Page images
PDF
EPUB

"

prejudiced Theophilus against the Christian religion." But do these words appear to form any thing like a perfect sentence? Do they not rather seem to be intended to excite an expectation of some further declaration of his mind? And when taken in connexion with the following, do they help to excite in us a much better opinion of the contents of those early Gospels? Besides, ought we not to attend carefully to the whole of this short exordium to discover his motive, and to other parts of it rather than the beginning, and particularly to the conclusion? Does not this seem to afford us a more express intimation concerning his motive, than the words adduced by the professor? We find that our Evangelist then told his honourable friend, that he had determined to do it ίνα ασφαλείας "that he might be assured (not of the uncertainty, but) of the certainty of the reports to which he had been attentive." He seems to speak of reports in general.-He does not clearly appear to have intended to make any distinction between verbal and written.- He does not say, that he had taken up his pen to convince his friend of the fallacy of any written reports, and of the certainty of verbal.-Now, if this be the true meaning of the word yw in this place, what reason have we to doubt of the credibility of those written reports before alluded to? Can it be supposed, that any vivâ voce reports could have been more aceurate than those which had been recorded? Surely we may well suppose, that the more learned among the first Christians, were not less attentive to the nature of the reports which they undertook to propagate, than their less learned brethren; and that they would by no means presume to circulate such reports among their own countrymen in Judæa and Galilee, as their less learned countrymen would not venture to attest in foreign parts. A concern for their own credit, as well as for the credit of the sect of which they had become members, may well be supposed to have restrained them from committing to writing, even dubious reports, and much more so incredible or idle stories and falsehood to so considerable an amount, that it was "absolutely necessary to correct them." And could it even be supposed, that any among the first Christians, could have been so treacherous to their Lord, as to to circulate such fabulous accounts beyond the limits of Judæa, yet credulity itself will never be induced to believe, that

they

they would have dared to do it for the benefit of the inhabitants of the very country, where the facts which they had recorded were said to have happened. If those numerous first Gospel writers endeavoured to state facts"even as they delivered them, who," &c. as Luke seems to have said they did, their misrepresentations could have been only owing to their misapprehension; which any person, who lived in a country, which resounded with innumerable reports concerning the same astonishing series of events, which had so recently taken place, would surely have been very ready to excuse. However, could it be made to appear, that not one of their productions could be "relied on with 'safety," would it not be a sad reflection on the more learned among the first publishers of christianity?

Should we, however, admit that the introductory part of the preface which the professor has adduced, as containing a satisfactory account of St. Luke's motive for writing may be considered as implying something of the sort, what ought we to understand by it? Immediately after he has quoted it, we perceive, instead of attending to its purport, he has taken upon him to assert, that our Evangelist must certainly have had objections to make to the accounts of these many; and, that we must conclude that Luke's intention was to correct the inaccuracies of those accounts, and to silence several idle stories contained in them. But how does all this ap pear by the words which he has thought proper to adduce? Does the Evangelist at all appear to have intimated by them, that he had such objections to make to any of their accounts, as the professor has presumed to tell us he must have had to most of them at least, if not to all? Or even any objections whatever? Does the word avaragaoba appear to convey any thing like the imputation of careless composition? Or the word πεπληροφορημένων like that of idle stories having formed any part of their compositions? Does not the Evangelist seem rather to speak of it as a thing well known to his friend, that they had one and all endeavoured to give an orderly exhibition of things, and of such things as were most assuredly believed by Luke himself, and by the rest of his companions in the faith? And does he not immediately after seem to say, that they had endeavoured to report them, " even as they had received

them;

them?" And does he not furthermore appear to intimate, that those many, who had anticipated his own performance had, as wellas himself, derived their information from the eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Logos? What else ought we to understand by those several expressions επιχειρησαν ανατάξασθαι,πεπληροφορημένων εν ημιν, and καθως παρέδοσαν μην οι, &c. He surely may be thought to have given all of them credit for at least a sincere intention to collect genuine information; to arrange such information as they could procure in historical order; and to state every particular as nearly as they could according to their apprehension of each.

