« ZurückWeiter »
so well the sofa and the easy chair. Let him read them in a form which tells him that they are the works of the past, and which at every page suggests to him the thought of its giants and its well-fought fields. Let him imbibe the spirit of the past, but let him imbibe it in the scenes of the past, and not in those of a fictitious present. On the other hand, however, we shall still more vainly strive to meet the wants of our time by talking much and vaguely about reconstituting our theology. It is on the old doctrines that we must take our stand, which have proved themselves the power of God in time past, and will, I doubt not, prove themselves not less to be so in time to come. view them indeed in relation to our own felt wants ; let us see what modern science and modern learning have to say to them; but let us believe that these are to come, not as their masters, but as their servants, not to change, but to defend and to adorn them. Now I conceive that in this work Professor Müller avoids both the extremes to which I have referred. Thoroughly independent in the spirit of his inquiry, he yet loves and venerates the spirit of the past, acknowledges its truthfulness, and feels its power.
At the same time he lives in the present, knows its opinions, tests its modes of thought, receives what it can give that is valuable, and judges soundly in regard to many of its pretensions. This is the spirit which I wish to see in our theology, and therefore it is especially that I cannot but welcome the writings of that large number of German theologians of whom Müller is not the least distinguished.
I have only at present to observe further, in regard to this work, that it is eminently practical, and that the study of it is in no small degree calculated to establish the gospel of Christ within us, not as a speculative system, but as the ground and principle of our better being.
I cannot close these remarks without impressing on Mr. Pulsford the importance of studying more carefully the idiom and structure of his native tongue. It is not a very pleasing thing to carp at the execution of what we are quite willing to allow must have been a very laborious and puzzling undertaking. To translate any work well is difficult; to translate one treating of the peculiar modes of thought, and using the peculiar expressions of the German schools of speculative theology is pre-eminently so. I am disposed therefore to make much allowance for Mr. Pulsford. But there is very much in his translation to amend. Mistakes indeed, such as rendering Collegien' by colleges instead of lectures, and translating der sinnlichen Natur' (p. 75 of the translation) as a genitive depending on vernunft, instead of a dative depending on vorgeschrieben, are wholly inexcusable. The latter especially shows that the translator has not understood the passage in the original at all
. Some other errors of the same kind, if not perhaps quite so important, have met my eye in occasionally comparing the translation with the original ; but I care not to dwell upon them. I must, however, remind Mr. Pulsford that no residence even of three years in Germany' will be accepted by the public as an excuse for that murdering of the English language which we meet with—at least too often. From his notice, three pages long, prefixed to the second volume, I could pick out a score of expressions which, from whatever quarter they have come, have certainly not come from the “pure well of English undefiled. I recommend a very rigid adherence to the resolution there expressed ofrecasting the whole into freer and purer English.'
REMARKS ON THE THERAPEUTÆ, AND ON
MATT. xix. 12. DEAR SIR-I am sorry that my present reply to J. C. K. must be considered uncourteous by him, as it so happens that I have not misunderstood him. But to do so is to charge him, in his opinion, with wanting Christian charity,'- for his own words are :—He must have misunderstood me. Upon no other supposition, consistently with Christian charity, can I account for the irrelevancy of his reply.'" Either I have misunderstood him, or J. C. K. must do that which is inconsistent with Christian charity ; I have not misunderstood him, therefore, J. C. K. must do that which is inconsistent with Christian charity, and to charge any one with this is to be most uncourteous.
That I am right in coming to the conclusion that he is greatly mistaken in supposing that I have misunderstood him, will appear evident from the following brief remarks.
The very same idea, conveying the same meaning, must surely be understood in the three following sentences: 'They abstained from the society of women, in order to be (as they thought) better fitted for heaven' (Journal, October, p. 198); “Those who, from a desire to further the interests of religion, live in celibacy' (Bloomfield, New Testament); “That they might devote themselves to the proper business of religion ’ (Barnes, New Testament). Here we have just the same idea expressed in different words by different writers; it is, consequently, difficult to conceive how any one can suppose that he is not in the least captious in insisting upon a different meaning from the sentences, when it is quite evident that the writers wished to express the very sarne thought.
