« PreviousContinue »
nexion was intercepted by distance of place, and difference of
And those disciples of the Apostles which were still alive would have failed to detect and confute so glaring an imposture. ! enerally thought sufficient to thew the writings of a claffic author ine, if some one among the antients has merely, spoken of the Cicero, Hirtius, and Suetonius have done of Cæfar's descriptions campaigns, without quoting passages from the book itself. But bjected - It is possible, indeed, that Cæsar may have written tile, but how can we be certain that the Commentaries, which to him as their author, were the same which Cicero, Hirtius, ius read? Is it credible that Cæsar was the author of a history 5 frequent remarks are interspersed to the disparagement of the remarks which excite even a suspicion of their timidity, when it the very beginning of the work, that the Gauls themselves aca d the Germans to be their superiors in bravery? Can suspicions ! proceed from a general who was in a great measure indebted to in auxiliaries for the victory of Pharsalia, a circumstance again be mentioned in the Bellum Civile? Are ihesa the Commentaries ided by Cicero and Hirtius, and to which the latter applied the n: prærepta, non præbita facultas scriptoribus videtur? Could imentaries have existed in the days of Florus, who likewise de
battle of Pharsalia, and estimates the number in both armies at Ired thousand, besides the auxiliaries, when the number given in jentaries is so considerably inferior? Could Florus have been beta pted with the state of the army than Cæsar, and would he have ? to derive his intelligence from the best possible accounts, had such at that time existed
@lions like these to the authenticity of Cæsar would be answered critic in classical literature not with a serious reply, but with a ontempt. Yet weak and trivial as these arguments may appear, ronger than such as can with justice be applied to the writings of Testament, which is not only mentioned by the earliest fathers as Eten by those Apostles and Evangelists, to whom we ascribe them, i and explained at such confiderable length, as leaves no poflibiubt, that the writings, to which they allude, are the very lame with -h have been transmitted to us under that title.” (PP. 24–26.) . orce of this reasoning will be a suficient apology to such of rs as we are most desirous to please, for the length of the hough we should be compelled to pass over more cursorily
ad intended, some of our author's less important conjectures. arth and fifth sections, though essential parts of the chapter, othing that calls for particular attention ; but in the sixth
a very satisfactory, though rather a confined, view of the arising from the testimonies of the fathers and other Chris ! ers of the first centuries, For a more complete detail of monies, the author, with great propriety, refers to Lardner; -m, however, as from all other divines, he differs respecting ent's first epistle to the Corinthians, the authenticity of which
question on the most frivolous grounds, as his editor and ; very clearly shews,
· But though Mr. Marsh opposes his opinion with re epistle of St. Clement, he seems to coincide with h as fpurious all the other writings of the apostolical fa
« Not only the adversaries, but also the friends of C suspected the authenticity of the writings ascribed to the notwithstanding the immense erudition bestowed on the · Ulher, Pearson, Le Clerc, and others, at the end of the las of the present century. Lardner has clearly shewn that a Clement are spurious, except his first epistle to the Corint that is suspected by our author; and Dr. Semler, who h particular study of ecclefiaftical history perhaps than any lived, doubts the authenticity of all the writings ascribed fathers.” (P. 360.)
Of Dr. Semler's writings, referred to by Mr. Mar nothing ; but if they really weaken the reasoning of B so much, as, with unprejudiced minds, to bring into thenticity of the shorter epistles of Ignatius, which were Voffius, we do not say that we shall be sorry for the for we trust that truth is the first and most important our pursuits. In that case, however, we shall certainly question the authenticity of a great part of the New To a much greater part of the Old. That the adversaries of ever questioned the authenticity of these epistles is a piece tion quite new to us; but we have long known that, amo presbyterians and independents have wished to question ticity, and that, when they saw that Pearson's arguments answered, they have come forward with the loud, thou cry of interpolation. The reason of this is very obviou can admit the authenticity of the epistles of Ignatius, question the apostolical inftitution of diocesan episcopac the real cause of the objections urged by our antagonifi thenticity of these epistles, but they dare not directly · they should be convicted of the groffest prejudice. I therefore, the mode of their attack., “Without pret they, to ascertain precisely what was the original constit Christian church, we are, at least, sure that its govern more important than its faith ; but Ignatius, in the wri are now ascribed to him, insists upon obedience to the such incessant zeal that it seems to be, in his opinion, by important, if not the only, duty of a Christian.” This lei so very absurd, that reverence, as they pretend,* for the an apostolic father, compels them to conclude that the epi natius, if not abfolute forgeries, have been grossly interp are unworthy of regard.
