Page images
PDF
EPUB

It fell out as was expected, for no sooner had they entered on Divinity, but the villain Edgley (for such he was on many other accounts) immediately asked me what I thought of the Logos. I told him I thought he was God, and with God, as St. John describes him. He was then proceeding to explications in order to entrap me, and would know whether I thought him equal with the Father, but Mr. Peirce interposed, and said I had given a plain answer, and insisted on saying no more on it; this was seconded by both Mr. Withers and Cox, and so my examination was soon over. I was told that they made a very handsome report to the Assembly concerning me, but I am certain their good opinion could never be founded on what I said at that time, for I very well remember I was in the utmost confusion throughout the whole, and made nothing the figure that a young fellow did who was examined with me, who, I am certain, was on the whole a very great blockhead. I was introduced in the Assembly by Mr. Withers, who was a great hater of priests and priestcraft, and a very worthy, learned man. I was complimented by several on both sides, particularly by Mr. Sandercock, who shook me by the hand, and said he was glad to see me thus far. Enty looked as if he was ready to return any compliment I should make him, but I had none for him; and I don't remember that I ever spoke to him or he to me after for the rest of his life. I had a text and a thesis given me to preach upon and to defend at Newton before such ministers as would attend, which was done the October following, where I received a certificate signed by six ministers to signify that I was a licensed candidate by order of the Assembly. And now my father began to make sure of my preaching at Ply mouth, but he did not consider that I stood on very bad terms both with Harding and Enty. It was plain that the latter was heartily disgusted for the part I had acted at the Assembly, that all acquaintance between us was at an end, and that no compliment could be expected from that quarter: what the former would do was uncertain, for though on one hand external civilities passed between us, as we had had no personal quarrel, and as my father was a payer to his meeting, yet there was no real friendship existing,

for he saw I hated the Assembly, and suspected me to be not orthodox. For which reasons I myself expected no compliment from him and was glad of it, because I seemed to have a dread and an aversion to preach in Plymouth. However, after some time he had thoughts of owning me as a brother, as he chose to express himself, and sent his assistant, Mr. Henry Brett, to ask me to give him, not Mr. Harding, a sermon. This looked to me rather like a permission than a friendly invitation, and as the pulpit was not Mr. Brett's I begged to be excused. He said he came with Mr. Harding's approbation; I answered, that appeared to me no more than a bare leave or liberty, which was no temptation to one who was far from fond of running into his pulpit. However, I said, if he really wanted a lift I would supply any country minister's place that should preach for him, and I did so. Every one knew I had preached for Mr. Brett, though I preached abroad, and wondered why I did not as well preach at home. This whisper obliged Mr. Harding to give out that he had asked me, but I had refused. I then told the whole story to every body, and I told himself at an house where I accidentally met him, that he had used me ill, for what reason he best knew. I did preach at his meeting some time after, to the great satisfaction of my father, but little of my own. I likewise preached once or twice at the Baptist meeting, and these were the only times I ever preached in Plymouth or that my father heard me, and this I record as a most grievous disappointment to him, considering to what shifts he had put me, and what steps I had taken purely to gratify an invincible, enthusiastic passion. In the very next Assembly after this, Mr. Peirce's affair came to a crisis. The orthodox made a public declaration of their faith in the Trinity, agreeable to the Articles and Creeds of the Church of England and to the Assembly's Catechism, and every body believed them. Mr. Peirce and his friends hastily set their names to a paper, in which they declared they were no Arians, and that they believed the Scriptures, for which almost every body laughed at them, and said that they in a manner confessed the Assembly's charge, and assured the world of it under their hands. I unluckily for my private interest happened to be

one of the brave fellows that signed it, the consequence of which was, that there was scarce any for me to preach to besides the poor remains of a few broken congregations, who had good nature and charity enough to stand by their ministers, whose reputation, interest and usefulness was absolutely ruined by the rage, aspersions and violence of the other party.

And thus ended my short warfare among the paltry spiritual wickednesses with whom it was my ill luck to be concerned. I have often thought, with some surprise, how a person of my father's education and business, who got all he had by his own labour and diligence, should never entertain any thoughts of enabling me either to augment what he should leave me, or at least to preserve it. But bigotry, unaccountable, destructive bigotry, was to be my evil genius with regard to

this world.

