Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

expressing a wish, that the rank and value of the Old Tes tament, in the Christian's library, had been described in somewhat different terms? I do most fully accord with the idea, that the gospel, or the New Testament, is more perfect than the Mosaic law, or than the Old Testament. On what other ground, can the assertions of Paul, in 2 Cor. iii, in Heb. viii, and in other places be believed or justified? The gospel gives a clearer view than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty and of our destiny; of the objects of our hopes and fears; of the character of God and the way of salvation. I agree fully, that whatever in the Old Testament respects the Jews, simply as Jews; e. g. their ritual, their food, their dress, their civil polity, their governmentin a word, whatever from its nature was national and local; is not binding upon us under the Christian dispensation.

"The

I am well satisfied too, that the character of God and the duty of men were, in many respects, less clearly revealed under the ancient dispensation, than they now are. law was given by Moses;" but "no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him ;" i. e. it was reserved for Christ to make a full display of the divine character; no man, no prophet who preceded him, ever had such knowledge of God, as enabled him to do it. I am aware that many Christians do not seem to understand this passage; and with well meaning but mistaken views, undertake to deduce the character and designs of God, as fully and as clearly from the Old Testament as from the New. I must believe, too, that the duties of Christians are, in most respects, more fully and definitely taught in the Gospel than in the Old Testament; and I cannot approve of that method of reasoning, which deduces our duties principally from texts in the Old Testament, that sometimes are less clear, when the New Testament presents the same subjects in such characters of light, that he who runneth may read.

But when you say, "Jesus Christ is the only master of

Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives;" does not this naturally imply that we are absolved from obligation to receive the Old Testament, in any sense as our

guide; and that what it teaches, we are not bound "to make the rule of our lives?" I do not feel certain, that it was your design to affirm this; but the words in their connexion seem naturally to bear this import. To such a view, I should object; that those parts of the Old Testament, which express the will of God, in reference to the great points of duty, that must, from the nature of moral beings, be for ever the same under every dispensation, may be and ought to be regarded as unrepealed. It is a very sound maxim, in the interpretation of divine as well as human laws; manente ratione, manet ipsa lex, a law is unrepealed, while the reason of that law continues. Express repeal only can exempt a law from the application of this maxim. And when our Saviour says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," he seems to me, plainly to have declared the immutability of the ancient moral law, in the sense already explained.

What shall we say, moreover, of the devotional parts of the Old Testament, (the book of Psalms for instance ;) or of those numerous prophetical parts, which are sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or predictions of a future Messiah, and of the nature and prosperity of his church? Are these any more Jewish, (except as to the garb in which they are clothed,) than Christian? I admit that they are all less perfect, than that which the New Testament furnishes on the same topics; but I believe them to be sanctioned by the same authority, and to require a similar respect and deference.

In regard to what you say, respecting the leading princi ple of interpreting Scripture, I cannot hesitate to declare, that nothing is clearer to my apprehension, than that God, when he speaks to men, speaks in such language as is used by those whom he addresses. Of course, the language of the Bible is to be interpreted by the same laws, so far as philology is concerned, as that of any other book. I ask with you; How else is the Bible a Revelation? How else can men ever come to agree in what manner the Scripture should be interpreted, or feel any assurance that they understand the meaning of its language?

I find little from which I should dissent, in the remainder of your observations upon the general principles of inter

