« PoprzedniaDalej »
did not publifh 'his gospel very soon, yet he endeavours to determine his priority to St. Luke by comparing these two evangelists with regard to perspicuity and explanation ; upon a supposition, that he, in whom these virtues of narration are most perfect, was the later writer.'
Dr. Wall observes, that Luke feldom names places. But our author takes notice of the following exceptions to the doctor's remark, as points of some importance in the present argument.
• When St. Luke was going to relate the calling of St. Peter, he says, that · Jesus stood by the lake of Gennesareth, which explained to foreigners what the other evangelifts meant by the sea of Galilee.
• Again, he informs us, that the miracle of feeding the five thousand was done in a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida: where St. Matthew and St. Mark speak only of a desert place.
• In the following instances of naming places he is the fole relater of the things done in them. He mentions, that the annunciation was at Nazareth, a city of Galilee; the enrolment of Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem, the city of David in Judea ; the escape of our Lord from the fury of the multitude by a divine power upon the hill on which Nazareth ftood; the raising of a widow's son to life at a city called Nain, not far from Capernaum; that ten lepers were healed in a village on the confines of Galilee and Samaria; and that Zaccheus, the chief of the publicans, entertained our Lord at or near Jericho.
• Now if the specification of places is not usual with him, how comes it to be found more particularly in those passages, where St. Matthew and St. Mark are explained by it, or things are related which they do not mention? In either case it was useful to deviate from his general practice; but he could not be sensible of this utility, unless he had seen their gospels.
• St. Mark says, the people cast • money into the treasury.' St. Luke explains their intention to strangers, by calling the money, which they cast in, their gifts, and by indicating, that this treasury was a bank which received the offerings of God.
• Mark xiv. 54. And Peter warmed bimself at THE BLAZE
• Luke xxii. 56. A certain maid beheld bim as be sat by THE BLAZE OF FIRE.
• I have translated the word ows, a blaze of fire, to distinguish it from the common wordTup used by St. Luke, v. 55. where he speaks of the fire kindled in the midst of the hall. He intro. duces Qws in the following verse, where it is more significant: for this blaze of fire, by which Peter sat, enabled the maid to difcern, that he was a disciple of Jesus. The 'meaning of pas, though not without clasical authority is not very common, H4
which makes it more likely that St. Loke took the word from St. Mark, and placed ic to advantage.
• Matthew, xxvi. 68., leaves his readers to suppose that the officers or servants covered our Lora's face; and St. Mark omits to tell, what it was that they bid him prophesy. But St. Luke, by mentioning both circumstances, sets the matter in a clearer light, and completes the narration of the two other evangelifts ; “ And when they had covered him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, prophesy, Wbo is be that smori thee?”
In these and other parallels, which the author produces, there is some advantage of explication or clearness on the Side of St. Luke. And nothing, he thinks, can be cast as a counterpoise into the opposite scale. St. Mark, however, by improving on St. Matthew's expressions, Mews, that he would have availed himself of St. Luke's, had the gospel of the latier been then published.
In the next place he endeavours to prove, that St. Mark wrote his gospel under the direction of St. Peter.
• 1. It appears, he says, to have been dictated by an eyewitness. The pillow in the binder part of the ship, on which Jesus was asleep; the green grafs, on which the multitude fat down to be miraculously fed; the rising of blind Bartimeus, and the casting away of his garments; the colt tied by the door without, in a place, where two ways met; and many other minute matters indicate, that the historian, who described them, had been a spectator.
2. It appears to have been dictated by a Galilean.- When this evangelist talks of crossing the lake of Galilee, he talks the language of borderers on it: Let us pass over unto thg OTHER SIDE. Instead of which St. Luke lays, Let us go unto the other side of THE LAKE.
• 3. It was di&tated by an apostle. St. Luke frequently calls the disi iples of our Saviour, his apofiles. But St. Mark, as well as St. Matthew and St. Luke, is reserved in giving them this title of dignity: which is a fign, that the director of this gospel was one of the same order with the apostolical evangelifts.
St. Mark, as well as St. Matthew, is free and ingenuous in revealing the many imperfections of the apostles. But there things, which better became themselves to confess than another to proclaim, are passed over by St. Luke.—There are many things, which tended solely to the honour of St. Peter, of which $t. Mark never exhibits any view. With regard to St. Peter's infirmisies, whatever appears of that kind in the other gospels, is faithfully recorded in St. Mark's; and it is observable, that Jefs is said by this evangelift of his speedy repentance and bitrer tears after his great fall, than by St. Matthew and St. Luke.
The author proceeds to prove, that St. Mark wrote his gospel for a mixed fociety of Jewish and Gentile converts; and that he published it at Rome or in Italy, about the end of the year 56 or 60.
In the subsequent discourses he endeavours to Thew, by the same internal evidence, that St. Luke wrote for the gentile converts, probably in Achaia; that St. John.wrote a good while later than any other evangelists, after the destruction of Jeru. falem.
In support of the last assertion he proposes, among many others, the following arguments.
• St. John proceeds immediately to recite a short conversation concerning himself between St. Peter and our Lord, and in what sense it was understood by the brethren :
• Peter seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what Mall this man do? Jesus saitb unto him, If I will that be tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among
the brethren, that that disciple frould not die.
Upon which he observes : Yet Jesus said not unto him, He Mall not die; but, If I will that be tarry till I come, what is that to thee? And by denying only, that Jesus said, He foould net die, he admits, that a promise was made him of living till Christ came.
• What then is this coming of Chrift? And why did not St. John, who was to die like other men, explain what it meant, that he might effectually put a stop to the false furmises of the brethren ? I can see but one reason, why he is no more explicit, and it is this: he wrote his gospel at a time, when it was generally understood among the brethren, that he had lived to see the advent of Christ, to which the promise related. He who hereafter will come to consume the wicked with the brighte ness of his appearing, was already come in the clouds of heaven. The glory of his person was unseen, but the power of his presence was felt in his judgments. And the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity was such a comment on the promise, that St. John should survive cill Christ came, that there needed no other.
• On this ground, which appears to be firm and good, let us consider an account given by him, ch. xi. 47-50. of the proceedings of the Jewish rulers. 'In a conference among them. felves concerning Christ, they said; Wbat do we? for ibis man dorb many
miracles. If we let bim ibús alone, all men will believe on bim: and the Romans shall come and take away bob our place and nation - The result of the consultation was, Thar it was expedient be should die. And what they judged so expedient, they soon accomplished. However the Romans came, and took away both their place and nation. And great and dreadful was the fall of them, Afterwards St. John published this account of their counsels and proceedings; first, as a manifefta. tion to mankind of the visible hand and just vengeance of heaven on a people, who had concurred with the unrighteous policy of their rulers, and had been the betrayers and martherers of the just one: secondly, as a call to the fad survivors of those calamities; that the remnant being offrighted might give glory to God by their conversion.
• St. Matthew had shown early, that they had made them. selves and their children responsible for the blood of Chrift; and now St. John reminds them, that it had been required at their hands.
• These several circumstances are strongly on the side of those, who maintain the late publication of St. John's gospel.
To these observations the author subjoins some general remarks on the authenticity of the gospels.
• The evangelifts in succession pursued a wise and sure me. thod of warranting the truth and genuineness of each former gospel with all the authority of the latter. Let us for instance suppose St. Peter to have been requested or to have defired 10 leave his testimony with the church in St. Mark's gospel, of the authenticity of St, Matthew's. How was this to be effected! He might have mentioned it, as he does St. Paul's Epiftles, in terms of respect, and called it, The Gospel of our beloved brother Matthew : by which or the like words he would doubtless have borne witness to the truth of it. But if a question should arise, not whether, St. Matthew had composed a true gospel, but which was the true gospel of St. Matthew, such a testimony could no more decide it, than the ranking of St. Paul's Epistles with the other scriptures can determine, whether the Epistle to the Hebrews be St. Paul's. If then a gospel was afterwards to appear under the title of The Gospel according to the Hebrews, which might be mistaken, and actually was mistaken by some, for the authentic gospel of St. Matthew; how could St. Peter deposite with the church a better touchstone by which to detect the adulterate, than by incorporating much of the genuine into his own gospel ?
Again, if St. Luke transcribed several passages from St. Mark, we have the attestation not only of St. Luke, but of his
end and principal St. Paul, to the verity of this gospel,
• Laftly, St. John authenticated the three foregoing gospels by an opposite method, that is, by omitting, not repeating, what they had related. Of which enough has been said.
• As to St. John's gospel, if it was written late, as many suppose, and I think with probability, the church of Chrift had then acquired some strength and consistence, and a more cary and settled correspondence of its distant members with each other. And perhaps no city was better fituated than Ephesus to spread intelligence to the generality of places where any Chriltians resided. A city so much frequented formed a conneation between the two great divifions of Europe and Afia. Here it is generally allowed, that St. John composed his gospel; and the notoriety of the fact superseded the want of another apoftle to atteft it.'
The last discourse is an enquiry concerning the hours of St. John, of the Romans, and of some other nations of antiquity. It was the way of the ancients to divide the day into twelve hours, and the night into as many. The first hour of the day was an hour after the rising of the fun, and the twelfth was when it was set. This was the way in Judea : and to this the other evangelists adhere. But our author supposes, that St. John reckoned the hours as we do, from midnight to noon, and again from noon to midnight; and, upon this hypothefis, he explains every passage in the gospel of that evangelist, in which the hour is mentioned.
• If, in treating the several questions of these discourses, fome arguments are set down, which appear of small value fingly, yet the collective sum of them, with the aids, which different parts reciprocally lend to each other, amounts, he thinks, to a proof, which
may be deemed a moral certainty, that the order of the gospels, and the main of the articles here asserted are true.'
In these investigations the author has displayed a confiderable degree of learning, accuracy, and judgement; and has pursued a scheme, which gives much more satisfaction to a critical reader, concerning the order, the dates, the authen. ticity of the gospels, than the united testimony of the fathers,
Miscellanies in Profe and Verse, by Thomas Chatterton, the fup
posed Author of the Poems published under the Names of Rowley, Canning, &c. 8vo. 35. 6d. jewed. Fielding and Walker. T HE poems, supposed to have been written by Rowlie,
Canynge, and others, were published about the beginning of the last year *; and, since that time, have occasioned a variety of conjectures, relative to their authenticity. It is said, that the original manuscripts were found in an old chest in Redclift church, at Bristol, by Chatterton, the parish clerk, and that, after his death, they fell into the hands of his son, who sent some of them to the editors of the Magazines, and dispofęd of others.
Thomas Chatterton, the younger, was educated at a chasity-school at Bristol, and at the age of fourteen was articled clerk to an attorney in that city. Įn April 1970, he came to
► See Crit. Rev. vol. xliii. p. 88.