Page:The Collected Works of Theodore Parker Discourse volume 1.djvu/342

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE.
295

were found also indefinite, and would hold the most opposite doctrines, for though the schoolmen doubted whether two similar spirits could occupy at once the same point of space, it is put beyond a doubt that two very dissimilar doctrines may occupy the same words at the same time. Taking “substance for doctrine,” any creed may be subscribed to, and a solemn ecclesiastical farce continue to be enacted, as edifying if not so entertaining as the old Miracle-plays. That was popular advice for theologians which the old Jesuit gave: “Let us fix our own meaning to the words, and then subscribe them.” The maxim is still “as good as new.”

This new and exclusive reverence for the Bible led to popular versions of it; to a hard study of its original tongues; and a most diligent examination of all the means interpreting its words. Here a wide field was opened for critical study, which even yet has not been thoroughly explored. A host of theological scholars sprang up, armed to the teeth with Greek and “the terrible Hebrew,” and attended by a Babylonian legion of oriental tongues and rabbinical studies,—scholars who had no peers in the Church, at least, since the time of Jerome, who translated, so he says, the book of Tobit from the Chaldaic in a day! But this study led to extravagance. Sound principles of interpretation were advanced by some of the Reformers, but they were soon abandoned. Thus, to take a single example: Luther, Zwingle, and Melancthon said, A passage of Scripture can have but one meaning.[1] It is unquestionably true. But certain doctrines must be maintained, and defended by Scripture; therefore if this could not be done by the natural meaning of Scripture, a secondary sense or a type must be sought. Of course it was found. The old allegorical way of interpretation was bad, but this typical improvement and doctrine of secondary senses was decidedly worse.[2] In the hands of both Protestant and Catholic interpreters, the Bible is clay, to be turned into any piece of ecclesiastical pottery the case may require;

  1. Luther himself did not always adhere to this rule in explaining the Old Testament.
  2. See Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 3, 4; Palfrey, ubi sup. Vol. II. Lect. xxxiii.; Rosenmüller, Handbuch für Literatur der bib. Kritik. &c., Vol. IV. p. 1, et seq.