be presumed in the preservation of the sacred writings, and that, therefore, they should not come under the same laws of revision, as the writings of profane authors-it is replied, the

actual variations, in the copies of the scriptures, shew that no such superintendence as to preserve them from corruption, has been, in fact, exercised. Different readings exist, and the question is, how shall an uninspired critic determine among these which to follow?

With this general view of the facts connected with this discussion, it seems hardly possible, that any one unacquainted with the doubts and alarms, which in this case have troubled the timid, should hesitate to say, not only that the general laws of criticism are applicable to the text of the scriptures; but that it is of incalculable importance that there are so many other works of antiquity to be corrected by the same common rule. If the scriptures were the only ancient book remaining which needed correction, we might indeed with the same means we now possess, arrive substantially at the same result; but our conclusions would have much less authority. The case would be peculiar, and resting on rules of judging, drawn exclusively from itself, like all other insulated investigations, it would be from this circumstance, if from no other, the subject of doubt. But as the fact is, we can appeal to a code of critical law, formed by the labours of the most eminent scholars, in very different departments, where no sectarian bias can be supposed to have influenced them. We can now say with confidence, that we have the scriptures revised according to the same laws, which have served to direct the ablest critics, in every department of ancient literature; principles which have been derived from very long and laborious inquiry, and are evidently founded on reason and common sense. It may be still farther maintained respecting these books, that the proof that they have come down to us generally unimpaired, rises higher than that which can be brought in favour of any other work of antiquity; and whatever reasons exist for believing that Cicero and Virgil, for instance, were really

1

the authors of the works now ascribed to them; the same reasons exist in a much higher degree, that the writings attributed to the evangelists and apostles, are genuine and authen

tic.

But it is urged that writers on the classical authors of Greece and Rome indulge in conjectural emendations, which in the sacred texts are inadmissible. That conjectures have been carried to an extreme by some critics, is not denied; but the remedy is ever at hand. If their conjectures are without sufficient foundation; succeeding critics soon discover their weakness. The grounds of their decisions remain, and are at all times subject to revision: and the same common sense, which brings men back from their vagaries in other pursuits, exercises here an equal control. Conjectural criticism, however, so far from deserving unqualified condemnation, is oftentimes allowable, and sometimes our only resource. For example; in cases where the comparison of manuscripts, and the use of the other common helps, give a doubtful result; there may be something in the style of the writer, in the general current of his story or argument, or in what is said on the same subject by some other writer, which will furnish satisfactory ground for conjectural emendation. And why not admit it in such cases? There is doubt according to the supposition; and the conjecture, if it do no good, can hardly do hurt; or, at most, it rests on its own inherent probability, and will be judged of accordingly. This is conjectural criticism as it is found in the classics. If the same mode of correcting the text is not applicable to the Greek testament, it is not on account of the nature of the subject; but because of the very ample means for correction, which we possess in manuscripts, versions, and quotations of the ancient fathers.

It is well known, that the earliest printed editions of the Greek testament, contain numerous corrections, which had, when they were introduVol. 3-No. IV.

23

ced, no other authority than the conjectures of the editors. Many of these conjectures have been confirmed by subsequent investigation, while others have not, and ought to be removed from the common copy of the Greek testament, if critical conjecture is wholly inadmissible. There are still passages in the new testament which might be made more consistent with the general context, by such conjectural emendations as no one would think of rejecting in a work of classical antiquity. To discard these emendations entirely from the Greek of the new testament, seems hardly the result of sober judgment, or of a real regard for the divine word. To admit them is said to be presumption; but, to allow them no consideration, is in reality to treat the sacred books, with less respect, than the works of profane antiquity; it is to neglect to do that, which the circumstances of the case clearly shew ought to be done; and the very charge of presumption which is so carefully avoided, is voluntarily incurred. It is well known that critical conjecture is much more common in the Hebrew than in the Greek scriptures. The reason for this is obvious. Our materials for correcting the Hebrew text of the old testament are comparatively few and imperfect: hence there is more room for rational conjecture. In proportion as these materials increase in number and value, the necessity for conjecture is diminished. But as long as no reason exists for believing that the copy of an ancient book is perfect; conjecture is not of course excluded: and it is on this ground maintained, that conjecture may be still lawfully employed on the original text of the new testament. It is, however, fully admitted, that great care should be exercised in correcting from conjecture; that is, critical conjecture should not be arbitrary, but founded on plain and substantial reasons.

It only remains to notice in a few words, the remarks so often repeated, and adopted by the reviewer; that

« AnteriorContinuar »