and the Weight of Hermeneutics Paul R. House

This article was first presented in 1997 Few figures in Baptist history engender an impetus to open inquiry and dedicated as a Founder’s Day address at The as divergent opinions as Crawford Howell scholarship.”5 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Toy. One of the most brilliant scholars ever It is apparent that each interpreter’s Louisville, Kentucky. to graduate from and teach at The South- theological convictions and vision of theo- ern Baptist Theological Seminary, he was logical education are reflected in his treat- also the first faculty member to resign for ment of Toy. To steal an image from Albert theological reasons, an event that took Schweitzer’s famous comment on the place in 1879. During his lifetime many search for the historical Jesus, when one of his students and friends thought Toy stares down the well of reflection on Toy, was unjustly forced from the seminary. it is amazing how often the historian’s face Though grieved at Toy’s departure, his appears. Still, each of these experts has colleagues and John contributed to a better understanding of Albert Broadus disagreed. They con- the man who served as Southern’s fifth cluded that Toy’s beliefs were not in faculty member. accordance with the institution’s Abstract The goal of this article is to present of Principles, and would eventually lead Toy’s interpretative methodology accu- to his rejection of virtually all supernatu- rately, and to explore its impact on his ral elements of Christianity.1 C. A. Briggs, beliefs. To achieve this aim, it is necessary who was put on ecclesiastical trial by Pres- to survey his life, to examine the devel- byterians for holding similar views, opment of his theological convictions, and lauded Toy as the first American scholar to draw some conclusions from this analy- to suffer for historical-critical beliefs.2 sis that may allow us to learn from our More recently, Toy biographer Billy heritage. Stated simply, this essay argues Grey Hurt has depicted him as a seeker that the weight of any theologian’s under- of truth forced to resign because of lying hermeneutical presuppositions is denominational politics.3 On the other monumental. That is, all interpreters must hand, Tom Nettles and Russ Bush have know why they believe what they believe. described Toy as a man whose positions It is not enough to believe the right things had so changed from his earlier beliefs or even to come to correct conclusions that his resignation was both honest and without knowing why, since an individual appropriate.4 Reflecting yet another opin- who does not know why a belief is held ion, Roy Honeycutt has stated that Toy may alter or abandon it at any time. Tragi- illustrates the seminary’s desire to balance cally, incognizance of this principle may creative challenge and traditional values. render a person incapable of discerning He writes, “Despite the fact that Crawford when that abandonment came, or even Howell Toy was forced to resign from the that it has come. In my opinion, Crawford faculty in 1879 and later abandoned his Howell Toy was such a person. Though heritage, his ideals continued to provide brilliant of mind, perhaps unparalleled in 28 his or any other day as a linguist, and sin- under Broadus’ influence. Moon and Toy cere and honest in his statements, Toy did began a relationship that ended in 1880, not realize the significance of his own when the two decided finally not to marry. hermeneutical system. This unawareness Toy entered The Southern Baptist Theo- led not only to his adoption of theologi- logical Seminary when it opened in 1859. cal views that diverged from conservative He desired to be a foreign missionary. He Christianity, but from Trinitarian Chris- was again a top student, for he managed tianity itself. Sadly, Toy did not heed to complete three-fourths of the three-year Broadus when he belatedly warned him course in a single year. In 1860 Toy was of this flaw. Consequently, he found him- appointed a foreign missionary to Japan self holding opinions in later life that he by the denomination’s Foreign Mission did not think he would hold when he Board. He was also ordained that year, resigned his position in 1879. Though few with Broadus taking a leading role in the scholars dispute that Toy’s ideas changed service.6 Due to the rising national ten- over time, none has observed that Toy’s sions that led to the Civil War, however, interpretative methodology did not change Toy could not go to Japan. Consequently, substantially after 1869. All that remained he taught Greek at the University of Rich- by then was for him to follow the logical mond in the spring term of 1861. path his methodology suggested. When the war broke out, Toy served as a chaplain in the Confederate forces. Toy’s Training He was captured at the battle of Gettys- In many ways, Toy’s background was burg on July 4, 1863, held as a prisoner of typical of other early students at South- war until December 1863, re-enlisted in ern. Born in Virginia in 1836 to