And now I am come to the year 1723, which after long and tedious infirmities put an end to his life and my ministry. I had no notion of keeping up a character which was now become ridiculous and universally censured, without being able to do some good to others or to myself. During the bustle I was in, I did make a shift to keep my honour and honesty untainted, and a very hard shift it was. I thought I should never come off with more innocence, and, therefore, I fully resolved to leave off while it was well. There is but one thing more about which I am solicitous, and that is my independence. I can part with many things which some are very fond of, for the sake of this; for as I never have, so I hope I never shall feel the tortures of ambition, the stings of envy, or fears of poverty. Hitherto I have been happy in my situation and way of living, but how long or how far I am so to be indulged, time only can discover. The world, as Milton sings, is all before me, and Providence my guide. I hope I shall do no harm in the world. Though I am not qualified to do much good, I will do my duty and be contented. If with my honesty, liberty, independence and peace, I enjoy an humble competence, I am happy, but if not,

[ocr errors]

Te Deum laudamus.

SIR,

Dunster Court, Mincing Lane,
March 20, 1821.

I conceived the idea of translating EVERAL years have elapsed since Professor Eichhorn's Critical Enqui ries into the Writings of the Old and New Testaments, but the little encou ragement I met with in an attempt to bring out his work on the Apocryphal almost deterred me from prosecuting Scriptures of the Old Testament, "has the design. In the mean time, it has occurred to me that a Summary of the Contents of the Professor's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament may be interesting to many of your readers, to whom the original may be unknown; and under this impression I take the liberty of transmitting to you the enclosed translation of the Contents of the First Volume, that you may, if you think proper, give it a place in your Repository; that I have adhered to the author's observing merely, by way of conclusion, phraseology, and that, if it suits your purpose, I shall furnish you regularly with the Contents of the remaining

three volumes.

T. T.

Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, by J. G. Eichhorn, in 4 vols.*

Contents of Vol. I. pp. 680.
1. Of the Oldest Gospels.

Those portions of the life of Jesus which in the apostolical times were deemed the most important, and formed the basis of a course of instructions in Christianity, comprising all the remarkable transactions which took place from the time of his appearance in public as a teacher, to his final separation from his disciples after his resurrection, formed, in all probability, the

contents of the first scriptural sketch of the life of Jesus.

This sketch is no longer extant : for the catholic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, comprise more po tions of the life of Jesus than those

Some account of this work may be seen, Mon. Repos. VII. 355, 356, and a considerable translated extract from it, VII. 357-362. See also references to Eichhorn's work on the Apocrypha, in N.'s Essay on the Book of Wisdom, X. 473-475. ED,

here adverted to; besides which, Gospels very different from those were in use even at the conclusion of the second century.

1. Of the Gospel of the Hebrews. -It was a Gospel drawn up by Hebrews-under which appellation the twelve apostles were not understood till after the fourth century-hence it is uncertain why it is ascribed to more Hebrews than one-it was written in the Aramaean dialect and only made use of by Nazarenes and Ebionites in Syria and Palestine-but considered as a very ancient writing by all who were acquainted with it-it was not the same as the Gospel now extant, under the name of Matthew, but was related to it at first it was a brief composition, but was gradually increased from time to time by various additionspassages corresponding with some of these additions may be found in the catholic Gospels, but of others there is no trace to be met with some of these are mere amplifications of one common text; others only different translations of an Aramacan text it is possible that the Elcesaites also may have used it.

2. The Gospel of Marcion-related in the order of Luke-in the very words of Luke-but with variationswith a more defective style of narrative -with omissions of single verses and whole paragraphs-at times it exhibits only the hasty outlines of a transaction which Luke has afterwards completed and worked up-it commenced with the period of time when Jesus appeared as a teacher, but did not comprise the concluding passages extant in Luke still it was not a mutilated Gospel according to Luke, but shorter, and wholly independent of his, although related to it, being in fact the source from which Luke directly or indirectly gathered his materials.

3. Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles are, in so far, related to the Gospel of Matthew, as they comprise a narrative of the youthful history of Jesus yet differ from it in point of expression, in a variety of additions, and as being a more imperfect narrative differing in additions, which are partly to be traced in the Gospel according to Luke-and partly to be found in no Gospel now extant. These discrepancies do not proceed from mere quotations from memory-or from any VOL. XVI.

2 D

harmony or diatessaron of other gospels or from the use of the Gospel of the Hebrews.

4. The Gospel of Cerinthus approached in some respect to Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles.

5. The Harmony of Tatianus agreed with the Gospel of the Hebrews in such passages as it exhibits according to Matthew, but in those narrated according to Luke, it approached to the Gospel of Marcion.

6. Of the Gospels of the Apostolic Fathers.-The apostolical fathers were ignorant of the catholic Gospels.

1. Barnabas must either have collected such portions of the discourses of Jesus as his writings contain from traditions, or if he quotes from scriptural records at all, his quotations are certainly not taken from the canonical Gospels.

2. Clemens of Rome cites nothing in his first Epistle to the Corinthians which corresponds with the contents of the catholic Gospels-but, on the contrary, in his second Epistle agrees in one particular passage with the Gospel of the Egyptians.

3. Ignatius differs equally from the catholic Gospels, but agrees in one place with the Gospel of the Hebrews.

4. Polycarp certainly does not harmonize with any of the catholic Gospels, although no scriptural record can be traced as the source of that Epistle known under his name.

From the above is inferred that the catholic Gospels were not in use prior to the conclusion of the second century, but that other writings nearly related to them were current up to that period, which in the sequel have been lost.

These Gospels, which have so perished, sprung from one common root, separating afterwards in two distinct branches, each of which again produced its separate shoots.

i. The first of these principal branches, from which the catholic Gospel according to Matthew is derived, comprises

1. The Gospel of the Hebrews. 2. The Gospel of Cerinthus. 3. Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles.

4. Tatian's Harmony of the Gospels (according to one account).

ii. The second principal branch, from which the catholic Gospel ac

cording to Luke, takes its origin, has produced

1. The Gospel of Marcion.

2. Tatian's Diatessaron (according to another account).

The root from which both branches originate (or, in other words, the common source of all the Gospels which have perished) was a very ancient summary of the life of Jesus, an archi-original Gospel (Urevangelium).

II. Of the three first Catholic Gospels in general.

1. Of the Archi-original Gospel, (Urevangelium,) or such passages as are to be found in all the three Gospels -In these passages the Evangelists did not make use of each other-but all availed themselves of one common source-which contained all the principal transactions of the life of Jesus, in a well-connected narrative, the first part of which, however, was not drawn up in strict chronological order, on which account it is altered in the Gospel according to Matthew-it was, moreover, originally written in the Aramaean dialect and was in the sequel recomposed with additions, by different hands.-These augmented editions were variously translated into Greek, founded on the basis of a Greek version of the original Gospel, common to all. Attempts to analyse the three Gospels, with a view to restore the archi-original Gospel (Urevangelium).

2. Of Additions to the Archi-original Gospel, (Urevangelium,) consisting of passages to be found in two of the Gospels only, or even in one alone-such are

1. Passages contained only in the Gospels according to Matthew and Mark-these have been adopted by both from the same scriptural source -which was not one of the Gospels themselves, but a narrative independent and distinct from either-drawn up in the Aramacan dialect, and translated by different writers-who in the progress of their work availed themselves of a certain Greek document open to all-these passages were, moreover, written and augmented by various per

sons.

2. Passages which are only to be traced in the Gospels of Mark and Luke-these were gathered from some common scriptural source-composed in the Aramacan dialect-with addi

tions péculiar to each Evangelistwho made use of a Greek translation founded, however, on no document accessible to both.

Origin of the Gospel according to Mark.

3. Passages common to Matthew and Luke only-these were admitted into the Gospels of both, from written sources, wholly independent of each other-in two distinct narratives and equally distinct Greek translations from the Aramaean dialect, but with one and the same Greek scriptural record for their common basis.

Origin of the catholic Gospels according to Matthew and Luke.

Fresh confirmation of the origin of these Gospels, as deduced from the above-on the supposition that the Greek Gospel according to Mark was the scriptural narrative used in drawing up these translations.

4. Passages peculiar to each individual evangelist-general view of the manner in which the catholic Gospels have been compiled from the sources above described.

Of other Hypotheses regarding the Origin of the Gospels.

1. Mark did not borrow from Matthew or Luke.

2. Matthew and Luke did not borrow from Mark.

3. The three Evangelists did not borrow from the Gospel of the Hebrews-or from any traditional Gospel

neither did Mark and Luke borrow from a Greek edition of Matthew.— Objections to the grounds hitherto adduced in favour of the sources from whence the catholic Gospels took their rise-advantages likely to result from discovering the true source of the Gospels.

III. Of each of the three first Gospels, namely, of Matthew, Mark and Luke, in particular.

1. Of Matthew.-Accounts extant respecting him-and his Gospel-to what extent he may be considered the author of the Gospel under his name

a. such passages must not be ascribed to Matthew as are to be found in his Gospel alone-b. nor even a portion of those passages which he possesses in common, partly with Luke and partly with Mark-c. but of those alone is he to be deemed the author, which his Gospel has in common with both the Gospels of Luke and Mark.—

Advantages of the above discovery— in how far Matthew may be said to have written in the Hebrew language -principal contents of Matthew-his Gospel intended for the use of Jewish Christians of the historical talent of the editor of the Gospel according to Matthew-age of the Gospel according to Matthew Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles shewn to be an earlier, but more imperfect Gospel, approaching, however, near to the catholic Gospel of Matthew in regard to its subject and contents.

2. Of Mark.-Notices respecting him and his Gospel-his Gospel was not composed at Rome from oral communications had with Peter-nor can it be proved that he actually wrote after the demise of Peter-or that he published his Gospel at two different times-of its origin and authenticity -uncertainty respecting the place and country for which it was originally designed-its conclusion ascertained to be genuine.

3. Of Luke.-Accounts of LukeTheophilus, for whom his Gospel was drawn up, probably lived in Italy-it is unknown where and at what period it was written-of its authenticitythe sources of it-previous to the time in which Luke wrote, other attempts had been made to collect together the various imperfect sources of which he availed himself-for instance, in the Gospel of Marcion.

IV. Observations on the three first Evangelists collectively.

Cause of the dearth of genuine accounts respecting the three first Gospels-age of the superscriptions ascribing the Gospels to them-of their want of chronological order-ineffectual attempts made to harmonize them early corruptions of their texts, owing to

1. Apocryphal Gospels. 2. Alterations purposely made by heretics.

3. Alterations purposely introduced by catholic teachers.

4. Attempts at verbal criticisms. 5. Modes of appointing the lessons for the church.

[blocks in formation]

H

SIR, Hackney, March 29, 1821. AVING been instrumental in the circulation of a mis-statement originally, but certainly unintentionally, made by Michaelis, I beg you will allow me to correct it. That mis-statement regarded the destruction of the MSS. at Alcalá, from which Ximenes' Polyglot was made. [Mon. Repos. XIV. 596, Note.]

Those MSS. never were employed, though the story has been frequently repeated, for the purpose of making rockets. The oldest catalogue which exists of the books at the Alcalá University is of the date of 1745. There is a prologue to it complaining of damage done to other MSS. of less value, but no reference to any loss of these scriptural documents. In the middle of the last century a famous fire-work manufacturer (called Torija) lived at Alcalá, but he was a man of letters, with whom the most eminent of the professors were accustomed to associate-it is impossible he should have been instrumental in such an act of barbarism. But what demonstrates the falsity of the supposition is, that Alvaro Gomez, who in the 16th century published his work, "De rebus gestis Cardinalis Francisci Ximenes de Cisneros," there affirms that the number of Hebrew MSS. in the University was only seven, and seven is the number that now remains.

The period in which these MSS. are said to have been so indignantly treated was one when the library was under the judicious care of a man of considerable eminence, and when the whole of the MSS., amounting to 160, were handsomely bound. There are at Alcalá, indeed, no Greek MSS. of the whole Bible; but we are told by Gomez that Leo the Tenth lent to Ximenes those he required from the Vatican, which were returned as soon as the Polyglot was completed. These were probably taken charge of by Demetrius the Greek, who was sent into Spain at this period by the Pope. It must not be forgotten that Ximenes' character was one of a strange affection for economy, of which every thing at Alcalá bears proofs. That which he could borrow he would not buy. His ambition, proud as it was, was ministered to by his avarice as well as his vanity.

JOHN BOWRING.

« PreviousContinue »