* See Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen's Lectures on Ecclefiaftica
But this is not a fair account of the contents of Ignatius's epistles. He insists, indeed, strenuously on the duty.of obedience to the bishop; because otherwise the people could not have “one fupplication, one mind, one hope, &c." and such exhortations were peculiarly proper at that period, when the title of Bishop was first given exclusively to the highest order of the Christian priesihcod. Hitherto the governors of churches had been called Crotokob, or ayoyect, and the churches of Asia Minor had been under the superintendance of St. John the Apostle, and seven angels or bishops, as appears from the Apocalypse. St. John died about the beginning of the second century, when, as we learn from Theodorite, * it was resolved to drop the title of apostle, and substitute that of bishop in its place; and as the people had been accustomed to call their spiritual governor croclonos, or aggeros, it became Ignatius, who had been, for forty years, honoured with these titles himself, and :vhose influence must have been great on account of his age and his approaching martyrdom, t to convince those to whom he wrote, that the reverence due to the office was not dimirished by the change of its name. This is, indeed, so very obvious, that what has been usually urged as an objection to the epistles of Ignatius, appears to us internal evidence of their authenticity, for if credit be due to Theodorite's account of the resolution entered into on the death of St. John, exhortations more seasonable could not have been given.
From the testimonies of Hæretics, and especially of Marcion, who lived in the beginning of the second century, our author infers, in the seventh section, that in all the countries which lay between Sinope and Rome, the books, which he calls Homologoumena, were acknowledged to be genuine. The testimonies of this kind, which afford such positive evidence, have not been collected with the same diligence as those of the orthodox fathers ; though they are certainly entitled to equal credit. In the eighth section much stress is deservedly laid on the testimonies of Jewish and Heathen writers, more especially of Celsus and Porphyry, two enemies of the Christian name, and, therefore, witnesses the most unexceptionable of the authenticity of the New Testament. In the ninth re&lion it is shewn that there were versions of the New Testament in Syriac and Latin in the end of the first or beginning of the fecond century; and, in the tenth section, the internal evidence of the authenticity of the Homologoumena is stated with great perspicuity and force.
Among the incidental observations unnoticed by Mr. Maríb in his general view of the first part of this work, one occurs in the eleventh lection which throws light on a particular part of St. Paul's conduct, of which we do not remember to have any where else seen a rational
* In 1 Tim. Cap. ii.
+ Our learned readers need not be informed that Ignatius was under sentence of death when be wrote the epistles in question.
ot a fair account of the contents of Ignatius's epistles, -d, strenuously on the duty.of obedience to the bishop; le the people could not have “one supplication, one
&c." and such exhortations were peculiarly proper ihen the title of Bishop was first given exclusively to . of the Christian priesthood. Hitherto the gover
had been called oιπoστολοι, οι αγγελοι, and the churches ad been under the superintendance of St. John the 'n angels or bishops, as appears from the Apocalypse. out the beginning of the second century, when, as heodorite, * it was resolved to drop the title of apostle, et of bishop in its place; and as the people had been -1 their spiritual governor attoconos, or gyeros, it be
ho had been, for forty years, honoured with these 1 :vhose influence must have been great on account is approaching martyrdom,t to convince those to that ihe reverence due to the office was not dimiage of its name. This is, indeed, so very obvious, en usually urged as an objection to the epistles of to us internal evidence of their authenticity, for if 'heodorite's account of the resolution entered into
John, exhortations more feafonable could not have
account. The object of the section is to shew the coincidence accounts delivered in the New Testament, with the history times to which those accounts relate ; and the part of St. Paul' duct to which we allude, is the appearance which he made Ananias and the council in Jerusalem. Here, as our author ob the learned have met with considerable difficulties. .. .
“1. Who this Ananias was? a quellion which Krebs has explained remarks taken from Josephus, having thewn him to be the son of Nel 2, How can it be reconciled with Chronology that 'Ananias was ca that time High Priest, when it is certain from Jolephus, that the time holding that office was much earlier. 3. How it comes to pass t Paul says, I wist nnt, brethren, that he was the High Priest ; since the e marks of office must have determined whether he were or not: a jest have ill suited the gravity of a tribunal, and a falsehood fiill less the ter of St. Paul.
« On all these obscurities is thrown the fullest light, as soon as w mine the special history of that period.---Ananias, the son of Nebeder High Priest at the time that Helena, queen of Adiabene, supplied the with corn from Egypt, during the famine which took place in the year of Claudius, mentioned in the eleventh chapter of the Acts. St therefore, who took a journey to Jerusalem at that period, could no been ignorant of the elevation of Ananias to that dignity. Soon as
holding of the first council, as it is called, at jerusalem, Ananias v . poflessed of his office, and sent prisoner to Rome, whence he was afte
released, and returned to Jerusalem.-In the mean time, Jonathan, we are not acquainted with the circumstances of his elevation, la railed to the supreme dignity in the Jewill church. Between the di Jonathan, who was murdered by order of Felix, and the High Prien! Ismael, who was invested with that office by Agrippa, elapled an in in which this dignity continued vacant. Now ii happened precisely interval that St. Paul was apprehended in Jerusalem: and the Saul being destitute of a president, he (Ananias) undertook, of his own aut the discharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest ty It is possible, therefore, that St. Paul, who had been only a few days rusalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been disposiefred Priesthood, had taken upon himself a trust to which he was not en he might, therefore, very naturally exclaim, I wist not, brethren, that the High Priest! Admitting him, on the other hand, to have been acqu with the fact, the expression must be considered, as an indirect reproc a tacit refusal to recognize usurped authority." (PP. 51–53.).
This detail, which our author supports by direct references to phus, not only throws the clearest light on a passage which has h to been involved in obscurity, but also shews that the whole ! of St. Paul's imprisonment; the conspiracy of the fifty Jews, the consent of the Sanhedrim ; and their petition to Festus ić him from Cæsarea to Jerusalem, are facts which correspond t history of the times...
In the twelfth section the author removes the objections have been sometimes made to the authenticity of the New Test
onies of Hæretics, and especially of Marcion, who ing of the second century, our author infers, in the -at in all the countries which lay between Sinope oks, which he calls Homologoumena, were ac
genuine. The testimonies of this kind, which evidence, have not been collected with the same of the orthodox fathers; though they are certainly credit. In the eighth section much stress is de testimonies of Jewish and Heathen writers, more and Porphyry, two enemies of the Christian name, nesses the most unexceptionable of the authenticity zent. In the ninth section it is shewn that there · New Testament in Syriac and Latin in the end ning of the fecond century; and, in the tenth secidence of the authenticity of the Homologoumena perspicuity and force.. . ental observations unnoticed by Mr. Marsh in his first part of this work, one occurs in the eleventh vs light on a particular part of St. Paul's conduct, remember to have any where else seen a rational
lers need not be informed that Ignatius was under sen.. he wrote the cpistles in question.
.. . account.
from the contradictions real or apparent between the historical parts of it and the accounts of profane authors. Wherever the evangelists really differ from Josephus and other writers, he proves, in the most fatistactory manner, that, independent of inspiration, which in the present inquiry he properly overlooks, the fullest credit is due to the former authors; that they had the best means of information, as well as the smallest inducement to deviate from the truth; and that of the contradi&tions, which at first sight appear real, some are only apparent.
In proving the authenticity of the New Testament, Michaelis, like Lardner, makes no use of the testimony of spurious writings. Hence, he refers not to the Canons called Apostolical, though in one of them we have a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament as they are received by protestants, and of the New, with the exception of the Apocalypse, which alone is omitted. We readily admit that he has completely proved the authenticity of the books called Homo. logoumena, without calling in the aid of writings which are in any sense spurious ; but the Canons, to which we allude, though neither dictated by ihe apostles, nor written by St. Clement, are entitled to a degree of respect, to which no work forged in the name of an india vidual can justly lay claim. They are indisputably of high antiquity; for they are referred to as antient ecclefiaftical canons by Athanasius, Bafil the Great, and the council of Nice. They seem to have been compiled by several synods in the third century, and collected, not all at once, but gradually, as they were enacted; and it is certain that they formed ihe rule of discipline for the eastern part of the primi. tive Church. They afford, therefore, an illustrious proof of the sense of that Church respecting the authenticity of the books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James ; for though the canon mentions the Apoftolical Constitutions, attributing them to Clement, it is obvious from the manner in which that work is introduced, that a distinction was made between it and the canonical writings. Indeed it appears evident to us that the whole clause relating to Clement and the Constitutions, has, at some period subsequent to the council of Laodicea, (anno 367,) been tagged to the Canon by some unskilful hand* ; for the Laodicean Canon, which enumerates
* The learned and primitive Bishop Beveridge thinks otherwise. The books of the New Testament are, in the canon, enumerated thus; “ The four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen epiftles of Paul; two of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions for you bishops, published by me du quouClement, in eight books, which are not to be divulged to all, because of the mystical things contained in it; and the acts of us the apostles.” The bishop infers from the insertion of the words do epou, that the collector of these canons, and the publisher of the constitutions neither was, por pretended to be the Clement whose two epifties are mentioned after the epistle of
cions real or apparent between the historical parts ents of profane authors. Wherever the evangelists osephus and other writers, he proves, in the most , thai, independent of inspiration, which in the properly overlooks, the fullest credit is due to the hat they had the best means of information, as
inducement to deviate from the truth; and that s, which at first sight appear real, some are only
the sacred books, seems to be a mere transcript of the apostoli canon; and in it no mention is made either of Clement's Epiftles of the Constitutions.
