Obrazy na stronie

ral other learned and eminent moderns have been of the same opinion. Dr. Jortin says, in his Discourses concerning the Christian Religion, that "in the time of Christ and his Apostles, the Greek was really the universal language. The New Testament is a proof of it, if proof were wanting. And this is one reason among many others why St. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in Greek.” Even among the ancients themselves the opinion does not seem to have been very common, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. They seldom, perhaps never, quote the Greek as a translation. No person is mentioned on any good authority, as having been the translator. Jeromn says, it was uncertain by whom it was done. In the time of Theophylact it was usually attributed to John; and at other times tradition referred it to James. Furthermore, no marks of a translation are visible in the Greek Gospel of Matthew, as it has come down to us. These reasons among others induced Lardner to believe, that it was first written in Greek. Michaelis was of a contrary opinion;*

is e durato éxCSOS. Eusebius says he was a man of weak understanding-σφοδρα-σμικρος ων τον νουν--and the latter part of the clause respecting the Gospel of Matthew, namely, and every one interpreted it as he could, has been usually thought to be in proof. But if the truth were known, it is probable he meant only, that as the christians of that day did not all understand Hebrew equally well, they interpreted it severally according to their knowledge. This Papias was bishop of Hieropolis, and flourished about A. D. 116. Nothing remains of his works, except a few extracts preserved in the writings of Eusebius. Irenaeus Aourished, according to Larduer, about the year 178; Origen, 230; and Eusebius 315. It is worthy of remark, that Origen gives no other authority than “tradition,” for supposing Matthew's Gospel was first written in Hebrew.

* Introduction to the New Testament, Part I, chap. 4. sco. 1.

and Less inclines to the belief, that Matthew himself composed his Gospel in both languages.*

This last opinion, perhaps, may be better sustained, than either of the others. It obviates all the difficulties, which are felt in reconciling various testimonies. St. Matthew was no doubt as well acquainted with the Greek, as the other Apostles. It is likely a great number of the Jews in Palestine were not familiar with this language, and he might think it expedient for their benefit to write it in Hebrew; and for the Christians at large among the Gentiles, where the Greek was chiefly spoken, he might perceive the necessity of its being in that language-for it must be remembered, that none of the Gospels were written, till the religion had extended itself over many countries. If he wrote first in Hebrew, it is quite certain a translation was made into Greek immediately after, and it is as reasonable to suppose it was made by his own hands as any other.

Origin of the peculiar Doctrines of Calvinism.

I CONFESS it is difficult to imagine why these doctrines were first invented, and how they should have found favour when they were first proposed; for they are not laid down in the scriptures, and they have no loveliness of their own to recommend them. It might have seemed like humility to attribute, as they do, all agency to God; and it might be very well to humble ourselves thus, if we could do it without at the same time throw

* Wenn aber, wie eben daraus zu erhellen scheint, Matthaeus sein Evangelium Hebraeisch geschrieben hat, so ist aus andren gründen eben so gewiss, das er es auch Griechisch ausgefertiget. Geschichte der Rel. Erst. T. 540. See also, Authenticity of the New Testament, translated by Kingdon, p. 87,

[ocr errors]

ing off our responsibility. If all our actions, as these doctrines presuppose, are produced by the direct agenсу of God, they are not ours, and if they are wrong we are not guilty. The proper reverence is to ascribe to him those powers, which he has given, and left us at liberty to use them well or ill. But these doctrines did not originate in this overstrained humility. They were first suggested in the bitterness of dispute. The maxims were introduced and maintained one after another, till they were framed into a system, which was not very consistent, but what was of more importance to the framers, would admit of being defended.

Augustin, in the sixth century, was the first to propose this system. It seems that Pelagius, a British monk, had declared that good works only are valuable in the sight of God, and Augustin took up the controversy against him. This he maintained with great severity, advancing one proposition and article after another, till probably much to his own astonishment he found himself the author of a faith entirely new. In opposition to the principle of merit, he declared that divine grace is necessary to bend the will, and where this grace is not afforded, we have only power to do evil, but none to do good; that actions which seem to be religious, if performed without divine grace, are nothing more than splendid sins. He also maintained, that all men sinned in Adam, and should bear the everlasting punishment of his crime, but the thought of infants seemed to stagger his faith till he ingeniously discovered that though they were in hell, their punishment would not be very severe, and they would choose it in preference to annihilation. He then laid down, as a consequence of his doctrine of our want of freedom, that God had predestinated some to eternal life, and others to destruction.

Such were his opinions, which one would suppose could not prevail by their own reasonableness and truth; but Augustin knew human nature too well to place much dependence on those recommendations. He had great infiuence in the Church, and Pelagius had none; he procured a sentence of council condemning the faith of his adversary, who was banished and died in obscurity; and then the opinions of Augustin prevailed almost without contradiction; for there was reward in keeping them, and there were not many so weakly honest, nor so imprudently fond of truth, as to embrace the faith of a powerless, neglected, and banished man.

(Liberal Recorder,

Remarks on the Evangelical Magazine.

Our readers will probably recollect, that in a late number we took occasion to speak of the Evangelical Magazine, published at Richmond. We mentioned it as a work conducted with ability, and we have had no reason since to alter our opinion. In saying this, however, we did not mean to extort a compliment to our "good paper," and above all to our "handsome type, " for we do not think either of these any better or handsomer than it should be.

We are extremely glad, that our apprehensions prove not to have been well founded; but we really think the editors are too hard upon us in not allowing, that we had apparently good cause for our impressions. But this is a thing of no importance.

For several months this Magazine has been a devoted and an active champion in the ranks hostile to unitarianism. The Review of Dr. Channing's Ordination Sermon, or of Stuart's Letters, was portentous. There was nothing alarming in the omen itself, but it told of things to come. The presage has been verified. Every month has given additional testimony to the bounty of the editors in making their readers acquainted with some of the weak, or absurd, or dangerous things of unitarianism, and we are now told that a great deal is yet to come. The Presbyterians of Virginia must by this time feel very strong in the controversy, and none the less so for having seen nothing except on one side. To these labours we do not object, but rather applaud them. The christian, who is not zealous in what he believes to be truth, is but an indifferent christian. We have not been aware, however, that Virginia was in so much danger as to require these extraordinary efforts. But we confess, that they, who are on the spot, ought to be better judges than ourselves. We should be glad if some means could be devised of dealing fairly with the people, and of making them acquainted with the arguments on both sides before they judge.

This we cannot expect in the present state of things; yet some good will be done. Every candid man will perceive the harsh outlines and false colouring of the picture which is sent out, and will begin to look for something truer to nature and the reality. He will inquire, and this is the first step to truth. We are willing to leave him there.

We doubt whether any valuable purpose would be answered by our undertaking a controversy with this Magazine, although the gauntlet is thrown with considerable formality. It is not probable, that either of our

« PoprzedniaDalej »