is not acknowledged by the majority of commentators, either of those who admit or of those who deny the theory of accommodation. Among the former it will suffice to name Calmet, Doddridge, Rosenmüller, and Jahn, who look upon passages introduced by the formula that it might be fulfilled,' as equally accommodations with those which are prefaced by the words then was fulfilled; while those who deny the accommodative theory altogether, consider both as formulas of direct prophecies, at least in a secondary or typical sense. This, for instance, is the case especially in regard to the two citations of this description which first present themselves in the New Testament, viz. Matt. ii. 15, and Matt. ii. 17, the former of which is introduced by the first, and the latter by the second of these formulas. But inasmuch as the commentators above referred to cannot perceive how the citation from Hosea xi. 1, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son,' although prefaced by the formula that it might be fulfilled,' and which literally relates to the calling of the children of Israel out of Egypt, can be prophetically diverted from its historical meaning, they look upon it as a simple accommodation, or applicable quotation, and consider the iva Anрwon as a Jewish formula of accommodation. Mr. Horne, after referring in support of this explication to some questionable examples from Surenhusius's BiẞROS KAтаλλауÑя, and Rosenmüller's Commentary on the New Testament, observes, that 'it was a familiar idiom of the Jews, when quoting the writings of the Old Testament, to say, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by such and such a prophet, not intending it to be understood that such a particular passage in one of the sacred books was ever designed to be a real prediction of what they were then relating, but signifying only that the words of the Old Testament might be properly adopted to express their meaning and illustrate their ideas' (Introduction, vol. ii. part i. ch. 4). The apostles,' he adds, who were Jews by birth, and wrote and spoke in the Jewish idiom, frequently thus cite the Old Testament, intending no more by this mode of speaking, than that the words of such an ancient writer might with equal propriety be adopted to characterize any similar occurrence which happened in their times. The formula “that it might be fulfilled," does not therefore differ in signification from the phrase "then was fulfilled," applied in the following citation in Matt. ii. 17, 18, from Jer. xxxi. 15-17, to the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. They are a beautiful quotation, and not a prediction of what then happened, and are therefore applied to the massacre of the infants according not to their original and historical meaning, but according to Jewish phraseology. Dr. Adam Clarke, also, in his Commentary on Jeremiah (xxxi. 15-17), takes the same view - St. Matthew, who is ever fond of accommodation, applied these words to the massacre of the children of Bethlehem; that is, they were suitable to that occasion, and therefore he applied them, but they are not a prediction of that event. So opposed, however, was the late Rev. Hugh James Rose to this principle of accommodation, that he included the application of it to this very passage among those which ought to exclude Kuinoel as a commentator from the library

e theological student (Supplement to State

of Protestantism, p. xlii.); and the Rev. Chas. Forster, in his Critical Essays, p. 59, in which he altogether opposes the theory, designates the distinction attempted to be drawn by Dathe and Bishop Marsh between the formulas of citation as "in all its bearings fanciful and licentious." Mr. Forster's view is, that in the return of the Messiah out of Egypt, and in his return alone, the promise of the Lord to Rachel (Jer. xxxi. 16), and they shall come again from the land of the enemy,' which was figuratively fulfilled in the return of the Jews of the three generations from the captivity in Babylon, was adequately and literally fulfilled, and that his coming again out of Egypt is an event distinctly predicted of the Messiah, under the figure of Israel in Egyptian bondage (Hos. xi. 1).

In the same manner he infers that, so far from the prophecy in Jer. xxxi. being an accommodation of the evangelist's, the prophet himself had diverted to his immediate purpose (the Babylonish captivity), in the way of accommodation only, the prophetic type (Gen. xxxv. 16-19) from its proper object, the birth of the Messiah at Bethlehem, in which the historical type found its literal fulfilment (Critical Essays, p. 34).

D. J. G. Rosenmüller gives as examples, which he conceives clearly show the use of these formulas, the passages Matt. i. 22, 23; ii. 15, 17, 23; xv. 7; Luke iv. 21; James ii. 23; alleging that they were designed only to denote that something took place which resembled the literal and historical sense. The sentiments of a distinguished English divine are to the same effect :- I doubt not that this phrase, "that it might be fulfilled," and the like were used first in quoting real prophecies, but that this, by long use, sunk in its value, and was more vulgarly applied, so that at last it was given to scripture only accommodated.' And again, 'If prophecy could at last come to signify singing (Titus i. 12; 1 Sam. x. 10; 1 Cor. xiv. 1), why might not the phrase fulfilling of Scripture and prophecy signify only quotation' (Nicholl's Conference with a Theist, 1698, part iii. p. 13).

