In chap. viii. 4. he gives certainly his opinion against the naturalizing way of explaining the miracles; adding, however, that there may be some occasions where even a sober interpreter may depart from the common methods of explanation, without being attacked for it-though there will be more where he will confess, that he cannot say any thing certain. But that others may judge of the naturalizing style of explanation, he says he will occasionally give specimens, especially from Paulus, selecting only the probable, and certainly ingenious conjectures. In the course of this very chapter, he gives two of these probable and ingenious conjectures. The first is at ver. 27. where Jesus stills the tempest. The author of Remarks on Paulus's Commentary says, that Jesus prayed with a loud voice, and uplifted hands-and that all he said could not be heard-and that the disciples supposed from the event, not from any thing they heard, that he had quelled the storm-and so very nearly Krummacher (pudet!) and Thiess of course. The second is at ver. 28, and following, where Eichhorn's ingenious and probable conjecture is, that as the demoniac fancied that a legion of evil spirits had possession of him, Christ humoured his fancy, and managed so, that he rushed violently on the herd of swine, and drove them into the sea, and then when he believed that the evil spirits had gone into the swine, he recovered his former health.' Nothing can assuredly be more easy, ingenious or probable. But let us hear another ingénious and probable conjecture on this same subject. A certain Schmidt tells us, that when the swine herds were attending to Jesus, instead of minding their business, the pigs got too near the shore, fought, and many of them fell over, and that then Jesus took advantage of this, and told the madman, that the evil spirits had gone out of his body into the swine! This, I suppose, is Kuinoeel's own notion, for he says a little below, iniquiring how Jo came to do so great injury to the swine herds, that if we admit Schmidt's opinion, Christ will require no apology. I judge it unnecessary to give further specimens of Kuinoelh's method of commenting. I shall only add, that there is hardly one wild and wicked opinion set afloat by others, which he does not retail; I can therefore have no hesitation in expressing my regret at his work being used by students in divinity. It is convenient for those of maturer judgment, who do not read German, and yet wish to know the Rationalist's style of commenting-but it would be one of the last books I should think of giving to young men, whose minds and judgments are not sufficiently formed to take general views of this subject, but may be prejudiced on particular points by these ingenious and probable conjec tures. I think Rosenmueller's book on the New Testament less objectionable; though I quite agree in Bishop Blomfield's opinion, that there is very little that is new in it, and that that little is usually wrong. (Reference to Jewish Tradition, p. 26.) I cannot conclude these notes, without a few general observations. In the first place, it may perhaps appear no mark of discretion to bring forward such a mass of mischievous and evil opinions to public view; and assuredly I should not have done so, if the subject were a new one in this country. But all the worst part of these opinions, the decided rejection of every thing miraculous and mysterious, is already before us, in works which are in by far too general use, those, for example, of Rosenmueller and Kuinoeel. It is presented too in those works, in a shape best calculated (I do not mean by design) to deceive and mislead. For it is presented as the fruit of laborious and recondite investigation on the part of men, about whom we have no other indications that they are not believers in Christianity as we are. The student has nothing positive to warn him, that the acceptance of these opinions is inconsistent with belief in it; and it is well known that when the mind is only in progress, there is nothing more captivating, than theories which tend to simplify, to level, and to reduce. I have therefore thought, that a distinct statement of the principles of the Rationalists-a proof that they are not believers in revelation, in the proper sense of the word, and that that disbelief, by sending them with prejudiced minds to the interpretation of Scripture, has been the parent of these strange expositions-would not only be useful, but that it is necessary to dispel the obscurity which may hang over the doctrines of the Rationalists here, and be favourable to their propagation. It may perhaps be observed, that I have rarely made any remark in refutation of the doctrines I have mentioned. In truth, I have seldom felt it necessary, for in nine instances. out of ten, the opinions of the Rationalists, are opinions, which have been expressed a thousand times in the pages of Deistical writers, and as often refuted. The only novelty about them is the simple fact of their being now expressed by men calling themselves believers in Christianity, and holding high situations in a Christian church. With res pect to what is, if not an absolute novelty, yet the leading one of the system, viz. the accommodation-theory, I have made some remarks in these Discourses-and I cannot but add another here-that however ingeniously supported by the selection of instantes, however finely woven the web may be, it is broken at once by the simple perusal of the New Testament. The decided conviction, I feel assured, on every man's mind, before such a theory is brought under his notice, is, that Christ instead of seeking favour and reception for his doctrines, by bowing to popular opinions, perpetually exposed himself to misrepresentation, and sometimes to danger, by his uncompromising opposition to them -and that there is no feature in his character more remarkable than his rejection and bold condemnation of every favourite tradition, and every popular principle, which he thought injurious. In morals, in speculation, in faith, almost every word he said must have hocked the prejudices, and wounded the feelings of some of his hearers, and that not only by implication, but very frequently too by the bold and severe rebukes directly addressed to them I can never indeed think of the theory of accommodation without wonder, that men who are at least ingenious and inquiring, should have adopted what, it appears to me, the most superficial inquiry must teach all to reject. In conclusion, I cannot but express my sincere pleasure in knowing, that in Germany, a better order of things may be shortly expected. Some of the Rationalists have openly retracted—some are silent-the system is on the decline, and the new appointments to theological chairs, are mar from a better class of thinkers and scholars. In fact, t could never be expected that in a nation like the Germans, so addicted to the loftiest speculations, a system so grovelling in its principles, and so debasing in their application, rould have any long reign. We must only fervently wish for them, that their new inclinations may be fostered and confirmed by a better external regulation of the church; and for ourselves, that in our increasing, or rather commenei acquaintance with German writers, we may remember that what has been unfortunately first brought to our notice, is are dy rejected and condemned, by those to whom it owed its rise and propagation. |