Page images
PDF
EPUB

and, with becoming deference to learning, genius, and integrity, cautioning our readers against such hypotheses as appear to us unsupported or dangerous.

In the first chapter, which treats “ of the title usually given to the writings of the New Covenant,” the only thing of importance is the reason assigned why the Apostles, who so often quote the writings of the Old Testament, rarely quote those of the New. They were, at that time," says Michaelis, “ too recent, and too little known to the Christians, in general, to form a subject of quotation, since otherwise St. Paul would hardly have omitted, in writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, to quote, in the fifteenth chapter, the Gospel of St. Matthew, whose writings bore testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.”

But “this remark," as Mr. Marsh observes, “pre-supposes that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written before thé first epistle to the Corinthians, which is affirmed by Dr. Owen, but denied by Fabricius, Mill, Lardner, and Semler. . Besides, if St. Matthew wrote in the dialect of Palestine, as our author fuppofes, it would have been useless to refer the Corinthians to a work written in a language to which they were utter strangers." (Vol. I. p. 347.) To this may be added, that St. Paul could hardly quote with propriety the gospel of St. Matthew as bearing testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. In the beginning of the fifteenth chapter he says to the Corinthians ; “ I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, 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 &c." but the Apostle every where declared, and appealed to “the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, with which he preached," that “he neither received the gofpel (of which the resurrection of Jesus was a most important article) of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.*" Some ground would have been afforded for calling the truth of these declarations in question, had he referred to any man, even to St. Matthew, as an authority; and, therefore, such reference is with great propriety omitted. : ,

The second chapter, which treats of the authenticity of the New Testament, is divided into twelve sedlions, of which the first is employed in evincing the importance of the enquiry.

“ Its influence is such as to make it a matter of surprise, that the adver.. fafies of Christianity have not constantly made their first attacks upon this quarter. For, if they admit thele writings to be as antient as we pretend, and really composed by the persons to whom they are ascribed, though we cannot from these premises alone immediately conclude them to be divinely

latthew is Paul could hard (Vol. 1. ptitten in a la

* I Cor. ii. 4, and Gal. i. 12.

inspired,

ith becoming deference to learning, genius, and integrity, . ng our readers against such hypotheses as appear to us unsupir dangerous. e firit chapter, which treats “ of the title usually given to the

of the New Covenant,” the only thing of importance is the ligned why the Apostles, who fo often quote the writings of

Teitament, raruly quote those of the New. 6.They were, me,” says Michaelis, “ too recent, and too little known to stians, in general, to form a subject of quotation, since otherPaul would hardly have omitted, in writing his first epistle orinthians, to quote, in the fifteenth chapter, the Gospel of hew, whose writings bore testimony to the resurrection of

this remark," as Mr. Marsh observes, “pre-supposes that vel of St. Matthew was written before thé first epistle to the ins, which is affirmed by Dr. Owen, but denied by Fabricius, trdner, and Semler. Befides, if St. Matthew wrote in the Palestine, as our author fuppofes, it would have been use. er the Corinthians to a work written in a language to which e uiter strangers." (Vol. I. p. 347.) To this may be it St. Paul could hardly quote with propriety the gospel of Few as bearing testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. In ning of the fifteenth chapter he says to the Corinthians; zred unto you first of all, that which I also received, how (t died for our sins, according to the Scriptures : and that he d, and that he rose again the third day, according to the

; and that he was seen &c." but the Apostle every where and appealed to “the demonstration of the Spirit and of ith which he preached," that “he neither received the golrich the resurrection of Jesus was a most important article) cither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. *". ind would have been afforded for calling the truth of these os in question, had he referred to any man, even to St.

as an authority; and, therefore, such reference is with riety omiited. . Fond chapter, which treats of the authenticity of the New , is divided into twelve sections, of which the first is emevincing the importance of the enquiry. Fuence is such as to make it a matter of surprise, that the adver.. Tristianity have not constantly made their first attacks upon this or, if they admit thele writings to be as antient as we pretend, omposed by the persons to whom they are ascribed, though we these premises alone immediately conclude them to be divinely

inspired, yet an undeniable consequence is the truth and din ligion itself. The apostles allude frequently in their epifti miracles, which they had communicated to the Christian imposition of hands, in confirmation of the doctrine deli 'speeches and writings:--but to write in this manner, if noth had ever happened, would require such an incredible degre that he, who poslessed it, wouid not only expose himself to t cule, but giving his adversaries the fairest opportunity to detec would ruin the cause, which he attempted to support.” (PP.