Your correspondent begins his letter by stating that it is still true that I so quote from Neander, 'as to beget an impression that Neander gave to the phrase the interpretation adopted by himself.' Now if I had for a moment imagined that Neander was of my opinion, does J. C. K. suppose that I would not have stated that such was the case ? As I have not done so, his insinuating that I so quote him as to lead one to suppose the contrary, is what I consider most reprehensible ; and believing it to be such, I did not notice it in my former reply. The passage was never quoted for such a purpose, as will be evident to any of
your readers who will refer to the work containing it.
He calls in question, however, the probability of my opinion, because it is grounded on the simple fact that the Essenes, or a portion of them, perhaps the greater portion, were accustomed to live a life of
J, S. L., July, p. 434.
celibacy' (J. S. L., July, p. 435); so that commentators 6 cannot conjecture to whom else he could have referred. He therefore concludes that his conjecture, and not the one just mentioned, has got "probability to recommend it. Of course the opinion is grounded on the simple fact, &c.; and until J. C. K. can produce the simple fact' that our Lord's forerunners lived in celibacy, he must expect his conjecture’ to have anything but “probability to recommend it. For it is just the fact that the Essenes lived in celibacy, that gives probability to the opinion that they are alluded to. Until it is proved that our Lord's forerunners lived in celibacy, we cannot (unless J. C. K. is prepared to give a different meaning to the word eunuch than is now given to it) maintain that it is in the least probable that they are alluded to. former letter I have challenged J. C. K. to give this proof, and seeing he has not done so, he must expect that his hypothesis about the celibacy of the Baptist's followers cannot but be considered as the most improbable an investigator after truth could conceive. He takes also for granted two most important assertions, which ought to have been first proved, thus twice committing one of the forms of a most common fallacy (taking for granted the thing to be proved). The assertions are, (i.) That our Lord's forerunners had made themselves eunuchs' (J. S. L., July, p. 436); in other words, had refrained from marriage. (2.) That they were eunuchs because they could, in consequence of living as such, ' more wholly give themselves up to the preaching of repentance and of the kingdom of God.' When from profane or sacred history instances are given proving these assertions, then legitimate conclusions may be obtained from them; but until this is done, it is useless, nay utterly absurd, to notice further in such a valuable journal as the J. S. L., any lengthened remarks about the celibacy of John the Baptist and his followers !' I do think that, had J. C. K. given due attention to the remarks on this subject in my former letter, and not considered every portion of it "irrelevant,' he would surely not have written the words last animadverted upon.
I will now give the only inferences which I can draw from his conjecture,' as enunciated by him, briefly remarking on a few of them. (1.) 'Honourably speaking of them as men who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom, &c (p. 436.) If Christ did so, then he certainly considered celibacy as a more perfect state than marriage. There is nothing in the New Testament to lead us to imagine anything of the kind. But there are instances recorded (e. g., the marriage feast in Canaan), which prove that our Lord was entirely of a different opinion, as nearly all his actions show that he could not have considered celibacy to be a more perfect state than marriage. (2.) That those who are unmarried can ‘more wholly give themselves up to the preaching of repentance,' than those who are married. Remarks on this inference are uncalled for, and would only be a repetition of what I stated in my former letter, where it is shown from Scripture and ecclesiastical history, that on the contrary, reasoning from recorded instances, the reverse is the case, the married being more zealous in their calling than the unmarried. (3.) That those Christians
who resemble John the Baptist in living a life of great self-denial and privation,' have, in consequence of remaining unmarried, a better regard to the interests of the kingdom of God than those who are married. The candid inquirer, in order to find if this statement is true or erroneous, must first consider the condition of an existing state of things. Few I am sure, in the least acquainted with the history and working of the two great parties in the Christian Church—those who maintain that the clergy can marry, and those who deny marriage to the clergy-can acquiesce in supporting such a statement; because none but the most bigoted would dare to affirm that the unmarried parish priest is more frequently met with at the bed of the dying than the married one. This, however, we must believe, if we maintain that an unmarried Christian has, in consequence of being so, a better regard to the interests of the kingdom!
Very likely J. C. K. will maintain that these are not legitimate inferences, and that he never meant his words to be so understood. If he did not, then he has not expressed himself so as to enable any one to obtain a different meaning from them; and, consequently, I am surely as a Protestant entitled to consider his interpretation as not only "mischievous, but as totally at variance with what we know of our Saviour's sojourn in this world, as we do not read of his having mixed more in the society of those who refrained from marriage than of those who did not, which he would have done if he considered the former worthy of honourable mention.
