A C C 



tion, ferves as a key for folving fome of t!ie greatcrt di(Ti- 

 culties relating to the prophecies. Tlus convenient prin- 

 ciple of accommodation is applicable to thofe padages, in 

 which are iifed the tbong txprenions, " then was jfulfillcd 

 " that wliich was fpoken by the prophet," or " this was 

 " done that it might be fulfilled whicli was fpoken by tlie 

 " prophet." Wetllein, in his note to Matlh. i. 22. (vol. i. 

 p. 237-S.) has produced, in fupport of this principle, an 

 example from Ephrem Syrus, and fimilar cxpreffioiis from 

 other writers. This principle of accomodation has been 

 adopted, not only by WetRein, butby Grotius, by Nicholls 

 in his " conference with a theilt," (vol. i. p. 335.) Mi- 

 chaelis in his " Introduflion to the New Teilament," 

 (fee Marfli's Tranfi. vol. i. p. 214.) and particularly by Dr. 

 Sykcs, who has ilUiftrated, defended, and applied it in the 

 introduction to his " Paraphrafe on tiie Hebrews," J. 3. 

 p. 28, &c. and in liis " Truth of the Chriilian Religion," 

 ch. 13, 14, 15. 



Dr. Eckermann, profeffor of divinity in the univerfity of 

 Kiel, extends the do Arine of accommodation to eveiy quota- 

 tion in the New Teilament without ey.ception, proceeding 

 on the hypothefis, that the Old Teilament contains no pro- 

 phecy, which literally and immediately relates to the per- 

 Ibn of Jefus Chrift. On the contrai-y. Dr. Owen in his 

 " modes of quotation ufed by the evangelical writers," §. 5. 

 entirely rejefts the principle of accommodation, admitting, as 

 many others have done, a typical meaning, in order to re- 

 folve the difficulties that occur in the explication of parti- 

 cular pafTages. Dr. Sykes obferves, that if we were better 

 acquainted with the Jewifh phrafeology, we (hould lefs hefi- 

 tate in admitting the above mentioned principle. As for 

 the particular term " fulfilled," he fays, the Jewiih wri- 

 ters often meant no more by it than the happening of a 

 fimilar event, or an exaft agreement in particular circum- 

 ftances of latter things with former. An ingenious and 

 much admired writer (Ice Paky's View of the Evidences of 

 Chriftianity, vol. ii. p. 298.) fpeaking of thofe quotations 

 in the Old Tcftaraent found in the New, fome of which are 

 applied in a fenfe and to events apparently different from 

 that which they bear, and from thofe to which they belong 

 in the original, obferves, " it is probable to my apprchen- 

 fion, that many of thofe quotations were intended by the 

 writers of the New Teilament as nothing more than accomo- 

 dations. They quoted paffages of their fcripture which 

 fuited, and fell in with, the occafion before them, without 

 always undertaking to affert, that the occafion was in the 

 view of the author of the words. Such accommodation .,f 

 paffages from old authors, from books efpecially which are 

 in every body's hands, are common with writers of all coun- 

 tries ; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expefted than 

 in the writings of the Jews, whofe literature was almoft en- 

 tirely confined to their fcriptures." This writer adds, 

 " thofe prophecies which are alleged with more folemnity, 

 and Vv'hich are accompanied with a precife declaration, that 

 they originally refpefted the event then related, are, I think, 

 truly alleged. But, were it otherwife, is the judgm.ent of 

 the writers of the New Teilament, in interpreting paf- 

 fages of the Old, or fometimes, perhaps, in receiving cfta- 

 blilhed interpretations, fo conncfted cither with their vera- 

 city, or with their means of information concerning what 

 was paffnig in their own times, as that a critical millake, even 

 were it clearly made out, (hould overthrow their hillorical 

 credit ? Does it diminilli it ? Has it any thing to do with it ?" 

