Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

pretended to have recorded things of which they had been eye-witnesses. This pretension Luke verbally sets aside as a falsehood, by saying that the transactions of Jesus had been accomplished not among them, but among us, meaning, by us, the people of Judea, in the midst of whom our Lord fulfilled his ministry, and of whom Luke makes himself one. Thus AUTOTTAι, eye-witnesses, marks the apostles, who in their discourses gave a faithful narrative of Jesus to their countrymen, when preaching the gospel, in opposition to the pseudo-evangelists who pretended to have been eye-witnesses of him in Egypt.

When Luke asserts that the things which he relates respecting Christ were accomplished in the midst of us, he intimates, and that not obscurely, that he himself was one of those who had witnessed them; and this he positively asserts in the clause that follows: "It seemed good to me also to write, as having from the very first scrupulously investigated every particular." For the verb maрaкоλ means, to attend at the side, closely to follow, so as to inspect and examine what is carried on; and it implies that he was in the number of those who accompanied their Divine Master during the performance of the things related of him. It is observable, that it is not the present or future participle that is here used, as if the author meant that he was about, when going to write, to follow the train of events which had been delivered to him by eye-witnesses; but the past participle, thus intimating that he had already accompanied the particulars which he was going to record; and his reason for the determination was the circumstance that he had so accompanied them during their accomplishment.

Thus Luke sets forth his competence as an historian with unexampled force and precision. He had from the very first attended the facts and sayings which he records, and investigated their nature and truth with scrupulous accuracy. He had heard the same facts related to the Jewish people by other persons, who, as well as himself, had been eye-witnesses, and officially chosen to attend the ministry of Jesus; so that he corroborates his own testimony by a virtual appeal to the testimony of the apostles and the

[ocr errors]

whole body of the Jewish believers. And if we make the appeal to his Gospel, we there meet with many proofs that he wrote not what had been related to him by others, but what he had himself seen and heard from the lips of Christ. The assertion, therefore, made by the author of the New Trial of the Witnesses, that Luke is not to be believed, because he was not an eye-witness of what he wrote, falls, like a dead weight, to the ground.

Paul, in preaching the gospel, must have had frequent occasion to refer to the sayings and miracles of Jesus; and it was of high importance to be accompanied in his travels by one who had attended his ministry, and could furnish the necessary information on the best possible authority-his own personal knowledge. This seems to have been the reason which led the Apostle to select Luke as the companion of his labours. Soon after our Lord's resurrection, many erroneous accounts of him appear to have been in circulation; and this rendered it expedient that Luke, as soon as possible, should compose his Gospel, and leave a copy of it, as the best security against imposture and misrepresentations, in every church founded by him and his illustrious Principal. Now, what we might thus expect or infer, is fully verified by the following passage of Paul: "We have sent with him our brother, whose praise, by means of his Gospel, is throughout all the churches." 2 Cor. viii. 18. This brother means Luke, whom, in the next verse, he calls his fellow-traveller: and if in all the churches he was praised on account of his Gospel, he must have left a copy of that Gospel (though yet probably not published to the world at large) with each. This, in return, endeared him to the several Christian societies which he had helped in forming. They regarded the work given them as a treasure of high value, and they unanimously praised the author; thus indirectly bearing their testimony to his accuracy, fidelity and truth, as the historian of Jesus Christ. This is a most important fact; and it is surprising that it should have been overlooked by learned men. We learn from it that the Gospel of Luke was extant- -was deposited in all the churches, within twenty years after

