The southern enterprise. [volume] (Greenville, S.C.) 1854-1870, 1869-09-08
,s JOHN c. BAILEY, PROsR.
9 pious purpose and correct views,
from the purpose to explain the
Scriptures, and chat its failure was

~Pe PeA k>D'sS ssnS SOAlCCb VIoWo,
from the purpose to explain the
Scriptures, and chat its failure was
the srsssshlt OK undue reverence for
mans authority !; the second, that
we see in it the tendency to two
opposite errors, undue literalness
and irrational allegorizihg. This
duality Of error we shall meet
with everywhere. ha1g sg tsY
Passing to Christian Exegesis,
we find in the Apostolic Fathers
an nnsystematized simplicity and
an improper regard for the regula
fidei.g II Is In the. third century
that We first meet with method.
AT Alexandria began criticism and
methodizing. y The Platonic theol-
ogy impressed itself on Christiani-
ty, and following with striking
minuteness the method Of Philo,
the great Church teachers, Gle
n1ent and Origcn, originated the
speculative school of Alexandria.
Origen, imbued with Platonism,
rejected the simple historical cha
racter ofdthe Bible, and in order
to elicit what he thought higher
.trnth, was forced into allegorizing.
On the other hand, the necessity
of examining strictly the text, led
to'granmatical study. Thus lre is
the founder of two opposite ten
denotes. In his system appears
also the nystieal division of mean
ings, according to the constitution
of man,a as body, spirit, soul. There
is a high divine Specification, he
said, peroeptible only TO the 'di.
vinelyy Illuminated o, truth which
he and others perverted ;1'eaa"
The reaction against this Alex
andrian allegorizing produced the
more logical and judicious school
of Antioch, illustrated by Chrysos-
tom and others. Then came the
third great schools, ofNorth Africa,
in which the great names are Je.
rome and Augustine, the first
learned without breadth, the Sc.
cond broad and grand without
learning Jerome's1 knowledge of
Hebrew. however, was unscientific.
and Augustine's :exegesis was in
defiance of all correct system.
Though a great thinker, he was an
unsafe interpreter, and his great
ness imposed his errors on his con-
temporaries and successors. Thus
he unduly values inner light to the
exclusion of external aids, and is
guilty of the monstrous assertion
that of five different meanings
which . passage may have, one is
as good as another. .r'7.fs'
So, through the Patristic period,
we find principles clashing, but
n othing definitely determined,
much that is good and much that
is bad in the details, The school.
men, with Thomas at. their head
systematized the fathers, nominal
ly submitting, and quietly modify
ing IN d often bettering them.
Then came the revival oflearning,
the prominence given to gramniat.
ical study, the recognition by some
of the necessity of true spirituality,
the 9slothfulness of the Establish
nients, the hermeneutical fanati-
cism Of the Puritans, the study Of
the Oriental languages, the prepar-
alton of rPolyglott Bibles and the
production of works on Hermeneu-
ltics-out of all which, under the
| guidance Of Lord Bacon emerged
the grammatical. historical method
| in which in it's best form, The two
elements above mentioned, always
enter. ,a., !. LII .ss,s's- y. -"
The past fifty years has witness.
ed q great progress in all depart.
ments of hermenentical effort. In
the criticism of the text, especially
of the New Testament, more abun-
dant material and more intelligent
labor have made remarkable ad-
vance. The individual oShemitic
tongues have been more closely
studied and the new science Of
comparative philologv has illus-
trated Greek and Hebrcw.Y Tt sis
now easier than ever before to
learn these languagess The arch
@ological discoveries of this centu
Try have thrown new light on, the