On this account Michaelis thioks that the epistles, be genuine, whether written by inspiration or not, affor the divine origin of our religion superior even to that w! pels contain ; but for this distinction we perceive no go four G Spels, together with the Acts of the Apostles, rec miracles of Christ publicly performed among a people his name and his doctrine, that if these books be allow nuine, it is impossible to question the origin of Christian

We have in this section a very impertinent hypoil Semler, to which Mr. Marsh seems to pay infinitely gr than it deserves. He supposes, forsooth, that, in the 12t| 14th chapters of his first epistle to the Corinthians, St." " not to supernatural gifts, but merely to certain offices in the exercise of which required only natural knowledge and that the gift of tongues respects those foreigners who we as ministers in the Corinthian church, in order that str frequented the city, whether Syrians, Arabians, or Egypt hear the gospel in their native language.” (PP. 7, 8.)

In the work before us Michaelis treats this hypothesis w contempt ; but it seems he had lived to change his opinion. from his commentary on the epistle, which was publisher He does not, indeed, even there adopt the hypothesis which still seems to him extremely improbable ; but he thin number of entliusiasts who, in the church of Corinth, imag felves possessed of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, were superi who had really such endowments. He founds this opinion ro on the ridiculous disorder which prevailed in the Corina munity in the use of the gift of tongues ;" à disorder greatly aggravates, unless he derived his information froin : source than the first epiftle to that community ; and th umphantly asks: " Are talents like these thę -gifts of Ghost?"

In reply both to our author and to Semler, it is to be

[ocr errors]

* See this argument clearly, though concisely stated, at the Gleig's Sermons, lately published. + See Mr. Marsh's note at p. 350.

B 3

* j Cor. ii. 4, and Gal. i. 12.

inspired,

that St. Paul expressly writes of the gift of tongues in the church of Corinth as of a miraculous gift; for he classes it with “ the gift of healing, and the working of miracles,” * and says that “tongues are for a sign---EIŞ Ovusiv“not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." + "It appears, likewise, that those inspired men valued themselves, each upon his own particular gift, and despised in comparison with it the gifts of others; that in consequence of this mutual contempt and jealousy, charity was completely violated among the Corinthian converts; that there was then no regular subordination in their church; and that those who were gifted with tongues, upon the appearance of an, unconverted heathen in the assembly, I were ready to interrupt the prophets or preachers who were edifying the believers. But it does not appear that the whole assembly, as Michaelis seems to have supposed, spoke at the same time, though it is evident that the prophets, the speakers with tongues, and the interpreters of tongues, often spoke ali at once, contending each for “his own psalm, his own doctrine, his own tongue, his own revelation, &c." as the most important to be attended to. This was, indeed, very iinproper conduct ; but it was not more improper than the conduct of Balaam, who yet prophesied by the spirit of God-EIS OYUerov--for a sign to Balak; or than the general conduct of those, of whorl we are alsured there have been many, “ who have prophesied in the name of Christ, and in his name have cast out devils, and done many wonderful works, who were yet such workers of iniquity, that, at the day of judgment, they shall be dismissed with, •Depart from me, I never kuew you.”' · The gift of tongues, like every other miraculous endowment, was bestowed, not for the sake of him who received it, but sic ompelov, for a sign to the unconverted ; but that it might operate in this way, there was no necessity that every man, on whose mind the words of a foreign language had been miraculously impressed, should be at the same time endowed with more than common wisdom. There was, indeed, an evident propriety in the case being occasionally far otherwife. St. Paul spake with tongues more than all the Christians of Corinth; but had that gift been bestowed on none but such as he, · it would have been attributed by unbelievers, not to the miraculous influence of the Holy Ghost, but to the same kind of study by which foreign languages are usually learned. This could hardly be done, when it was perceived to be in the possession of men, who evinced by their own conduct in the instruction of others, that they knew not

* 1 Cor xii. 9, 10.