the crucifixion of Jesus. They knew the author personally, and they reposed the utmost confidence in him for his integrity and love of truth. This testimony of the Apostle Paul, which, from the incidental manner in which it is told, lies beyond all reasonable suspicion, dissipates into air the falsehood again and again repeated by unbelievers, that the Gospels were unknown to the world, until, a century or two afterwards, they were selected from a mass of other spurious gospels, and then by the decrees of certain councils were imposed as genuine productions on the public credulity. The learned and veracious author of the New Trial, proceeds on this ground; and he asserts with confidence that the history of Christ was utterly unknown to Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Tacitus, Plutarch, &c. In p. 45, he says, "Read all the Epistles of Paul from beginning to end, and you will not discover the least trace that any document then existed bearing the name of any of the four Evangelists"!! If the Gospel of Luke was known to, and approved by, all the churches, it could not be less known to, and approved by, the Apostle Paul; and we have, in I Cor. xv., a striking passage where the Apostle has copied the Evangelist. I will quote the original passage in Luke, and the extract made by Paul. "And he said unto them, These are the things which I said unto you while yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their minds that they might understand the Scriptures. Thus it is written, and thus the Christ ought to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day; and repentance and dismission of sins must be preached in his name among all nations." Luke xxiv. 44-47. "For I delivered unto you, as the chief thing, what I also received (or, as it might be rendered, I took): how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve." The narrative of Luke implies these particulars: 1. That Christ died. 2. That he was buried. 3. That he rose. 4. That he rose the

third day. 5. That he died and rose, as it is written by Moses, in the Psalms, and in the prophets, that is, according to the Scriptures. 6. That repentance and dismission of sins were to be preached in his name to the nations. These six particulars are said by the Apostle nearly in the same words, and in the same order, and in the same narrow space. Of these important events Paul was not an eyewitness; he, therefore, acknowledges, with that candour which is always characteristic of truth, that he also received or took them from some other. We find them in Luke in exact conformity to Paul's statement; Paul, therefore, must mean that he took them from that Evangelist. It is also to be observed, that the Apostle mentions "according to the Scriptures," twice: and the same words are twice implied in Luke. Moreover, it was not usual with the Apostle to designate his Divine Master simply under the name of "Christ." But he here so designates him, and designates him once. He is designated, and only once designated under the same name, by the Evangelist. Finally, Luke is the only Evangelist who says that Jesus after his resurrection appeared unto Simon, and that, after he appeared unto Simon, he next appeared unto the eleven. This is said, and said in the same order by Paul,-that he showed himself to Cephas, and then to the twelve.

J. JONES.

Critical Synopsis of the Monthly Repository for October, 1824.

TO BAXTER ON ORIGINAL

SIN. Being somewhat fond of what is denominated hard reading, I may be too partial a judge in forming an estimate of this writer's merits. Had he lived in our day, I think he would have made an excellent plodding me taphysical contributor to the Monthly Repository. How few of the modern arguments on these subjects can pretend to any thing like originality! Clerke seems to have anticipated the pith and substance of all that can well be said on the topics of which he treats. His invention of the polyglot adverb quasily redounds highly to his ingenuity. I notice one or

two mistakes of the transcriber. KaTadedikaoμevoi is one word instead of two. 1 Cor. ii. 7, should be 1 Cor. xi. 7.

Mr. Holland's Remarks on Helon's Pilgrimage. The Quarterly Review, or some other orthodox publication, not long since maintained that the Jews expected their Messiah would be God himself. I am glad, therefore, that Mr. Holland has here given greater publicity to Mr. Kenrick's Latin note on the subject. The remarks on sacrifice are happy, and that on Gerizim and Ebal is acute.

Mr. Jevans on Romans viii. 9, is strong in his arguments to prove that the spirit of Christ in this passage does not necessarily imply the virtuous and pious temper of Jesus Christ. But he fails of setting in a luminous point of view the true drift and force of Paul's meaning in introducing a sentence about miraculous gifts in this precise connexion. The gloss extracted from Grotius is consistent with the common understand ing of the passage.

Dr. Evans on the Religious World Displayed, has consigned the Rev. Robert Adam to a pillory.

The Suggestion to Unitarians by IpoonAutos meets my cordial approbation. I have no doubt that the compilation which he recommends, would be circulated with great zeal in America. In selecting the tracts, and in adapting them to the purpose in question, I think as much as possible ought to be omitted, which has not a bearing on the pure Unitarian state of the question. For instance, a small portion of Mr. Belsham's Summary View is Hyper-Unitarianism, and repels many thousands of readers, who could not resist the influence of that admirable tract, if somewhat modified, and rendered conformable to more general views.

The American Edition of Griesbach is printed in a single volume, with no other notes than a few lines at the bottom of the page, giving, in the most general results, the manuscript authority of each important various reading.

