Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

terms which are offered by the Established Church, we may withdraw from its communion......But if men choose to continue members of the Established Church, they must conform to its regulations, as they must also to the regulations of any other society for which they may think proper to exchange it. For no society whatever can long subsist, unless rules are prescribed for the conduct of its members, and an assent to those rules is made a condition of communion with that society," &c.

It is not, of course, here intended to adopt every word of this extract, any more than of that which precedes it; but both the one and the other present a general and intelligible view, that the articles of the Church are not of its essence, but an addition, of the nature of a preservative, necessary to its well-being and peace; but not to be put on a level with the ancient Creeds, as necessary to be believed in order to salvation: a characteristic which Mr. Blanco White denies at once to the Creeds and to the Articles, but which belongs to the one and not to the other.

REMARKS

UPON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED

IN INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE1.

THE following principle is laid down by Dr. Arnold2, to assist students of Scripture, in determining when the doctrines and practices, which it appears to them to sanction, are to be regarded by them as essential, and when as indifferent; in what cases they may reasonably insist on their own belief, as to the meaning of the inspired writers, and in what cases they are to rest content with their own opinion, in perfect tolerance of the opposite opinion entertained by their neighbour.

66

"If," says he, "after we have employed our utmost pains on the right understanding of the Scripture, there remain any doctrines fairly disputable, any practices the advocates and opponents of which equally can appeal to Scripture, as justifying or condemning them; then we may be sure that those

[The following, written in November or December, 1835, is the rough draft of what, had it been finished, was intended by the Author for publication. The thread of the argument is sometimes broken.]

2 Introd. to 3rd vol. Sermons, pp. xxvii. xxviii.

doctrines and practices are really unessential and indifferent, and that every man must be content with holding his own opinion about them, in perfect tolerance of the opposite opinion entertained by his neighbour."

Now, before examining the truth of this proposition, it will be necessary to offer a few remarks respecting its meaning. For there is a vagueness in the wording of it, which, unless attended to, may mislead incautious reasoners, by procuring their assent to it first of all, in a sense quite different from that in which they are afterwards taught to apply it. The words, "utmost pains," "fairly disputable," &c., appear at first sight to bear a meaning which, nevertheless, cannot in this case be attributed to them, without rendering the proposition in which they occur, altogether irrelevant to Dr. Arnold's purpose. And hence, incautious reasoners are in danger, first of all, of assenting to this irrelevant proposition, and then of substituting for it, unconsciously, a perfectly distinct proposition which is relevant.

If we are to understand by persons who have "employed their utmost pains on the right understanding of Scripture," only those who, as the words seem literally to imply, have overcome, so far as human imperfection will permit, every obstacle that could possibly interfere with their right understanding of it; and if by "doctrines fairly disputable," we are to understand only such doctrines as a competent judge would pronounce dis

putable, then, indeed, it is possible enough that many a sober-minded person may assent to Dr. Arnold's proposition, as rational and true. But then, if these expressions are to be so understood, the proposition becomes altogether inapplicable to Dr. Arnold's purpose, which is the practical guidance of students in discriminating between essential doctrines and unessential. For who shall say of himself or any other human being, that he has done his utmost to remove every obstacle that could interfere with his right understanding of Scripture? or how are we ever to ascertain that any person, pronouncing any doctrine disputable, is a competent judge? We all know how powerful is the influence of habit in moulding our opinions, and the consequent probability that every evil habit we may have contracted, consciously or unconsciously, from the day of our birth to the present hour, has in its degree perverted our judgment. And who shall say that his own judgment, or that of any other person, is thoroughly emancipated from this influence? or that the pains, which either he or they have as yet employed in [emancipating] it, are in reality their utmost? So that, if by the words, "utmost pains," and "fairly disputable," we are to understand what they would seem literally to imply, Dr. Arnold's proposition, however admissible it may be as an abstract truth, becomes inapplicable to any practical purpose whatever; and on the other hand, if we are to proceed with Dr. Arnold to make a practical application of it, we must reduce the

meaning of the terms to a caput mortuum. "Utmost pains," in this case, must stand for only such a degree of candour and attention as a modest student may reasonably take credit for; otherwise, the very pretence to such a qualification would prove the want of it; and in order to prove doctrines to be "fairly disputable," it must be required, not that a competent judge should pronounce them so, (for who is to decide the judge's competence?) but only that they should appear so to the student.

This is the only interpretation of Dr. Arnold's proposition which will leave it any practical application whatever; and no cautious reasoner will proceed to apply it, without first ascertaining whether he assents to it when thus interpreted. For, however true it may be, that when the sense of Scripture respecting any particular doctrine or practice is really undeterminable, such ambiguity proves the doctrine or practice in question to be indifferent, still, it by no means follows that the accident of fallible men thinking it so, proves the same thing. However true it may be, that if we could find any number of men who had in good earnest purified their minds from every faulty prejudice, such persons would agree about the sense of Scripture in all essentials, and that their disagreement, if ever they disagreed, would prove the point to which it related, unessential and indifferent; still, it may be very false that taking men as they are, with the "imaginations of their hearts only

« ZurückWeiter »