+ I Cor. xiv. 22. I That unbelievers, at that period, went occasionally into the assemblies of Christians, has been observed by Grotius, and is, indeed, evident from Acts sui. 44. § St. Mat. vii. 22.

how

aul expressly writes of the gift of tongues in the church of
s of a miraculous gift ; for he classes it with the gift of
nd the working of miracles,”* and says that “tongues are
-515 OVUSIO -not to them that believe, but to them that:
1.”+ It appears, likewise, that those inspired men valued
», each upon his own particular gift, and despised in com-
ith it the gifts of others; that in consequence of this mu.'
mpt and jealousy, charity was completely violated among
thian converts; that there was then no regular subordination
jurch ; and that those who were gifted with tongues, upon
Tance of an, unconverted heathen in the assembly, I were
iterrupt the prophets or preachers who were edifying the

But it does not appear that the whole assembly, as Mims to have supposed, spoke at the same time, though it is at the prophets, the speakers with tongues, and the interpreters s, often spoke ali at once, contending each for “his own

own doctrine, his own tongue, his own revelation, &c." it important to be attended to. This was, indeed, very iinoduct; but it was not more improper than the conduct of vho yet prophesied by the spirit of God—EIS OMMEION—for a lak; or ihan the general conduct of those, of whom we are re have been many, “ who have prophesied in the name and in his name have cast out devils, and done many wonrks, who were yet such workers of iniquity, that, at the I ment, they shall be dismissed with, Depart from me, I w you." S ft of tongues, like every other miraculous endowment, was

not for the sake of him who received it, but als' omjerov, to the unconverted; but that it might operate in this way, .' 10 necessity that every man, on whose mind the words of a suguage had been miraculously impressed, should be at the

endowed with more than common wisdom. There was, 1 evident propriety in the case being occasionally far other· Paul spake with tongues more than all the Christians of but had that gift been bestowed on none but such as he, jave been attributed by unbelievers, not to the miraculous of the Holy Ghost, but to the same kind of study by which nguages are usually learned. This could hardly be done, . as perceived to be in the possession of men, who evinced by conduct in the instruction of others, that they knew not

how knowledge of any kind is either to be acquired nicated.

In the second section of this chapter the objection: · been urged against the authenticity of the books of the · ment,- by Lord Bolingbroke and others among the mod

Faustus the Manichæan among the antients, are cor completely refuted. In the third section, our author, af divides the books of the New Testament into ópodoyou. of undoubted authority; avlonsyouesve, yowgopex do our qews “ doubtful, but acknowledged by the most to be ger Nold, or spurious. Among the books which he recko are the Apocalypse, the Epifle to the Hebrews, the seco St. Peter, the second and third Epifles of St. John, and St. Jude. His general proofs, therefore, of the auther New Testament, are confined to the books of undoubte and from these are excluded, at least, in this chapter, i Epistle of St. James, not because he himself has any do its authenticity, or of its having been written by an apoi cause such doubts were entertained by Eusebius, and ot writers of the antient church.