By extending his enquiries concerning this point a little beyond the limits which he has prescribed to himself, he might have perceived that there is at least some reason to think that the Evangelist has asserted, that the eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Logos, had delivered those very facts which were most assuredly believed by Christians in general, to the many in common with himself; and by attending closely to the purport of the very words to which he has himself appealed, and taking them in conjunction with others, apparently not intended to be separated from them, he might have descried something like an intimation, that those many had endeavoured to record the same facts in due order, and as they had received them from those eye-witnesses and attendants. But with the most minute attention to every, part of this preface, he would not have perceived any thing like an expostulation with Theophilus on the subject of his apostacy, nor the least animadversion on the supposed cause of it. In short, had the professor paid due attention to the whole of this short preface, or even to the very part which he has thought proper to adduce, he would have found, that there is no great occasion to have recourse to conjecture on this point, and very litle reason for that which he has made.

But without having recourse to the supposition, that those early documents were very erroneous, he tells us, 'tis impossible to account for Luke's motive in writing. "To the accounts of those many (says he) St. Luke must certainly have had some objections to make, for no man would argue thus: since several persons have delivered accounts of Christ, on which perfect reliance may be placed, I have likewise thought proper to write

the

the history of Christ, &c." Let us, however, not be discouraged by what he here says from endeavouring to satisfy ourselves, whether St. Luke may not have had a very sufficient reason for writing, even though those early Gospels may have been quite different from what he has represented them.

The title of sect. 6. chap. 7. of his third vol. is this. "St. John had read the three first Gospels before he wrote his own." In the course of that section he frequently asserts, not only that St. John was well acquainted with the contents of those first three, but that the Evangelist presupposed the same of his reader. To prove this point he has produced a variety of instances, wherein he thinks St. John would be unintelligible, and one wherein he would be even enigmatical, though remarkable for perspicuity, unless to a reader previously acquainted with the contents of those other three. In all these instances then, it seems, those others may be relied on with "perfect safety." Why then, it may be asked, did St. John write? Not surely, (as the professor observes at page 304), to give us merely a spiritual account; for his account contains a variety of the most interesting facts unnoticed by any of the other three, for whose omission of some of them, though a very sufficient reason may be assigned, yet it is not easy to assign an equally good reason for their omission of most of the rest. Was it then because "perfect reliance" could not be placed on those three Gospels in certain other cases? He has indeed told us in the preamble of the third paragraph of the next section, that "St. John appears to have corrected, though in a very delicate manner, the accounts given by his predecessors." But how many of those erroneous accounts has he adverted to in that paragraph, as having been so corrected by St. John? Two only, viz. one of a most remarkable nature, which occurs in St. Matthew's Gospel, and no where else; (but whether it proceeded from St. Matthew himself, or was a very early addition, he would not determine), and which he says, "appears by the different relation of St. John, to have been (not delicately corrected, but) delicately set aside:" and another which is given by those two Evangelists, who were not eyewitnesses, and which he thinks St. John has tacitly corrected as being not "perfectly exact;" or in other words, has expressed in a more delicate manner.

It does not appear then, that St. John wrote because perfect reliance could not be placed on the Gospels of his predecessors. He seems to have had some other reason of a very different nature, which perhaps he has suggested to us towards the end of his Gospel. In the end of the last chapter but one, we find, he expressly tells us, that "Jesus truly did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which he had omitted to record," xx chap. 30 v. And in the end of his last chapter, he has made use of an expression to the same purport, which, though it may have been considered by the professor as an extravagant hyperbole, cannot but be allowed to have been a sufficient apology for other Gospels beside those we now have. What St. John has advanced in those two places we may find exemplified, by comparing the contents of his Gospel with those of the other three Evangelists, and by attending to the contents of each. St. Luke, we perceive, has not only furnished us with an abundant supply of interesting information, not communicated by St. Matthew, notwithstanding it relates to facts which happened in the course of our Lord's ministry; but he has also given us an ample detail of those several astonishing circumstances, which attended both the birth of our Lord, and also that of his messenger John the Baptist. St. Mark's Gospel. differs in many respects from that of St. Luke. And St. John's, we find, contains a great variety of matter, not recorded by either of the other three. And this Evangelist, by his own account, has left so many things unnoticed, that volumes might have been written afterwards on the same subject. In short, every one of those four Gospels now used, contains a variety of matter relative to the same astonishing series of events, not noticed in all or any of the rest; the materials of each sometimes seem to be differently arranged; and sometimes the identity of a fact seems to be rendered questionable, by the different manner in which different Evangelists have recorded it. And therefore had those many been ever so numerous, and had they finished their narratives in a proper manner, and related the facts with which they had been brought acquainted, ever so faithfully; yet St. Luke may have had a very sufficient reason to write after them, (especially if they had been as little acquainted with the transactions of our Lord's Vol. XI. Churchm. Mag. for Nov. 1806. Xx ministry

« PreviousContinue »