Admitting, what I never denied, that ồia is frequently used in the New Testament in the sense of 'from regard to,’ it does not follow that dá must be understood in the sense of “in order to obtain,' if my interpretation be correct. To prove this I will, with your permission. repeat my words, with the addition of giving diá its full force. And the reason why he did not thus express himself, was because the motive (from regard to the kingdom of heaven, i.e., in order to obtain it, or to have a right and a claim to enter heaven, because of their having made themselves eunuchs solely for that purpose), was selfish,' &c. (J. S. L., Oct., p. 178.)
With reference to one of my remarks, J. C. K., at p. 437, affirms that it is his belief ‘P. S. commences his reply, as though I had unfairly quoted him,' &c. Does J. C. K. imagine that I do not write what I think, as he seems also to have done in the first paragraph of his letter? If I thought he had “unfairly quoted' my words, would I allow him to be the first to mention such a thing? Had I imagined my words unfairly quoted, let me inform J. C. K. that I should have mentioned that such was my opinion long before writing this sentence. I was obliged to supply the omitted portion of the quotation from Neander, not from supposing that J. C. K. had “unfairly quoted' it, but to show that our Lord's words did not require to be interpolated so in order to prove that they could be understood as giving a
b J. S. L., p. 479. 'Interpolate—to add a spurious word or passage to the original.'-- WEBSTER's Dict.
strong decision on the subject, and that they were actually so interpreted by one of the most learned of Biblical scholars. I am convinced that had J. C. K. investigated the subject under consideration without being influenced by previous opinions, he never would have written, after quoting the whole of our Lord's answer (as contained in the 11th and 12th verses), the dogmatic sentence ;' unless therefore we interpolate our Lord's words, he neither approves nor condemns the eunuchism of which he is speaking. This, however, is more plainly stated in the beginning of my former letter. It is, I suppose, in consequence of maintaining the above-mentioned strange opinion that your correspondent thus concludes his epistle,-alluding to the interpretation I maintain, he says, ' I would not have attacked that interpretation, but that I believed it to be most mischievous.'
There is one passage in his letter which I must now quote entire, as I cannot otherwise make my animadversions understood; it is as follows :— The hypothesis so zealously maintained by me is not that our Lord's words approve of ascetic celibacy, but only that our Lord does approve not of celibacy only, but of any and every act of selfdenial for the gospel's sake, “ if circumstances demand it”' (J. S. L., July, p. 437). I never asserted this to be his hypothesis, but, on the contrary, that it was as follows:- - Jesus Christ in his words approves of ascetic celibacy “ for the kingdom of heaven's sake' (J. S. L., April, p. 181). If the sentence went no further than the word
celibacy,' then J. C. K. would have been misrepresented. His words are, “The hypothesis suggested in the course of the above remarks, viz. that the term is applied to the parties referred to (whoever those parties were) in honourable recognition of the greatness of their selfdenial, more especially in reference to marriage and to the comforts of domestic life in general,' &c. (J. S. L., Jan., p. 482). All his arguments in that letter are brought forward to prove that celibacy for the kingdom of heaven's sake cannot but be approved of by Jesus Christ. It appears therefore very strange that he should now maintain his hypothesis to be, that our Lord does approve not of celibacy only, but of and every act of self-denial,' &c., when not one of his arguments in his former letter are brought to bear upon any act of self-denial but one, viz. celibacy.
I do not think that any writer has a right (as J. C. K. has done) to call a quotation from any commentator very ungracious words. He must know that every one has his distinct characteristic; some are timorous and very guarded in their expressions, e.g. Henry, &c. ; others again are bold and full of assurance; of this number is Macknight, whose words therefore must sometimes be “very ungracious' to those who differ from him in opinion. Since the opinion of commentators must be quoted in controversy, let us by all means șefrain from treating their words as if they too were our opponents.
Your correspondent has in both of his letters alluded to a celibacy demanded by circumstances.' Now I assert and maintain that there never did happen circumstances of a religious nature where celibacy was necessary, but in cases of persecution only; see 1 Cor. vii. 25, 26.,