Still more emphatically does this last observation apply with respect to the notion that our Lord and his apostles accommodated their teaching to the current notions and prejudices of the Jews of their own times. It might seem almost incredible that any one shonld venture to impute to them so unworthy and so im- probable a course, were it not that we find the impu- tation broadly made, and the making of it defended by some very eminent men of the anti-supematuralist
school, especially in Germany. By them it hss bea asserted that our Lord and his disciples pnUicl j taog^a many things which privately they repudiated, and aa attempt has been made to save them f^om the ciiai^ of downright dishonesty which this would m-wdTs by an appeal to the usage of many ancient teacfaen who had an exoteric doctrine for the multitnde, and an eso- teric for their disciples. (Semler, Prcgrammu Ac^ SeL Hal. 1779 ; Coirodi, Beytrdge Mur be/Brdermag da vemQnfliffen DmhenM in d, lUHgion, 15th part, p. 1-25; P. Van Hemert, Uther Aeeom, in N. T. Le^. 1797, etc.). The prompt and thorough repodlation of such views even by such men as Wegscheider (Jm&U, 7%e- otogictty p. 105, 6th ed.) and Bretschnelder (Mamdb. der Dogmat, i, 260, 265, 2d ed.) renders it unneceamy to enlarge on the formal refutation of them. These writ- ers, however, contend that, though our Lord and his aposties did not make use of a potiiive accommodatiflB of their doctrine to the prejudices or ignorance of the Jews, they did not refhun fix>m a negative aecommoda- tion, by which they intend the use of naa^ve in tiw communication of truth or refutation of error, and tiw allowing of men to retain opinions not authorized by truth without express or formal correction of them. They adduce as instances, John xvi, 12 ; Ti, 15 ; Lake xxiv, 21 ; Acts i, 6; 1 Cor. iii, 1, 2; viii, 9, etc. By these passages, however, nothing more is proved thas that in teaching men truth our Lord and hia apostles did not tell them everything at once, but led them on from truth to truth as they were able to receive it or bear it. In this there is no accommodation of the bm>- terial of doctrine ; it is simply an accommodation cf method to the capacity of the learner. In the same way Paul's assertion, which they have also cited, that he became all things to all men, that he mig^ht by all means save some (1 Cor. ix, 22), is to be regarded is relating merely to the mode and order of his present- ing Christian truth to man, not to his modifying in any respect the substance of what he tau^t. When he spoke to Jews, he opened and alleged ont of the? own Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (Acts xrn, 2, 8). When he spoke to the Athenians on liars' Hill, he started from the ground of natural rdigim, and addressed the reason and common sense of his as- dience ; but in either case it was the same Jesus that he preached, and the same Gospel that he publislied. Had he done otherwise, he would have beoi Ibmid a fidse witness for God.
This accommodation theory is often spoken of as identical with the historical principle of interpreting Scripture. It is so, however, only as the historical principle of interpretation means the treating of the statements of our Lord and his apostles as merely ex- pressing the private opinions of the individoal, or as historically traceable to the prevailing opinloDS of their day. This is not to be confounded with that true and sound principle of historical interpretatioa, which allows due weight to historical evidence in de» termining the meaning of words, and to the circBm- stances in which statements were made as detcrmiii- ing their primary application and significancy. (Stoir, OpuBC, Acad, vol. i; Abhandbtng u. d, Zweck de» Todee Jeeuy § 10 ; Lehrb, d, Chr, DogmaUk, § 18 [Eng. tr. by Schmucker, p. 67, Lond. 1886] ; Plandc, Inlrod. to Sae. Interpretation, tr. with notes by Turner [N. T. 1884], p. 188, 276; Unselt, De ocoommodaHone orthodoga [Lips. 1766] ; Smitii, First Lines of Christian Theebgg, p. 518 ; Alexander, Connection and Hcarmong of the OH and New Testaments, p. 45-48 ; 148-157, 416, 2d edit). — Kitto, s. V. Accommodation. See Hmmmesec-
TICS.
Condiot, Ira, D.D., a clergyman of the Beformed Dutch Church at New Brunswick, N. J., from 1798 to 1811, and vice-president of Queen's (now Butgen) College, and professor of moral philosophy. He wm an eminent, usefnl, and honored minister and colkgi> ate ofllcer. He died suddenly in 1811. It is to be re-
CONDIGNTTY
463
CONDUIT
gretted that do materials are left for a more satisfiic- Uffj notice of this yenerated man.
Condignity and Congmity (tneritum de eon- a^no and de eoHgruo\ " terms used by the schoolmen to express their peculiar opinions relative to human merit and deserring. The Scotists maintain that it is possible for man in his natural state so to liye as to duerw the grace of God, by which he may be enabled to obtain salvation ; this natnral./£fneM (congruitat) for grace being such as to oblige the Deitj to grant it. Such is the merit ofcongrvtUy, The Thomists, on the other hjknd, contend that man, by the divine assist- ance, is capable of so living as to merit eternal life, to be mihy {condigmu) of it in the sight of God. In tlus hypothesis, the question of previous preparation for the grace which enables him to be worthy is not introduced. This is the merit cf condignity:' The 13th article of the Church of England is directed against these opin- ions, and maintains that the grace of Chiist and the inspiration of his Spirit can alone produce the fitness required in Christians ; and that so far are any works not springing of faith in Christ from being pleasing to God, thaC they have the nature of sin. — ^Hook, Eodee, Dictionary y s. v.