The accommodation theory in exegetics has been equally combated by two classes of opponents. Those of the more ancient school consider such mode of application of the Old Testament passages not only as totally irreconcilable with the plain grammatical construction and obvious meaning of the controverted passages which are said to be so applied, but as an unjustifiable artifice, altogether unworthy of a divine teacher; while the other class of expositors, who are to be found chiefly among the most modern of the German (so called) Rationalists, maintain that the sacred writers, having been themselves trained in this erroneous mode of teaching, had mistakenly, but bona fide, interpreted the passages which they had cited from the Old Testament in a sense altogether different from their historical meaning, and thus applied them to the history of the Christian dispensation. Some of these have maintained that the accommodation theory was a mere shift (see Rosenmüller's Historia Interpretationis) resorted to by commentators who could not otherwise explain the application of Old Testament prophecies in the New consistently with the inspiration of the sacred writers: while the advocates of the system consider that the apostles, in adapting themselves to the mode of interpretation which

was customary in their days, and in further adopting what may be considered an argument e concessis, were employing the most persuasive mode of oratory, and the one most likely to prove effectual; and that it was therefore lawful to adopt a method so calculated to attract attention to their divine mission, which they were at all times prepared to give evidence of by other and irrefragable proofs.

We shall conclude with giving a brief sketch of the history of this method of interpretation. Mr. Stuart, of Andover, in the Excursus to his Commentary on Hebrews, alleges that the fathers of the church had no hesitation in applying this system to the interpretation of the Scriptures. But he has furnished us with no example of their critical application of it, and any such application seems to us scarcely compatible with the allegorical fancies to which they seem to have been addicted. The difference, indeed, had been at all times felt, from Origen downwards, between the historical sense of the citations, and that to which they are applied in the New Testament; and expositors have been divided into two classes; the one making the New Testament interpretation the rule for the explanation of Old Testament passages, and the other attempting, in various ways, to reconcile the discrepancy (see Tholuck's Commentary on Hebrews). But the first who appears to have led the way to the mode of interpretation in question, was Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the fifth century, who, so far as we can judge from the few writings of his which have come down to us, was decidedly favourable to literal and historical interpretation. He considered that the Old Testament contained very few direct prophecies of the Messiah, and in reference to other quotations, such as that in John xix. 24, and Rom. x. 6, observes that the apostle 'alters the phrase to suit it to his argument' (see Tuoluck's Commentary on Hebrews). And again, in reference to Psalm xxii. 19, Theodore observes that the second verse, and consequently the psalm itself, cannot possibly refer to Him 'who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; but that as our Lord on the cross cited the words of the psalm, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? the apostle, on this account, accommodated to Christ the words of this verse also: They parted my garments among them, and for my vesture did they cast lots.' He seems at the same time to have acknowledged the existence of a higher and lower sense, for he observes that some passages referring to the Messiah had been hyperbolically applied to historical personages in the Old Testament,' and says of Psalm lxix. 22, that the words may, in another sense, be referred to our Lord, although the Psalm did not historically refer to him (see Rosenmüller's Historia Interpretationis, vol. iii. 260). Rosenmüller conceives, from an expression of Nicholas Lyranus, that he (Nicholas) had at least a glimpse of this system. But the person who, so far as modern theology is concerned, to use the words of the Rev. J. J. Conybeare (Bampton Lectures), 'was the first and most eminent patron and advocate of the system' was Calvin, who adopted principles of exposition which, since the condemnation of Theodore, in the fifth century, had scarcely perhaps been heard of, and assuredly never been entertained in the