" Our present inquiry will be confined to the Homologou respect to each book in particular, a matter belonging to the 1 this work, but in respect to these writings in general. There mena we receive as the genuine works of Matthew, Mark, Lu Paul, for the same reatons as we helieve the writings to which are ascribed to Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Ci Livy, &c, namely, because they have been received as such, tradiction, from the earliest ages, when it was easy to obtain formation, and because they contain nothing which excites the picion of the contrary. In fact, this argunient, when applied writings, is much stronger than when applied to the greatest pa writers, since the testimonies alledged to support the auther New Testament come much nearer to the times in which its a than those adduced in favour of many Greek and Roman cl authority was never doubted. And there were read originally on nation, and in a single corner of the world, while the New Te read, and received as genuine in three quarters of the globe, saries arwell as by its friends, in countries the most remote, a ferent from each other in language and manners, acknowledg Christian community as a work of the Apofiles and Evangelists, the orthodox Christians, but also by thole who dissented from th rule of faith, with this only difference, that the latter, at the sau they acknowledged the writings in general to be genuine, con certain pallages were corrupted: till a lect arose in the eastern a sect ignorant of the Grecian literature and language, which i per to pronounce the New Testament to be spurious, because of the Gospel contradicted the tenets of their philosophy. writings were forged in the period that elapsed between the Apostles, and the earliest evidence for their authenticity, how sible to introduce them at once into the various Christians

sii. 9, 10.

I Cor. xiv. 22. unbelievers, at that period, went occasionally into the assemblies ins, has been observed by Grotius, and is, indeed, evident from 14.

§ St. Mat. vii. 22.

how

A4

whose connexion was intercepted by distance of place, and difference of

language? And those disciples of the Apostles which were still alive would ' furely not have failed to detect and confute so glaring an imposture.

os It is generally thought sufficient to shew the writings of a classic author to be genuine, if some one among the antients has merely, spoken of the work, as Cicero, Hirtius, and Suetonius have done of Cælar's descriptions of his own campaigns, without quoting passages from the book itself. But it may be objected,' It is possible, indeed, that Cæsar may have written such a treatise, but how can we be certain that the Commentaries, which we ascribe to him as their author, were the same which Cicero, Hirtius, and Suetonius read? Is it credible that Cæsar was the author of a history in which so frequent remarks are interspersed to the disparagement of the Germans, remarks which excite even a luspicion of their timidity, when it is said in the very beginning of the work, that the Gauls themselves acknowledged the Germans to be their superiors in bravery? Can suspicions like thele proceed from a general who was in a great measure indebted to his German auxiliaries for the victory of Pharfalia, a circumstance again omitted to be mentioned in the Bellum Civile? Are there the Commentaries fo commended by Cicero and Hirtius, and to which the latter applied the observation: prærepta, non præbita facultas scriptoribus videtur? Could tliese Commentaries have existed in the days of Florus, who likewise de. scribes the battle of Pharsalia, and estimates the number in both armies at three hundred thousand, besides the auxiliaries, when the number given in the Commentaries is so confiderably inferior? Could Florus have been bet. ter acquainted with the state of the army than Cæsar, and would he have neglected to derive his intelligence from the best possible accounts, had such accounts at that time existed?

• Objections like these to the authenticity of Cæsar would be answered by every critic in classical literature not with a serious reply, but with a smile of contempt. Yet weak and trivial as these arguments may appear, they are stronger than such as can with justice be applied to the writings of the New Testament, which is not only mentioned by the earliest fathers as being written by those Apostles and Evangelists, to whom we ascribe them, but quoted and explained at such confiderable length, as leaves no poflibility of a doubt, that the writings, to which they allude, are the very lame with those which have been transmitted to us under that title.” (PP.24–26.)

The force of this reasoning will be a sufficient apology to such of our readers as we are most desirous to please, for the length of the extract, though we should be compelled to pass over more cursorily than we had intended, some of our author's less important conjectures. In the fourth and fifth sections, though essential parts of the chapter, there is nothing that calls for particular attention ; but in the sixth we have a very satisfactory, though rather a confined, view of the evidence arising from the testimonies of the fathers and other Chrifa tian writers of the first centuries, For a more complete detail of those testimonies, the author, with great propriety, refers to Lardner; from whom, however, as from all other divines, he differs respecting St. Clement's firlt epistle to the Corinthians, the authenticity of which he calls in question on the most frivolous grounds, as his editor and translator very clearly shews,

But

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »