Page images
PDF
EPUB

titles prefixed to their Gospels)-naturally designate Him by his title, as Christ. And it is inconceivable that such inartificial and unpractised writers as the Evangelists, would, if they had lived two or three hundred years later, have avoided, in their compilations, the mode of expression commonly in use among them. That Contemporaries, on the other hand, should write as the Evangelists have written, is just what was to be expected. How natural, on the other hand, it would have been for writers at a later period to use the word 'Christ' or 'Jesus Christ' where the Evangelists have used 'Jesus,' is shown by the headings of Chapters in our Authorized Version, where we continually read Christ,' while Jesus is in the text. And this leads many readers to overlook the circumstance just mentioned. Indeed the ignorant or thoughtless are apt to suppose the divisions into Chapters to be the work of the Sacred Writers; and to mistake those Headings for Scripture; or at least to forget that they are not so.1

In the passages where we read, 'One is your Master, even Christ,' and 'because ye belong to Christ,' there is good reason to conclude that a gloss has crept into the text. For, it would have been quite at variance with our Lord's practice if He had proclaimed Himself as the Christ, instead of leaving men-as He did to draw that inference for themselves. But as a gloss [an explanatory note] the insertion of the words is very natural. In the passage where we read [Matt. xi.] that 'John had heard in the prison the works of [the] Christ,' the meaning doubtless is that he had heard of Jesus performing such works as had been the predicted signs of the promised Messiah or Christ; and sent to ask for a confirmation of that evidence. And Jesus accordingly replies by a reference to the very prophecy in question [Isai. xxxv.], 'Go and tell John what things ye have seen.'

What has been said of the word 'Christ,' holds good in re

1 This blunder seems to have been committed in a Theological Dictionary in considerable circulation; which says, under the head of DEACON, that the first place where the Deacons are so called in Scripture, is in ch. vi. of Acts,' though the word never once occurs in the whole Book of Acts.

"It was only to the woman of Samaria, which was not the usual scene of his ministry, and to his Apostles in private, after Peter had of himself drawn the inference, and finally when solemnly adjured by the High Priest, that he Himself claimed the title.

ference to the word 'Christian,' which the Sacred Writers never apply to those who embraced the Gospel; though it was in use in their time, and was generally adopted soon after, as it has been ever since. The word occurs but thrice in the New Testament, and never, as applied by Christians to each other. They are called 'Saints,' Brethren,' 'Elect,' and by other titles which belonged to God's People of old.

The Gospels, however, doubtless were, in some degree, a compilation from records written by several Disciples shortly after our Lord's ascension; some probably in Hebrew, and some, in Greek; each recording some transactions or discourses at which he had been present. Sometimes we find in two of the Evangelists passages word for word the same. In these cases probably both had access to the same Greek Record. Sometimes we find all the details exactly the same, in matter, but with a slight difference in the words. In these cases, no doubt, they used the same Hebrew Record; each translating it for himself into Greek. And sometimes, again, we find a 'general' agreement in two passages, but with a slight variation in the details; just as one might expect in the reports given by two independent witnesses.

The four Gospels would naturally absorb, and soon supersede those smaller detached portions of history. But there is probably one-the history of the woman taken in adultery— that was not originally inserted in any of them. Where it now stands, it has the air of an interpolation; and in some MSS. it is absent altogether; while in some it appears in Luke's Gospel and not in John's. Probably it was inserted in this last, after John's time, as being a narrative admitted to be authentic, but too short to form a distinct book.

As compositions, the four Gospels are, as I have above remarked, strikingly inartificial and unstudied. A circumstance which many readers overlook, is, that the first three of them give no account of the first opening of our Lord's ministry,— his beginning of miracles;'-but speak of Him as preaching in a tone of high authority, and being listened to, and calling Disciples, and being followed- before any mention is made of mighty works done by Him. But for the supply of this

1 See Sermon on Christian Saints.

omission which John's Gospel supplies, any one of the other histories would have appeared, at the present day, hardly credible. For, an obscure peasant claiming to be a messenger from Heaven, yet displaying no miraculous signs, would never have been listened to by any one. But the Evangelists were writing for men among whom it was, and had long been, notorious that Jesus did display such signs. For these things were not done in a corner.'