6

6

Christian church.' Erasmus and Luther had, no doubt, led the way by their advocacy of the literal interpretation; but, even in passages which have been supposed to bear a double relation to the Jewish and Christian church, Calvin appears rather to ground such application on the nature and similarity of the subjects and their condition, than upon anything of a distinctly typical and prophetical character. He is, therefore, disposed to look not so much for an intention originally spiritual and predictive of higher things, as for the authoritative application of a new and more extended sense by the inspired writers themselves. On Heb. ii. 6, he remarks, that it was not the apostle's intention to give the genuine exposition of the words, and that no inconvenience can result from supposing that the apostle makes allusions to the Old Testament passage for the sake of embellishment.' In regard to the passages in Matt. ii. 15-17, already cited, he observes, beyond controversy, the passage Hos. xi. 1, must not be restricted to Christ;' and in reference to the second quotation (Jerem. xxxi. 15), he says 'it is certain that the prophet refers to the slaughter of the tribe of Benjamin, which took place in his own time; and Matthew, in citing the words of the prophet, does not mean that this was a prediction of what Herod was about to do, but that there was a renewal of the lamentation of the Benjamites.' And again, 'Non tam impetratur, quam piâ deflexione ad Christi personam accommodat (Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews, passim).

But while the credit of this invention has been thus attributed to Calvin, a writer, whom on the one hand no one will accuse of any Neologian tendency, while on the other the most sober and judicious critic will find nothing in his exposition revolting to the strictest rules of just interpretation' (Lectures, &c., by W. D. Conybeare), the doctrine of accommodation, once employed for the purpose of discarding all spiritual and allegorical methods of interpretation, was at a later period extended to all that had been hitherto considered as typical. In England, Dr. Sykes, in his answer to Collins, and in the preface to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, surrendered the whole scheme of typical prefiguration and secondary prophecy, as destitute of proof, and accommodated to the mission of our Lord in condescension to the reigning prejudices of the people. Le Clerc carried his notions of accommodation to such excess, as nearly to invalidate the prophetical character of the Old Testament altogether, and considerably to depreciate the divine authority of the New; and Semler pronounced all the references made in Scripture by our blessed Lord and his disciples, to be the mere result of a compliance with the false and Rabbinical theories of their unenlightened countrymen.

Among those who, in modern times, have most ably vindicated the system of the typical interpretation of prophecy, as opposed to the accommodation theory, is Professor Tholuck, of Berlin, in the Dissertation affixed to his Commentary on Hebrews. He does not, indeed, deny all instances of accommodation, but refers a great number of passages which had been so interpreted (as Matt. i. 15, 18; xxvii. 9, 35; John iû. 14; xix. 24, 36; Acts i. 20; ii. 27-31) to the class of typical prophecies.

was usually provided with a cushion or bolster on which to support the upper part of his person in a somewhat raised position; as the left arm alone could not long without weariness sustain the weight. The lower part of the body being extended diagonally on the bed, with the feet outward, it is at once perceived how easy it was for the woman that was a sinner' to come behind between the dinner-bed and the wall, and anoint the feet of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3).

The dinner-beds were so various at different times, in different places, and under different circumstances, that no one description can apply to them all. Even among the Romans they were at first (after the Punic war) of rude form and materials, and covered with mattresses

stuffed with rushes or straw; mattresses of hair and wool were introduced at a later period. At first the wooden frames were small, low, and round; and it was not until the time of Augustus that square and ornamented couches came into fashion. In the time of Tiberius the most splendid sort were veneered with costly woods or tortoiseshell, and were covered with valuable embroideries, the richest of which came from Babylon, and cost large sums (U.K.S. Pompeii, ii. 88). The Jews perhaps had all these varieties, though it is not likely that the usage was ever carried to such a pitch of luxury as among the Romans; and it is probable that the mass of the people fed in the ancient manner-seated on stools or on the ground. It appears that couches were often so low, that the feet rested on the ground; and that cushions or bolsters were in general use. It would also seem, from the mention of two and of three couches, that the arrangement was more usually square than semicircular or round (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in John xiii. 23).

It is utterly improbable that the Jews derived this custom from the Romans, as is constantly alleged. They certainly knew it as existing among the Persians long before it had been adopted by the Romans themselves (Esth. i. 6; vii. 8); and the presumption is that they adopted it while subject to that people. The Greeks also had the usage (from the Persians) before the Romans; and with the Greeks of Syria the Jews had very much intercourse. Besides, the Romans adopted the custom from the Carthaginians (Val. Max. xii. 1,2; Liv. xxviii. 28); and, that they had it, implies that it previously existed in Phoenicia, in the neighbourhood of the Jews. Thus, that in the time of Christ the custom had been lately

adopted from the Romans, is the last of various probabilities. It is also unlikely that in so short a time it should have become usual and even (as the Talmud asserts) obligatory to eat the Passover in that posture of indulgent repose, and in no other. All the sacred and profane literature of this subject has been most industriously brought together by Stuckius (Antiq. Convivalium, ii. 34); and the works on Pompeii and Herculaneum supply the more recent information.

ACCURSED. [ANATHEMA.]

ACCUSER (27 and 19 ; Sept. and New Test. 'Avridikos). The original word, which bears this leading signification, means, 1. One who has a cause or matter of contention ;

the accuser, opponent, or plaintiff in any suit Judg. xii. 2; Matt. v. 25; Luke xii. 58). We which causes were conducted in the Hebrew have little information respecting the manner in thorities, who, in matters of this description, may courts of justice, except from the Rabbinical aube supposed well informed as to the later customs of the nation. Even from these we learn little accused being deemed innocent until convicted, more than that great care was taken that, the he and the accuser should appear under equal circumstances before the court, that no prejudicial impression might be created to the disadvantage of the defendant, whose interests, we are told, were so anxiously guarded, that any one was allowed to speak whatever he knew or had to say in his favour, which privilege was withheld from the accuser (Lewis, Origines Hebrææ, i. 68). The word is, however, to be understood in regard to the real plaintiff, not to the advocates, who only became known in the later period of the Jewish history [ADVOCATE].

The word is also applied in Scripture, in the general sense, to any adversary or enemy (Luke xviii. 3; 1 Pet. v. 8). In the latter passage there is an allusion to the old Jewish notion that Satan was the accuser or calumniator of men before God (Job i. 6, sq.; Rev. xii. 10, sq.; comp. Zech. iii. 1). In this application the forensic sense was still retained, Satan being represented as laying to man's charge a breach of the law, as in a court of justice, and demanding his punishment [SATAN].

ACELDAMA, ('Akeλdauá, from the SyroChaldaic, NP Sen, field of blood), the field purchased with the money for which Judas betrayed Christ, and which was appropriated as a place of burial for strangers (Matth. xxvii. 8; Acts i. 19). It was previously 'a potter's field.' The field now shown as Aceldama lies on the slope of the hills beyond the valley of Hinnom, south of Mount Zion. This is obviously the spot which Jerome points out (Onomast. s. v. Acheldamach'), and which has since been mentioned by almost every one who has described Jerusalem. Sandys thus writes of it: On the south side of this valley, neere where it meeteth with the valley of Jehoshaphat, mounted a good height on the side of the mountain, is Aceldama, or the field of blood, purchased with the restored reward of treason, for a buriall place for strangers. In the midst whereof a large square roome was made by the mother of Constantine; the south side, walled with the naturall rocke; flat at the top, and equall with the vpper level; out of which ariseth certaine

little cupoloes, open in the midst to let doune the dead bodies. Thorow these we might see the bottome, all couered with bones, and certaine corses but newly let doune, it being now the sepulchre of the Armenians. A greedy graue, and great enough to deuoure the dead of a whole nation. For they say (and I believe it), that the earth thereof within the space of eight and forty houres will consume the flesh that is laid thereon' (Relation of a Journey, p. 187). He then relates the common story, that the empress referred to caused 270 ship-loads of this flesh-consuming mould to be taken to Rome, to form the soil of the Campo Sancto, to which the same virtue is ascribed. Castela affirms that great quantities of the wondrous mould were removed by divers Christian princes in the time of the Crusades, and to this source assigns the similar sarcophagic properties claimed not only by the Campo Santo at Rome, but by the cemetery of St. Înnocents at Paris, by the cemetery at Naples (Le Sainct Voyage de Hierusalem, 1603, p. 150; also Roger, p. 160); and, we may add, that of the Campo Santo at Pisa.