. (To be continued.)
authenticity of the New Testament, Michaelis, es no use of the testimony of spurious writings. t to the Canons called Apostolical, though in one catalogue of the books of the Old Testament as pruteltants, and of the New, with the exception which alone is omitted. We readily admit that roved the authenticity of the books called Homo. : calling in the aid of writings which are in any the Canons, to which we allude, though neither Fles, nor written by St. Clement, are entitled to to which no work forged in the name of an india claim. They are indisputably of high antiquity;
to as antient ecclesiastical canons by Athanasius, the council of Nice. They seem to have been ynods in the third century, and collected, not all y, as they were enacted; and it is certain that of discipline for the eastern part of the primi. afford, therefore, an illustrious proof of the sense eing the authenticity of the books attributed to uke, John, Paul, Peter, and James; for though
the Apoftolical Constitutions, attributing them to is from the manner in which that work is intro on was made between it and the canonical writears evident to us that the whole clause relating Constitutions, has, at some period subsequent to ea, (ango 367,) been tagged to the Canon by ; for the Laodicean Canon, which enumerates,
Pinkerton's Modern Geography. . .
(Continued from Vol. XVII. p. 386.) F a work comprehending so immenfe a mass of multifarious i
'formation, it is evident that any account which we can gi must be very circumscribed and partial. A detailed analysis of it plainly impossible. We can, therefore, characterise it only in gene terms, and, by producing some specimens, enable our readers to e mate for themselves, the kind and degree of instruction and amu ment which it is calculated to afford. Of the plan we have been considerable pains to exhibit a pretty full and correct idea; and of execution we cannot but speak, on the whole, in the language of most decided approbation. Nor has our opinion been formed on hafty and inattentive, but on a cool, deliberate, and, in many insta ces, repeated, perusal. We therefore recommend this system to public, with the utmost confidence, as a capital production, w which there is nothing in the English language that deserves at all be compared. It is a monument undoubtedly of fingular industry, extensive knowledge, and of discriminating judgment. One emin advantage the reader will find in it, which he will find in no f ceding fyftem; and that is the scrupulous punctuality with which author has constantly quoted his authorities. This, it will univerfa be acknowledged, is an improvement of the highest magnitude, whi while it places, in the most conspicuous light, the patient research a candid good faith of the writer, is productive of many desirable c sequences to the reader. It not only inspires him with rational to in ihe capacity and fidelity of his instructor, but by indicating the p per sources of information, furnishes him, in any case of difficulty doubt, with the readiest means of deciding for himself.
Our first extracts from Mr. P.'s book shall be his sketches of glish and of French manners, which, we think, are well drawn, likely to prove acceptable to the generality of our readers.
“ The English are generally esteemed to exceed in the use of ani food ; but, after the recent importations of French enigrants of all cla this position begins to be doubled. If ftomachic dilea es be really in
primitive Bishop Beveridge thinks otherwise. The ament are, in the canon, enumerated thus; “ The ), Mark, Luke, and John ; fourteen epistles of Paul; Jolin; one of James; one of Jude; two epistles of rutions for you bishops, published by mem de quo s, which are not to be divulged to all, because of ained in it; and the acts of is the apostles.” The nsertion of the words on faov, that the collector of ublisher of the constitutions neither was, por pretended le two epifles are mentioned after the epistle of
Jude: and he offers some plausible arguments in support of his opinion the Constitutions were published, and the Apostolical Canons collected Clement of Alexandria. It appears to us, however, that he must be taken ; for Clement of Alexandria could not have called the acts of the i sleset Topažens hjawy TW af osłowy," :