Critical Synopsis of the Repository is again unfortunate in its grammar. For instance, "The few trifling errors which Mr. Le Grice has pointed out has affected neither," &c.

M. Chenevière in Defence of his Statement. Why so irritable? The Professor is probably not accustomed to controversy. Or is he too much of a Frenchman to be calm under provocation?

Mr. Bakewell v. Dr. Smith. Few controversies are of so vague a description as some of this. The disputants might write on indefinitely, to the entertainment, but not much to the edification of their readers. It is difficult to come to a fixed point in estimating the morals of a large community. How hard to decide on the precise moral character even of an individual! How much more so on that of a city!

Suppose we were to grant to Dr. Smith his favourite fancy, that the morals of a community decline in proportion to the spread of Unitarianism. Yet how will he account for the circumstance that Calvinism has no internal power to resist the progress of wicked Unitarianism? If, in Geneva, in New England, in the Presbyterian Church of England, and elsewhere, there has been developed for the last century a spontaneous and unconnected, yet mighty tendency towards Unitarianism, and if, at the same time, Unitarianism leads to immorality, pray, what is gained to the cause of Orthodoxy by Dr. Smith's course of argument? There is something rotten, after all, at the core of his religion. He can only consistently boast of it, and rely upon it, when he can shew it to be efficacious against the instrument, as well as the substance of immorality. I would as lief go down to Avernus by one step as by two. Mr. Bakewell is very strong on some topics in the concluding part of this letter.

Reply to Difficulties in the Unitarian Scheme of Atonement. This is a neat and happy answer to the questions of your former correspondent. My own has just embarked on the ocean, and as far as it has any merit, is in a great measure anticipated by the present communication. Unless it be gratifying and useful to observe a coincidence between distant writers on important subjects, I beg, after the example of H. M., that in similar cases my observations may be suppressed.

Unity of the Godhead asserted.

It looks as if the Archdeacon of Bath were ashamed of the appellation of Trinitarian, and felt sore about the consequences pushed home upon him on account of the correspondent doctrine, when he claims for himself and his church the name of Unitarian. I love to trace these little symptoms of the growing honour and importance of our cause.

Correspondence between an Unitarian and a Calvinist. From the artificial and set arrangement of these arguments, I am again led into the surmise, whether one individual be not the author of this carte and tierce of theology.

Let me ask the Calvinist, (on the supposition of his real existence,) whether such a consciousness of the mighty evil of sin as he has pertinaciously pressed upon his opponent throughout the whole of this controversy, would not involve in itself a manifest begging of the question under discussion. As far as I can judge, the Calvinist would only be contented when he could extort from the Unitarian an acknowledgment that sin deserves an infinite punishment. But when such a concession is made, there is little room left for argument. Mr. Munn's Conscientiousness. The whole transaction here recorded is an honour to human nature.

A Southern Unitarian on SundaySchools holds a fair balance between two of your opposing correspondents, and exhibits a spirit worthy of all praise and imitation.

Criticism on Ephes. iv. 26. Acute, and I am inclined to think, decisive. Mr. Frend on the British Critic. Worthy of his cause.

Cantabrigiensis and A Psalmodist must speak for themselves.

REVIEW. Not Paul but Jesus. This is a good little abstract of the argument for Paul; but I dislike the personal allusions with which the article concludes. It is an invidious and suspicious thing to talk of the "impaired mind" of an opponent. For my part, I would rather believe that Mr. Bentham's intellect is still in all its vigour, and rejoice that he is able to make no more out of his attack on the great apostle of the Gentiles. I see no symptoms of decayed powers in the few specimens here presented from the work review

[blocks in formation]

Ought not the reference, p. 614, bottom of 2d col., to be Gal. i. instead of v.?

Art. 2. Ben David's Reply. I wonder if Trinitarians will be willing to acknowledge and praise all that is unquestionably excellent in this work of. Dr. Jones. Supposing, for instance, that new Omnium Gatherum of Divinity, the Quarterly Theological Review, should see fit to notice this book, would the editors give a cheerful testimony to the beautiful arguments extracted from it in this article?