The plot of ground originally bought 'to bury strangers in, seems to have been early set apart by the Latins, as well as by the Crusaders, as a place of burial for pilgrims (Jac. de Vitriaco, p. 61). The charnel-house is mentioned by Sir John Mandeville, in the fourteenth century, as belonging to the Knights-hospitallers. Sandys shows that, early in the seventeenth century, it was in the possession of the Armenians. Eugene Roger (La Terre Saincte, p. 161) states that they bought it for the burial of their own pilgrims, and ascribes the erection of the charnel-house to them. They still possessed it in the time of Maundrell, or rather rented it, at a sequin a day, from the Turks. Corpses were still deposited there; and the traveller observes that they were in various stages of decay, from which he conjectures that the grave did not make that quick dispatch with the bodies committed to it which had been reported. The earth, hereabouts,' he observes, 'is of a chalky substance; the plot of ground was not above thirty yards long by fifteen wide; and a moiety of it was occupied by the charnel-house, which was twelve yards high' (Journey, p. 136). Richardson (Travels, p. 567) affirms that bodies were thrown in as late as 1818; but Dr. Robinson alleges that it has the appearance of having been for a much longer time abandoned: "The field or plat is not now marked by any boundary to distinguish it from the rest of the hill-side; and the former charnel-house, now a ruin, is all that remains to point out the site....An opening at each end enabled us to look in; but the bottom was empty and dry, excepting a few bones much decayed (Biblical Researches, i. 524).

ACHAIA (Axata), a region of Greece, which in the restricted sense occupied the north-western portion of the Peloponnesus, including Corinth and its isthmus (Strabo, viii. p. 438, sq.). By the poets it was often put for the whole of Greece, whence 'Axauoi, the Greeks. Under the Romans, Greece was divided into two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia, the former of which included Macedonia proper, with Illyricum, Epirus, and Thessaly; and the latter, all that lay southward of the former (Cellar. i. p. 1170, 1022). It is in this latter acceptation that the name of Achaia is always employed in the

|

New Testament (Acts xviii. 12, 16; xix. 21; Rom. xv. 26; xvi. 25; 1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. i. 1; ix. 2; xi. 10; 1 Thess. i. 7, 8). Achaia was at first a senatorial province, and, as such, was governed by proconsuls (Dion Cass. liii. p. 704). Tiberius changed the two into one imperial province under procurators (Tacit. Annal. i. 76); but Claudius restored them to the senate and to the proconsular form of government (Suet. Claud. 25). Hence the exact and minute propriety with which St. Luke expresses himself in giving the title of proconsul to Gallio, who was appointed to the province in the time of Claudius (Acts xviii. 12).

ACHAICUS (Axaïkós), a native of Achaia, and a follower of the apostle Paul. He, with Stephanus and Fortunatus, was the bearer of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, and was recommended by the apostle to their special respect (1 Cor. xvi. 17).

ACHAN (; Sept. "Axav, or "Axap, Josh. vii. 1). In the parallel passage (1 Chron. ii. 7) the name is spelty, and as it has there the meaning of troubling, it is thought by some that this is an intentional change, after the fact, to give the name a significant reference to the circumstance which renders it notorious. The city of Jericho, before it was taken, was put under that awful ban, of which there are other instances in the early Scripture history, whereby all the inhabitants (excepting Rahab and her family) were devoted to destruction, all the combustible goods to be consumed by fire, and all the metals to be consecrated to God. This vow of devotement was rigidly observed by all the troops when Jericho was taken, save by one man, Achan, a Judahite, who could not resist the temptation of secreting an ingot of gold, a quantity of silver, and a costly Babylonish garment, which he buried in his tent, deeming that his sin was hid. But God made known this infraction, which, the vow having been made by the nation as one body, had involved the whole nation in his guilt. The Israelites were defeated, with serious loss, in their first attack upon Ai; and as Joshua was well assured that this humiliation was designed as the punishment of a crime which had inculpated the whole people, he took immediate measures to discover the criminal. As in other cases, the matter was referred to the Lord by the lot, and the lot ultimately indicated the actual criminal. The conscience-stricken offender then confessed his crime to Joshua; and his confession being verified by the production of his ill-gotten treasure, the people, actuated by the strong impulse with which men tear up, root and branch, a polluted thing, hurried away not only Achan, but his tent, his goods, his spoil, his cattle, his children, to the valley (afterwards called) of Achor, north of Jericho, where they stoned him, and all that belonged to him; after which the whole was consumed with fire, and a cairn of stones raised over the ashes. The severity of this act, as regards the family of Achan, has provoked some remark. Instead of vindicating it, as is generally done, by the allegation that the members of Achan's family were probably accessories to his crime after the fact, we prefer the supposition that they were included in the doom by one of those sudden impulses of indiscriminate popular vengeance to which the Jewish people were exceed