Baptist 1864, and spent 1864-1865 teaching at the parents, he entered the University of Vir- University of .7 At war’s end, Toy ginia in 1852, a time close enough to Tho- returned to the Albermarle Female Insti- mas Jefferson’s death that some professors tute, where he worked until June 1866 could still remember the university’s when he departed for graduate studies founder. Toy quickly established himself in Germany. as a stellar student who had an uncom- It is difficult to judge Toy’s hermeneu- mon facility for languages. He was bap- tics at this time. He had been a student of tized by , the pastor Broadus, Boyce, Manly, and Williams. He of the First Baptist Church of Char- was considered doctrinally sound enough lottesville, Virginia, in 1854. Toy main- to be ordained a Baptist minister and to tained a friendly relationship with be appointed a foreign missionary. Letters Broadus until the latter’s death in 1895. he wrote to Virginia’s Baptist state paper Indeed, Broadus recommended Toy to The Religious Herald during 1866-1867, Harvard University after Toy’s resignation though, imply that he was greatly im- at Southern. Graduated in 1856, Toy was pressed by religious feeling, or religious hired as a teacher at Albemarle Female spirit. He praised certain worship services Institute, largely at the request of Broadus, he attended as having the spirit of the who was president of the school’s trust- Lord, despite their possible divergence ees. In 1857 Toy met a student named from conservative theology, a fact pointed , who became a Christian out by at least one troubled reader of the 29 periodical, who was concerned that Toy sary evolution of Israelite religion from did not grasp the Rationalistic tendencies the simple to the complex and from poly- of some of the preachers he was hearing.8 theism to monotheism, and third, the Toy may have utilized a two-sphere contains many texts that were added hermeneutic at this time, one that divided after the stated authors lived. At the same spiritual and historical matters. For time, Toy was also learning about new example, in defending the conservative theories of human origins by reading Old Testament theologian Hengstenberg Darwin’s Origin of Species, which had against his critics, Toy writes that Heng- appeared in 1859. stenberg preached the “more spiritual Toy returned from Germany in 1868, doctrines of the Scripture” and that his and was employed by Furman University. messages were rejected by the unregen- By the fall of 1869, however, he had agreed erate.9 In discussing Sabbath observance, to teach at Southern Seminary, much to he writes that the Sabbath fits “the spirit the delight of the founding faculty mem- of the Bible,” a phrase he does not bers, who considered him the first fruits explain.10 Toy’s theology is orthodox at of their desire both to educate pastors and this point, to be sure, yet he may already to cultivate first-rate scholars. Toy served display elements of the hermeneutical im- on the seminary faculty in Greenville, precision that became so telling later in South Carolina, from 1869-1877, then in his career. Louisville, Kentucky, during 1877-1879. While in the University of Berlin, Toy was taught by some of the finest scholars Toy’s “Two-Sphere” View in Germany’s best-known university. He Toy’s first duty at the seminary was to studied Sanscrit, Arabic, and Theology. By present his inaugural address on Septem- the late 1860’s the views of Kant, DeWette, ber 1, 1869. Entitled “The Claims of Bibli- Vatke, Graf, and Kuenen were pervasive cal Interpretation on ,”11 this in Berlin, as were the philosophical opin- paper demonstrates Toy’s breadth of ions of Hegel, a faculty member at the knowledge on historical, theological, and university. There is no question that Toy exegetical matters. It is crucial to exam- became thoroughly acquainted with ine this address carefully to assess what Kant’s separation of reason and faith, with most historians have considered Toy’s Vatke’s fundamental principles of source stunning departure from conservative criticism, with Hegel’s notion that history orthodoxy by 1879. consists of an ongoing thesis-antithesis- In his preliminary statements, Toy synthesis collision that leads to progress rightly claims that each interpreter ought from the simple to the complex, and with to pay attention to hermeneutical method, DeWette’s idea that biblical truth is not “for method you must have, whether necessarily tied to full historical accuracy. you will or not—right or wrong, safe or Toy thereby encountered interpretation unsafe, or, as is commonest, of mixed char- based on three hermeneutical principles. acter, partly right and partly wrong.”12 He First, the Bible’s inspiration and its his- asserts that Baptists must pay particular torical accuracy are not necessarily linked. attention to their methodology, since they Second, the Pentateuch must have fol- have no creed to determine their interpre- lowed the Prophets because of the neces- tations.13 Noting that the Bible is inspired, 30 Toy states that