 The queftion of faft, whether the Jewilh Rabbins, in 

 quoting paffages from the Old Teilament with a formula of 

 this kind ; " In this the Scripture was fulfilled," did con- 

 jCder thofe paffages as having therafelvea reference to the 



A C C 



event to which they applied them, or jjrotinJcd the quota- 

 tion on a mere parity of circumllanccs, lias been accurately 

 examined by Surcnhufius in his Hi^>.o>- xalxXXxyti;, printed at 

 Amllerdam in 1713. In his tiilrd tla/i«, " Dc fonnuliii 

 allegandi," he compai-es the exprcffion " i'rXri;-Jjr, n -ifxpn," 

 with Rabbinical Hebrew fonnulea of a fimilar kind ; and 

 concludes upon the whole, that the exprellion id not only 

 allufive, but dcmonllrative. Sec Qjl'otation. 



The primitive church accomodated multitudes of jewidi, 

 and even heathen ceremonies and praifliccs to chriilian pui- 

 pofes ; but the Jews had before done the fame with regard 

 to thofe of the Gentiles : fome will even have circumcinoii, 

 the tabernacle, brazen ferpcnt, &c. to have been originally 

 of Egyptian ufe, and only accommodated by Mofes to the 

 purpofes of Judaifm. Saurin's Difftrt. Old Tell. toni. i. 

 p. ;o6. Spencer de Leg. Hebr. Difc. i. lib. 3. p. 32. 

 Middleton's Letters from Rome in his Works, vol. in. p 63. 



This accommodation, in the moll txtenfivc fenfe of the 

 term, is the fubjeft of two prize differtations in Teyler's 

 Theological foeiety ; and the difcnfijon of it by Van Hemerl, 

 profeffor of Philofopliy and Literature in the foeiety of 

 Remonftrants in Amllerdam, and De Vos, miiiiller of the 

 Baptill congregation in the fame city, may be tound in the 

 I2th volume of thefe Differtations. The learned Profeffor 

 had prepared the way for this difcuilion by an oration wliich 

 he had delivered upon being appointed to this office. In this 

 difcoui-fe he maintains, that Chriil, who was the wifcll and 

 beil of all teachers, adapted both the manner and matter of 

 his inftruclions to the capacity and habits of his hearers. 

 With regard to the former there can be no difpute ; and, 

 as to the latter, he obferves, that our Saviour manifclled an 

 evidently intended condefcenfion to the ignorance, imbe- 

 cility, and prejudices of his hearers. Whilll he avoided the 

 difcuffion of fubjefts that were fuperior to the capacity of 

 his difciples, and that philofophical train of reafoning, which 

 would have been unintelhgiljle to them ; he made ufe of 

 arguments, which, coinciding with their popular notions 

 and national prejudices, were likely to make the deepcil 

 impreffion on their minds ; without warranting them to 

 conclude, that thefe notions were in themfelvcs juft, or that 

 he approved them as fuch. That our Saviour never at- 

 tempted to correft thofe errors of his countiymen which 

 related to opinions merelyphilofcphical,is abundantly evident ; 

 but there were others that might be fuppofed to have a more 

 intimate connexion with rchgion, which, however, for wife 

 reafons, he did not think it proper to reform ; cither becaufe 

 he did not deem them of importance, or becaufe, by op- 

 pofing them, he might have unneceffarily irritated the minds 

 of his hearers, and have rendered them averfe from his in- 

 (lrui£lions. In proof of this obfenation the Profeffor refers 

 to the converfation of Chriil with the woman of Samaria, 

 his difcourfe with the Sadducees concerning the rcfurreftion, 

 his anfwer to the mother of Zebcdce's children, and his 

 reply to his difciples, when they believed his appearance 

 to be that of a gholl, or fpeftre. He diilin^uilhcs, how- 

 ever, between wliat is effential to religion itfelf, and what 

 relates merely to theology, or the mode of teaching it. The 

 ftrift propriety and abfolute neceffity of this kind of accom- 

 modation he vindicates by a furvey of the fliipid ignorance 

 and inveterate prejudices of the Jewifh nation. As proofs 

 th.at our Saviour condefcended to found his arguments even 

 on the erroneous notions of his countrymen, when they 

 fuited his purpofe, and did not interfere with the effential 

 doftrines of the Gofpcl, he refers to Matt. xv. 26, Mark vii. 

 27 ; to his dillinftion of the precepts of the law into greater 

 and lefs. Matt. v. 19 ; and to his ufing the temi gclienna, 

 and the iudicial flyle of the Saiihcdrim, m Matt. v. 22. 

 •* The 