"Or

On the other hand, I must say, that some of these extracts are as wild a farrago of learned trash as one is ever destined to meet with. The remotest analogy of facts, the merest and most accidental resemblance of a name, sets the author's imagination on fire, and leads him through devious tracks where mortal else never trod. Listen one moment for an instance. pheus in Hebrew is precisely Pharaoh, if we cut off its Greek termination, and read from right to left"! Hav ing strained so much to make out this case of identity, the author after all spoils the whole by confounding the wife of Orpheus, not with the wife of Pharaoh, which, to have been consistent, he ought to have done, but with Sarah, the wife of Abraham.

Obituary. Rev. Thomas Owen.— "His views were liberal and enlightened, being a believer in philosophical necessity, and a materialist." I trust his views might have been liberal and enlightened, on other conditions than this.

Intelligence. Southern Unitarian Fund, &c. Some movements have recently been made towards a general organization of the Unitarian cause in this country.

SIR,

A

Manchester, Sept. 17, 1825. WRITER in your Number for August, (page 476,) who subscribes himself Spectator, without an attempt to offer a single argument on the subject of Ordination Services, or to examine any of those which have been offered, kindly undertakes for your readers the task of judging of the merits of the question. In the absence of all argument, would it not have been as well to suffer them to judge for themselves? The sentence by him pronounced is delivered in nearly the following words :

"The objections against the continuance [revival] of this service appear strikingly feeble by the side of those advantages which have been triumphantly urged in its favour."

Your readers will remember the opinion of Mr. Rutt (p. 348) concerning the merits of the question, and how strikingly modest it appears by the side of this arrogant decision. His words are, "The question appears to me to be set at rest, as far as I have any judgment of it." The opinion here expressed, evidently refers to the merits of the question as discussed in the Repository-to the arguments of the writers; but our sagacious Spectator applies it to the state of opinion on the subject, and, accordingly, musters a few facts-curious enough in some respects—which, he says, have better "set the question at rest," than the ipse dixit of

Mr. Rutt.

I entertain, Sir, that favourable opinion of the understanding of most of your readers, that I am confident they will not think a question of this nature settled by the facts which Spectator enumerates, even if they were a hundred times more numerous than they are. I am sure they will not consent to have the question decided by this kind of voting, even if Spectator should again kindly come forwards to assure them that it is strikingly the best way.

It is very true that the ceremony of Ordination has been of late warmly recommended, chiefly by gentlemen connected with the Manchester College, York. It is also true that in the course of the last five or six years a few services of the description in question have been celebrated almost

exclusively under the fore-mentioned auspices. And it is a fact that a few reports in the Repository have as strikingly demonstrated opinion and wishes in regard to the practice, as Spectator himself. But I never heard before of the suffrages of congregations. I believe the proper expression would have been the sufferance of congregations. I know from personal observation that some societies now wish that they had given less countenance to the practice; and in one of the cases alluded to by Spectator, I am quite at a loss to discover what part the society can be supposed to have taken.

Such is the formidable muster of facts which have set the question at rest! Such is the terrifying array against us which inspires Spectator with such a triumphant strain of boasting! And hence, and because some friends and acquaintance have expressed some approbation of the revived ceremony, it is most sagaciously concluded, that the feeling in favour of it is general. What a happy talent is boasting!

Well, but good Mr. Spectator, is it not to be presumed, till we have authentic information to the contrary, that those who have neither revived, nor concurred in reviving, this unscriptural ceremony, that all those not included in your appalling enumeration, must be ranked as your opponents in this controversy? And if the Unitarian body be not inconsiderable, indeed, in point of numbers, they greatly outnumber your partisans.

Does Spectator forget, when he requires us to level our objections against the abuses of Ordination," that we declared that we view the whole as an abuse? (P. 283.) Mr. Baker also asserts, (p. 346,) that I ought not to mention the abuses of the practice, it being the part of bigoted misrepresentation so to do, when they are disclaimed by the parties. I do not remember to have taxed the gentlemen with any abuse which they disclaim, and am under the necessity of observing that the charge is wholly groundless. "The priestly pretensions and domination, the ghostly power and authority," were not brought forward by ine as accompaniments of the Bolton service; I even expressly stated the contrary, that I

« AnteriorContinua »