pretation. I might, perhaps, make some objections to the manner, in which the office of reason in the interpretation of Scripture, is occasionally described. But I am confident, that I admit as fully as you do or can do, the proper office of reason, in the whole matter of religion, both in regard to doctrine and practice. It is to our reason, that the arguments which prove the divine origin of Christianity are addressed; and it is by reason, that we prove, or are led to admit this origin, on general or historical grounds. Reason prescribes, or at any rate developes and sanctions, the laws of interpreting Scripture. The cases mentioned by you, in which reason must be exercised, are, in general, striking exemplifications of this. But when reason is satisfied that the Bible is the book of God, by proof which she cannot reject, and yet preserve her character; and when she has decided what laws of exegesis the nature of human language requires; the office that remains for her in regard to the Scripture, is the application of those laws to the actual interpretation of the Bible. When by their application, she becomes satisfied with respect to what the sacred writers really meant to declare, in any case, she admits it without hesitation, whether it be a doctrine, the relation of a fact, or a precept. It is the highest office of reason to believe doctrines and facts, which God has asserted to be true, and to submit to his precepts; although many things, in regard to the manner in which those facts and doctrines can be explained, or those precepts vindicated, may be beyond her reach. In short, the Scriptures being once admitted to be the word of God, or of divine authority: the sole office of reason in respect to them is to act as an interpreter of revelation, and not in any case as a legislator. Reason can only judge of the laws of exegesis, and direct the application of them, in order to discover simply what the sacred writers meant to assert. This being discovered; it is either to be received as they have asserted it, or their divine authority must be rejected, and our obligation to believe all which they assert, denied. There is no other alternative. Philosophy has no right to interfere here. If she ever interferes, it must be when the question is pending, whether the Bible is divine. Nor has system, prejudice, sectarian feeling, orthodoxy or heterodoxy, so called, any right to interfere. The claims of the

Bible to be authoritative being once admitted; the simple question in respect to it, is, What does it teach? In regard to any particular passage; What idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, it is authoritative; this is orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word: and every thing which is opposed to it, which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is heterodoxy, is heresy; to whatever name or party it is attached.

I presume you will agree without hesitation, to these remarks. The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible is our only and sufficient rule of faith and practice implies most clearly the very same principles which I have stated; and these every man must admit, that acknowledges the paramount claims of the Bible to be believed, and has any tolerable acquaintance with the subject of its interpretation.

If there be any thing to which I should object in your statement, generally considered, of the laws of Interpretation, it is rather the colouring which has been given, to some of the language in which it is expressed. You commence by saying, that your party are charged with "exalting reason above revelation; with preferring their own wisdom to God's;" and that these charges are “circulated freely and with injurious intentions." You will readily acknowledge, as a general fact, that there is difficulty in giving an impartial statement of opinions, which we thus strongly feel to have been misrepresented. We certainly are under temptation, in such cases, to set off our own opinions to the best advantage, and to place those of our opponents in the most repulsive attitude. And although Trinitarians, in fact, differ less from you, in respect to the laws of interpretation, than you seem to have apprehended; the belief on your part, that a wider difference existed, seems to have given a peculiar cast to some sentences, which simple discussion would hardly admit.

With the two last paragraphs of your sermon, that are quoted above, I wish not to be understood as signifying that I entirely agree. It is, however, rather from the application of some exegetical principles which is made in them, than from the principles themselves, that I dissent. I shall have occasion to remark hereafter on this subject. I have mentioned it now, merely to prevent any mistake, with re

gard to the meaning of what I say here upon the laws of interpretation, as exhibited by you.

It would have given me pleasure to find you unconditionally admitting, that the general principles of interpretation which you defend, are not original, nor peculiar to your party. But you seem to qualify this, by saying that "all Christians OCCASIONALLY adopt them." If I understand you rightly, then, you would concede, that only Unitarians admit substantially the system of exegesis, which you have described and practise upon it. In this however, (if this be your meaning,) you are mistaken; at least, it appears plainly so to me, in respect to the divines of New England, who, at the present time, are called orthodox. I doubt whether any man can study the science of interpretation, for a considerable time together, without adopting those principles of it, for substance, which you seem to claim appropriately for Unitarians,

How can it be explained, then, supposing you and I are both sincerely seeking after truth, and both adopt, for substance, the same maxims of interpretation, that we should differ so widely in the results that flow from the application of these principles? Perhaps some light may be cast upon this question, in the sequel of these letters.

LETTER II.

Reverend and Dear Sir,

It would be very gratifying to find, in your sermon, as much respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, with which I might accord, as in your principles of interpretation. My apprehensions respecting this doctrine, however, differ from yours. It is not without examination and reflection, that I have embraced my present views of it; and the perusal of your statement of the doctrine in question, and your argu ments against it, have not persuaded me, that my views are

erroneous.

You will not expect me, however, in these letters, which are intended to be brief, to go into a discussion of this great subject, which shall embrace all the important topics which

« FöregåendeFortsätt »