That any one should reject Christianity, and pronounce its Founder an impostor, and the history a string of fables, this, however irrational, is at least intelligible. But that any one professing Christianity should speak of Jesus (which some have done) as not Himself appealing to his miracles as evidence of his divine mission, is something quite inexplicable.

'These letters were not written to prove the truth of the christian religion.'

The once-notorious Tom Paine says of Paul's Epistles, that 'the author, whoever he was, attempts to prove his religion by arguments.'

If in any other subject besides religion a man were to fall into such absurdities, as in that subject one may often meet with, he would be regarded as an idiot. Suppose for instance an agricultural treatise, giving directions for the best mode of cultivating corn and rearing cattle; and that some reader of it should remark, the author, whoever he was, attempts to prove by arguments that corn and flesh afford nutriment, and will command a price in the markets:' this would be a parallel to Paine's remark.

[ocr errors]

And again, suppose some other reader of the same treatise, should, on perceiving that there is no argument of the kind in it, infer that the author did not know, or did not believe, that bread is fit for food, or that corn and cattle are of any use, this would be a parallel to what has been advanced since Paine's time. For some writers have actually inferred from the absence in Paul's Epistles, of reference to the miracles of Jesus, that he either did not believe them, or else regarded them as furnishing no evidence. A man of plain good sense, untainted with German theories, would draw the opposite conclusion.

He would remember that these Epistles were addressed to Christians;-to men who had embraced the Gospel, and acknowledged Jesus of Nazareth as sent from God, on the strength of the mighty works' which alone could have obtained for Him a reception from any one. If then these Epistles had contained assertions of those mighty works, this might have excited a reasonable suspicion that the miraculous facts were not fully admitted, or else that the Epistles were forgeries. But these facts being admitted, in order for these men to have become Christians, any allusion to them in those Epistles would have been unnecessary and unnatural.

The Apostle does sometimes refer to his own miracles (as to something perfectly well known) in addressing those among whom rival teachers had crept in who sought to disparage him. But if he had strongly and frequently dwelt on these his miraculous powers, this would have given some ground for suspecting that they were not universally and fully admitted.

A Lecturer in the higher branches of Mathematics does not occupy an advanced class of pupils with demonstrations of the first Book of Euclid's Elements. And if it should thence be inferred that he did not assent to those demonstrations, we should think this a very strange kind of reasoning.

It has been inferred, in like manner, that Jesus Himself laid no stress on miraculous signs, because, in his conversation with Nicodemus, He does not dwell on them. It would have been strange if He had; considering that this man had just said " We know that Thou art a teacher sent from God; for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with him.' If Nicodemus had been in any doubt, then Jesus would, we must suppose, have said to him, as He did to some others, 'The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.' But Nicodemus being already convinced of his divine mission, needed only a correction of his erroneous notions concerning the character of the kingdom of the Messiah; whom he expected (as did all the Jews) to be a great temporal prince and conqueror, founding an empire of which the Jews by birth were to be the subjects.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER IX.

There is satisfactory evidence that many persons, professing to be original witnesses of the christian miracles, passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.

[ocr errors][merged small]

[OT forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evangelic history, supposing even any one of the four gospels to be genuine; what credit is due to the gospels, even supposing nothing to be known concerning them but that they were written by early disciples of the religion, and received with deference by early christian churches; more especially not forgetting what credit is due to the New Testament in its capacity of cumulative evidence; we now proceed to state the proper and distinct proofs, which show not only the general value of these records, but their specific authority, and the high probability there is that they actually came from the persons whose names they bear.

There are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we may draw up with more regularity to the propositions upon which the close and particular discussion of the subject depends. Of which nature are the following:

I. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manuscripts, found in many different countries, and in countries widely distant from each other, all of them anterior to the art of printing, some certainly seven or eight hundred years old, and some which have been preserved probably above a thousand years. We have also many ancient versions of these books, and some of them into languages which are not at present, nor for many ages have been, spoken in any part the world. The existence of these manuscripts and versions proves that the

On this subject the reader is referred to Mr. Estcott's valuable Work on the Canon of Scripture, containing the results of much curious research.-ED.

2 The Alexandrian manuscript, now in the British Museum, was written probably in the fourth or fifth century.

« PreviousContinue »