interpreters must adhere tion from the early church to the nine- to “the spirit of the Inspired Word,” for teenth century. His only praise of allego- “(i)f we miss its spirit, its separate decla- rizing is interesting. He lauds the rations will not be intelligible.”14 Toy con- “Christlike feeling” some allegorists dis- cludes his introductory comments by play, though he cannot approve of their explaining that only a person brought in methodology. He criticizes allegorists and sympathy with the word of God by “a rationalists alike for their pre-determina- supernatural change wrought in him by tion of what texts mean.19 Toy highly the Spirit of God” is able to grasp this respects early linguists, on the other hand, spirit of the text.15 since their studies illuminate historical These introductory comments made, research.20 He disagrees with Augustine’s Toy argues that there are two basic parts interpretative methodology, yet appreci- of hermeneutics: “an internal and an ates his “profound insight into the spirit external.”16 Later he explains these two of the Word,”21 and exhorts his hearers terms by stating, “Hermeneutics is depen- to “join Augustine in this spiritual- dent upon Philology and Psychology....”17 mindedness....”22 Toy concludes his sur- Toy defines these two principles when he vey of the past with a strong comment that writes that “(a)s the Bible is a record of inspired writers wrote in understandable fact, thought, and feeling, written by men language, which means that interpretation for men, it is necessary to learn the gram- must focus on the clear linguistic mean- matical and logical significance of its sen- ing of those words.23 He thinks that tences, and for this we must have learning spiritual truths can come of faulty inter- and thought. And as it is a revelation by pretations, but he does not condone those the Spirit of God given through men filled interpretations. with divinely engendered love for God, it Toy begins his program for accurate is necessary to have the inspiration and hermeneutics by repeating his conviction guidance of the Holy Spirit.”18 about the distinction between internal and Toy stresses the need for both the external processes. This time, however, he internal and external principles, but it is sets forth these principles as they relate clear that he divides the two, assigning to the Bible itself in the following telling each separate tasks, yet without stating statement: “The gems of truth are indeed how they are to be integrated or what the divine, but the casket in which they are interpreter should do if the data seems not given us is of human workmanship, and to cohere. Toy seems to think that the its key made and applied by human skill. external principle may inform and shape To this human side of interpretation we the internal principle, but that the oppo- may hold fast without weakening our site is not true. His definition of inspira- grasp on the spirituality, which is its tion as “men filled with a divinely divine side.”24 His division between spiri- engendered love for God” is inadequate, tual truth and historical truth could hardly since it offers no statement on either his- be clearer. Next, Toy states that interpre- torical or doctrinal accuracy. tation must move from translation, to Having divided the hermeneutical task examination of context, to comparison of into two parts, Toy gives a thorough and the passage with the whole of scripture, insightful critique of biblical interpreta- to a consultation of Christian conscious- 31 ness.25 The first three steps relate to his textbook, warns against staking the Bible’s external/historical/linguistic principle, truthfulness on the findings of science, and the fourth step is tied to his internal/ and that “at the point at which the Bible psychological principle. touches secular science, we have abso- With his method in place, Toy criticizes lutely nothing to do but sit still and wait those who use what they consider their for the interpretation of that science.”29 If “Christian consciousness” to dispute the scientific or other findings seem to create a Bible’s spiritual teachings. In this group contradiction between faith and reason, he includes Schleiermacher, Neander, and then Christians must remember that “the even Luther for his questioning of the harmony of Reason and Faith is impos- spiritual value of the book of James.26 Toy’s sible, except in the regenerated heart, as the next paragraph contains the address’ most- immediate work of the Holy Spirit....”30 quoted sentences. In the context of criticiz- It is important to grasp what Toy has ing those who reject the Bible’s spiritual and has not said in his comments on the statements, Toy writes that Bible, science, faith, and reason. He argues that the spiritual truths of scripture are not The method indicated above takes eliminated by scientific discovery. He for granted a theory of inspiration, namely, that under the absolutely claims that science can illuminate the perfect guiding influence of the Holy words of the Bible. What he does not say Spirit, the writers of the Bible have is whether the Bible is superior to science preserved each his personality of character and intellect and sur- when a discrepancy appears. Toy attempts roundings. Here we do no more than to avoid the conflict between reason and refer to the fact the theory of inspi- faith by moving the conflict to the spiri- ration affects the system of interpre- tation, and that a fundamental tual realm, where the Holy Spirit will pre- principle of our Hermeneutics must sumably smooth the differences. Like be that the Bible, its real assertions Immanuel Kant, Toy considers historical being known, is in every iota of its substance absolutely and infalli- details facts, but reserves spiritual matters 27 bly true. for the realm of psychology, or emotion and will. Science can be verified, so it can What “real assertions” does he mean? inform faith, but faith, albeit of great im- The context, though a bit ambiguous, portance, is subjective, internal, and per- indicates that he means the Bible’s true sonal, so it cannot be used to correct spiritual, not historical, statements. Later scientific theories. Without arguing that events bear out this reading of this pas- the Bible is a science textbook, one can sage. easily see that Toy’s external principle Toy advises caution when he addresses takes precedence over his internal one, the relationship of science and the Bible. and that his faith will eventually be He notes that some scientists of his day molded by his historical viewpoints, how- concluded that Darwin’s hypothesis, ever proven or unproven they may be. He recent geological discoveries, and long- has no other governing hermeneutical established astronomical facts mean that presupposition. “the divinity of the Bible must be given Toy concludes his address with a call 28 up.” Toy stresses that science has often for Baptists to remain steadfast in their illuminated the Bible, and will do so again. historical aversion to creeds. He notes that He states that the Bible is not a science 32 Baptists may be despised for their adher- After much hermeneutical wrestling, he ence to the scriptures alone, and writes, took solace in the two-sphere approach “When thus assailed, let us take refuge in to truth he describes in his inaugural the principle that the Bible alone is our address. Noting that the main point of guide, and that no interpretation may Genesis 1-2 is that God made the world, denude it of the doctrines and commands Toy states, “I asked myself why God, in on which we base our faith and prac- sending a message of religious truth tice.”31 This exhortation became a per- should not permit his servant to convey sonal slogan for Toy in days to come. What the truth in the forms proper to the times, he does not seem to realize even at this and why I should not take the kernel of point is that more than scripture has truth from its outer covering of myth.” shaped his hermeneutical theory already. This phraseology is obviously in keeping This lack of awareness about this matter with his earlier gem and casket imagery. plagued him the rest of his life. Seeing things this way, Toy says, “…I By 1876 the faith/fact dichotomy found myself at peace, and in a position became crucial for Toy. Class notes from absolutely beyond the reach of science. I that year indicate that he now believed could now throw myself heartily into the that Genesis claims the world was made scientific pursuit, knowing that the truth in six literal days, and that Genesis is sim- of God had nothing to fear from it.”35 ply wrong.32 This factual error did not Toy’s split between the realm of the spirit negate the Bible’s religious and theologi- and the realm of history was complete. cal value for Toy, though, since he did not It is evident that Toy had now decided think the Bible was written to make sci- what to do when a new scientific theory entific claims. The main point was that seems to contradict scripture. As his God made the world.33 He felt the same methodology demanded, he made the way when stating that Moses did not spiritual principle secondary to the his- write the Pentateuch, that eighth-century torical principle when determining what Isaiah did not write all of Isaiah, or that is true. Toy clearly considered the Spirit’s many of the messianic texts cited in the inspiration of authors to include guidance New Testament were not originally on moral matters but not necessarily on intended as such by the Old Testament historical details. He believed that science authors. Toy argued that historical inac- could not disprove the Bible because the curacies must not cause readers to miss a Bible and science do not address identi- book’s theological importance. To Toy, the cal matters directly. He thought that the texts still retained valuable moral and Bible’s “real assertions” did not extend to ethical principles.34 the description of events, either mundane Toy described the thinking behind his or miraculous. methodology at this time in an autobio- graphical letter to The Religious Herald Toy’s Resignation dated March 1880, several months after After a time of heated controversy,36 in his resignation. Here Toy states that “five 1879 Toy wrote a letter of resignation to or six years ago” he came to the conclu- the seminary trustees in which he offered sion that the Bible does indeed teach that a defense of his teaching.37 It is unclear the world was made in six literal days. whether he thought the resignation would 33 be accepted, but the trustees did indeed curacies, but if they show them- selves I refer them to the human con- vote to release Toy from the faculty. Toy ditions of the writers, believing that states that he never ceased to accept the his merely intellectual status, the statement of the Abstract of Principles that mere amount of information pos- sessed by him, does not affect his “(t)he Scriptures of the Old and New Tes- spiritual truth. If our heavenly tament were given by inspiration of God, Father sends a message by the stam- and are the only sufficient, certain and mering tongue of a man, I will not reject the message because of the authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, stammering.44 faith and obedience.”38 At the same time, he admitted that in the “details of the sub- Third, when faced with a choice ject” he differed from his colleagues and between historical accuracy and religious the majority of the Southern Baptist Con- spirit, Toy tries to choose both, even when vention.39 He notes that he accepted an the text’s spiritual claims may depend in evolutionary view of Israelite history that part on their historical accuracy. For means Moses did not write the Penta- example, though he considers the New teuch, in whole or in part, that he did not Testament errant as well, Toy confesses, consider minor errors and discrepancies “The centre of the New Testament is Christ a problem for devout believers, and that himself, salvation in him, and a historical he did not think it important that biblical error cannot affect the fact of his existence claims of authorship are not always spe- and his teaching.”45 Clearly, Toy wants to cifically true.40 Near the end of his state- retain Jesus’ religious and moral value ment, he asserted, “I beg leave to repeat despite the Gospels’ historical fallibility. that I am guided wholly by what seems The danger of Toy’s retreat to a history/ to me the correct interpretation of the faith dichotomy is illustrated by the fact scriptures themselves. If an error in my that by 1890 Toy believed that the New interpretation is pointed out, I shall Testament historical statements must be straightway give it up. I cannot accept a read to mean that Jesus is not divine. In priori reasoning, but I stake everything on other words, he came to believe that the words of the Bible, and this course I historical errors did alter what he had believe to be for the furtherance of the previously thought was the center of truth of God.”41 Christianity. In his resignation letter, Toy’s method- The difference between the 1869 and ology sounds quite familiar. First, he 1879 statements lies not in Toy’s method, claims that the Bible alone is his basis for but in his conclusions. All that had to hap- belief on inspiration and authority.42 pen for Toy’s conclusions to change was Second, Toy makes a clear distinction for what he considered compelling histori- between historical and theological truth.43 cal data to emerge. Sadly, many of the his- He argues that torical theories he accepted, such as those informed by Vatke, are questioned rou- ...when discrepancies and inaccura- tinely today by scholars of diverse theo- cies occur in the historical narrative, this does not even invalidate the logical commitments. It is tragic that not documents as historical records, until 1879 did Broadus come to under- much less does it affect them as stand Toy’s greatest danger. Broadus expressions of religious truth. I am slow to admit discrepancies or inac- writes that when Toy resigned, “(h)e 34 thought strange of the prediction made in congratulates Broadus on the publication conversation that within twenty years he of his Boyce biography. He then writes, would utterly discard all belief in the “You are quite right in describing my supernatural as an element of scripture,— withdrawal as a necessary result of a prediction founded upon knowledge of important differences of opinion. Such his logical consistency and boldness, and separations are sometimes inevitable, but already in a much shorter time fulfilled, they need not interfere with general to judge from his latest works.”46 Continu- friendly cooperation.”49 Both men ing his observations on the importance of believed that Toy’s views could not allow hermeneutics, Broadus asserts, “Some of him to remain at the seminary, yet neither us are persuaded that if any man adopts man rejected the other’s friendship the evolutionary reconstruction of Old because of the separation, nor did either Testament history and literature, and does man change his mind about the events. not reach a like attitude as regards the supernatural, it is simply because he is The Impact of Toy’s Views prevented, by temperament or environ- Was Toy lying about not changing his ment, from carrying things to their logi- views? No. It is not clear that he ever cal results.”47 defined inspiration exactly like Boyce and At the very least, those who adopt Toy’s Broadus. Their definition is much more two-sphere methodology must determine presuppositionally committed to the what safeguard against Toy’s eventual truthfulness of scripture, though it is no conclusions must be included in their less thoroughly conceived. Toy’s state- interpretative system. ments in the 1869 address probably led the Toy offered his resignation so that the founders to assume his view of inspira- seminary trustees would not suffer tion was the same as theirs, a conclusion embarrassment. But he could not spare his still drawn by most historians. colleagues, or himself, great pain. Broadus Was Toy correct that he clung only to reports that when Boyce and Broadus “the words of the Bible”? Absolutely not. parted with Toy at the train station Boyce He held strongly to a presupposed divi- held out his right arm and said, “‘Oh, Toy sion between historical and theological I would freely give that arm to be cut off reality. His statements about Mosaic and if you could be where you were five years Isaianic authorship are particularly influ- ago, and stay there.’”48 Again, sadly, it is enced by the historical philosophy that not evident that Boyce grasped where Toy reigned at the University of Berlin, and was five years before, or that Toy himself that came to dominate the European and could see the potential results of his meth- American scene after the force of odology at that time. His mentors Wellhausen’s Prolegomena to the History of mourned the turn of events, though Toy’s Israel (1878) was felt. Further, he was as departure did not end his friendship with dependent on nineteenth-century scien- either man. tific methodology as on the era’s histori- It is important to note that Toy himself cal methodology. He considered the most agreed with Broadus’ account of the recent scientific findings conclusive, a events surrounding the resignation. In a move Boyce, Broadus, and Manly refused letter to Broadus dated May 20, 1893, Toy to make. 35 Did Toy’s conclusions about the bibli- years Toy would hold no orthodox theo- cal data change? Of course. Broadus’s logical positions. Broadus now under- memoir of Boyce says as much, as does stood the problem, and he was correct. Toy’s resignation letter. The fact remains, Toy was hired by Harvard University in however, that he was vulnerable to such 1880, and virtually created that insti- changes at any time. How were the tution’s department of Semitic languages. changes in conclusions reached? By an He continued there until his retirement in application of new data that Toy deemed 1909. During the 1880s Toy dropped his authoritative to the elements of his Baptist affiliation and began to write for method of interpretation. He considered and attend the Unitarian Church.50 From the spirit’s guidance to apply necessarily this decade forward his views began to only to spiritual matters. Such details reflect an increasingly radical division could be divorced from their stated his- between faith and history. torical context. He did not think the text’s Though other texts could be cited,51 his true assertions necessarily extended to 1890 volume Judaism and Christianity best matters of authorship, date, historical features Toy’s evolutionary views of his- veracity, or comments that could be ascer- tory, source-critical convictions, and iden- tained to disagree with scientific claims. tification of inspiration with religious He believed Hegelian theories of histori- feeling and high moral thought. Apply- cal progress to be true, which in turn led ing these methods to the life of Christ led him to reconfigure the historical order Toy to conclude, found in the text itself. He thought Dar- winian theories of human origins to be With such evidence that lies before us, it seems reasonable to conclude factual, so he disagreed with what he that Jesus laid no claim, in thought considered to be Genesis’ claim for a six- or in word, to other than human day creation process. nature and power. He was conscious of profound sympathy with the In other words, Toy did not grasp the divine mind; the formality and folly significant hold his own presuppositions of the prevailing religion pressed on had on him. Nor did he see in 1869 that his soul as a heavy burden that he felt called upon to bear; he believed his understanding both of inspiration himself to be a prophet sent by God and historical theory were liable to take with a message of salvation to men, whom he embraced in his deep and him far from his colleagues’ beliefs on yearning love; yea, in the intensity these matters. If he had, I think he would of his conscious union with the have resigned earlier, for I do not ques- divine Father he knew himself to be the Son of God. But beyond this he tion Toy’s integrity. Likewise, I do not did not go. It would indeed be a think his colleagues grasped his herme- noteworthy thing that a Jew of that neutical frailty. It was easy for them to period...have equaled himself with God. For so remarkable a departure assume that he was one with them on the from the national thought we natu- doctrines they held dear. rally demand clear evidence, and As has been stated, at the time of his such evidence we do not find in the existing records of the life of Jesus.52 resignation Broadus told Toy that he feared his young friend’s beliefs would At least, it must be said, Toy finds no lead him to reject all miraculous elements evidence that he accepts as being from the of the scriptures, and that within twenty time of Christ, since he dates all contrary 36 evidence to later church editing. It is ironic they were ahead of their time, but in these that he now uses his “scripture only” prin- areas they were painfully men of their day. ciple to correct scripture. Toy concludes Second, there can be no question about that Jesus believed that salvation was a the breadth of Toy’s scholarship. He was reward for obedience to the Law,53 that the truly a great linguist. His commentary on early church explained the disappearance Proverbs remains useful. Toy’s study hab- of the messiah from the earth by creating its and personal integrity are commend- the resurrection stories,54 that the early able. He was right to reject the notion that church deified Jesus,55 and that Paul added ministerial education should be allowed the doctrine of justification by faith.56 As to be inferior to other vocations. before, Toy places what he considers his- Third, the Toy controversy highlights torical truth above what he deems spiri- the importance of the original wording tual truth, this time with devastating and intent of the Abstract of Principles for consequences. His methodology led Toy the long-term health of The Southern where Broadus feared it would, to non- Baptist Theological Seminary. Toy’s res- Trinitarian, anti-miraculous heresy, for Toy ignation letter certainly illustrates his pursued his hermeneutical beliefs strictly. respect for both. Toy contributed many other scholarly Fourth, Boyce and Broadus’ reaction to articles and books during the remainder Toy’s leaving the faculty illustrates the fact of his career. Perhaps the best known and that one should never rejoice in the de- most useful of these is his 1899 volume A parture of an individual from the semi- Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the nary family due to theological reasons. We Book of Proverbs, which was part of the should, instead, feel as Boyce did, that we International Critical Commentary would rather lose an arm than the fellow- series.57 This commentary demonstrates ship of a brother or sister in Christ. Chris- Toy’s mastery of ancient languages, and tian friendship and collegiality are exhibits his convictions about Israelite precious, and are not to be lost joyfully. monotheism. His retirement marked the Fifth, and most importantly, we must end of a great era in Harvard’s department all recognize the weight of our own of Semitics. He died in Cambridge, Mas- hermeneutics. Carl F. H. Henry has rightly sachusetts, in 1919. recognized the vital place carefully-con- structed theological presuppositions have Conclusion in a theologian’s ministry. He correctly It is neither easy nor safe, nor perhaps claims, as did Toy, that every interpreter even fair, to draw applications for today has an interpretative methodology.58 But from a life lived in another time under is that methodology fully developed? Is different circumstances, but comparisons it in keeping with scripture? Does it take are inevitable. With some trepidation, and its worldview from the text more than with respect for Toy himself, I offer the from secular culture? Does it engage the following observations. First, I wish that world, thus avoiding obscurantism? Is it Toy, as well as the founding faculty mem- consistent? Will it bear the force of new bers, had stood for the Constitution of the evidence? Not everyone who holds Toy’s , against sectionalism, and interpretative methodology comes to his against slavery in their day. In many ways conclusions, though they must make a 37 decision of where to stop short of his theo- flesh, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. logical beliefs. Each person’s hermeneu- tics must bear sufficient weight. ENDNOTES Inter-preters must develop an integrative 1Note the moving account of the Toy con- methodology. It is necessary to determine troversy from Broadus’ perspective in how faith, reason, history, philosophy, and John A. Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru theology interact with and are interrelated Boyce (New York: Armstrong and Son, to one another. Undue separation of these 1893) 259-264. elements, to say nothing of elevating new 2C. A. Briggs, General Introduction to the approaches to history, science, or litera- Study of Holy Scripture (New York: ture to the head of them, will lead to a Scribners, 1899) 286. schizophrenic methodology that forces 3Billy Grey Hurt, Crawford Howell Toy: interpreters into virtual hermeneutical Interpreter of the Old Testament (PhD Dis- nihilism. sertation: The Southern Baptist Theologi- Sixth, we must all hold our convictions cal Seminary, 1965). Hurt’s dissertation clearly and gladly. We live in a relativistic remains the most comprehensive age, in which any belief but the belief that account of Toy’s life, and is indispens- beliefs must be convictions is acceptable. able for reconstructing the events of Toy, Boyce, and Broadus certainly agreed Toy’s life. on at least one thing: none would relin- 4L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles, Baptists quish the integrity of his theological con- and the Bible: The Baptist Doctrines of Bib- victions, even if such integrity cost him lical Inspiration and Religious Authority in his job or treasured companionship. Historical Perspective (Chicago: Moody In conclusion, if this seminary wants Press, 1980) 227-241. to honor its heritage, it must always be a 5Roy Lee Honeycutt, “Heritage Creating place where each person takes care to Hope: The Pilgrimage of The Southern secure his or her system of interpretation Baptist Theological Seminary,” Review on sound, evangelical principles. It must and Expositor 81/4 (Fall 1984) 379. be a place where biblical affirmations 6Hurt, 31. undergird teaching, preaching, and writ- 7Ibid., 34-36. ing. It must be a place where persons with 8The Religious Herald, November 8, 1866. irreconcilable theological differences part 9The Religious Herald, September 20, 1866. in kindness, not bitterness. It must be a 10The Religious Herald, August 30, 1866. place that offers answers to anyone hon- 11Crawford Howell Toy, The Claims of estly considering Toy’s hermeneutical Biblical Interpretation on Baptists: Being the positions and Toy’s ultimate conclusions. Inaugural Address of Rev. C. H. Toy, on His It must be a place that challenges imper- Induction into the Professorship of Old fect personal and social ethics. In short, it Testament Interpretation at The Southern must be a place that produces ministers Baptist Theological Seminary, at Greenville, whose lives can bear the terrible, severe, S.C., September 1st, 1869 (New York: yet glorious weight of the gospel minis- Lange and Hillman, 1869). try, not just for a few years, but until each 12Ibid., 4. one sees the Christ who claimed to be, and 13Ibid., 5. was, the eternal word of God, God in the 14Ibid., 6. 38 15Ibid., 8. Broadman, 1966) 168-172. The original 16Ibid. letter is in the archives of the Boyce 17Ibid., 33. Library of The Southern Baptist Theo- 18Ibid., 9. logical Seminary. 19Ibid., 24. 38Ibid., 168. 20Ibid., 26-29. 39Ibid. 21Ibid., 30. 40Ibid., 168-171. 22Ibid., 31. 41Ibid., 171. 23Ibid., 32-33. 42Ibid., 169. 24Ibid., 42. 43Ibid., 169-170. 25Ibid., 43. 44Ibid., 170. 26Ibid. 45Ibid., 170-171. 27Ibid., 44. 46Broadus, 262-263. 28Ibid., 49. 47Ibid., 263. 29Ibid., 50. 48Ibid., 264. 30Ibid., 50-51. 49Personal letter from Toy to Broadus, May 31Ibid., 54. 20, 1893. 32Cf. Bush and Nettles, 229. 50Cf. the discussion of these events in Hurt, 33Ibid., 230. 72-74. 34Ibid., 230-231. Bush and Nettles consider 51For example his The History of The Reli- Toy’s 1876 views very different from his gion of Israel: An Old Testament Primer 1869 convictions. They write, “At the (Boston: Unitarian Sunday-School Soci- beginning of Toy’s tenure at Southern, ety, 1882). This work incorporates an he gave no indication that he would evolutionary view of Israelite history. eventually pursue this critical method of 52Crawford Howell Toy, Judaism and Chris- interpretation. Had it been known, he tianity: A Sketch of the Progress of Thought never would have been elected to the from Old Testament to New Testament (Bos- faculty. Toy was not dishonest, however. ton: Little, Brown, and Co., 1890) 423. His original views were openly and hon- 53Ibid., 425. estly conservative in every way” (Ibid., 54Ibid., 428. 231). As I have already argued, Bush and 55Ibid., 429. Nettles do not take Toy’s methodology 56Ibid., 430-31. fully into account. They stress his con- 57Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and servative statements without weighing Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Prov- fully their context. Toy comes to tenta- erbs, International Critical Commentary tive conservative conclusions, but does (New York: Scribners, 1899). not have an interpretative methodology 58Note in particular Carl F. H. Henry, God, to sustain those conclusions. Revelation and Authority: Volumes 1-2 35The Religious Herald, April 1, 1880. (Waco, TX: Word, 1976), and Henry, 36For a thorough treatment of the contro- Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief versy, consult Hurt, 105-224. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990) 35-60. 37This letter is included in Robert A. Baker, A Baptist Source Book: With Particular Ref- erence to Southern Baptists (Nashville: 39