the Gospel of St. Matthew;” which puts him at issue with Epiphanius.
Will Dr. Tattershall permit me to lay before him a passage of Jerome,
which has been under his eye recently, for he has quoted a sentence from
Jones which occurs on the adjacent page; it runs thus. “Matthew, also
called Levi, who became from a publican an Apostle, was the first who
composed a gospel of Christ; and for the sake of those who believed in
Christ among the Jews, wrote it in the Hebrew language and letters; but
it is uncertain who it was that translated it into Greek. Moreover the
Hebrew (copy) itself is to this time preserved in the library of
Cæsarea, which Pamphilus, the martyr, with much diligence collected. The
Nazarenes, who live in Beræa, a city of Syria, and make use of this
volume, granted me the favour of writing it out; in which (Gospel) there
is this observable, that wherever the Evangelist either himself cites,
or introduces our Saviour as citing, any passage out of the Old
Testament, he does not follow the translation of the Seventy, but the
Hebrew copies: of which there are these two instances, viz., that ‘Out
of Egypt I have called my son;’[125] and that, ‘He[126] shall be called
a Nazarene.’”[127]
Here Jerome, I presume, _does_ admit the Nazarene Gospel to be that of
Matthew; and the harmony on this point, between him and Epiphanius, is
complete.
Besides alleging the above contradiction, Dr. Tattershall notices a
supposed _variance_ (not amounting to inconsistency) between these two
Fathers on another point. From a statement of Jerome, he “thinks it may
be fairly inferred,” that _he knew_ the first two chapters of Matthew’s
Gospel to be wanting in the Nazarene record. But it is denied that
Epiphanius gives any countenance to the notion of their absence. Now I
conceive that if this statement be precisely reversed, we shall have the
true state of the case before us. Epiphanius gives us testimony to the
absence, Jerome to the presence, of these chapters in the Nazarene
Gospel.
First, as to Epiphanius: he makes the following statements bearing on
this point:
(1.) He says that “the beginning of their (the Ebionites’) Gospel was
this: ‘It came to pass in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, that
John came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river
Jordan.’”[128] Is it not evident from this, that the initial event of
this narrative was the advent of the Baptist, and that the previous
account of the birth of Christ was absent? So, at least, it has been
hitherto supposed.
(2.) He says in positive terms, “They have taken away the genealogy from
Matthew, and _accordingly_ begin their Gospel, as I have above said,
with these words; ‘It came to pass,’ &c.”[129] It cannot be imagined
that this will bear any but the common interpretation, that the Gospel
began with the substance of our third chapter. The introduction of the
miraculous conception, after John’s mission, would be an incredible
disturbance of arrangement.[130]
(3.) He says, “That Cerinthus and Carpocrates, using this same Gospel of
theirs, would prove from the beginning of that Gospel according to
Matthew, viz. by its genealogy, that Christ proceeded from the seed of
Joseph and Mary.” But to what purpose would these heretics have put this
construction upon the genealogy, and argued from it the mere humanity of
Christ’s origin, if it was immediately followed by a section, flatly
contradicting what they had been labouring to prove? It is impossible
then to get rid of Epiphanius’s testimony to the absence of these
chapters.
Secondly, let us turn to Jerome. Dr. Tattershall conceives that because
this author speaks of certain men without the spirit and grace of God,
as having had some concern in the composition of this gospel, we may
conclude that the introductory chapters were wanting from the copy which
he used. The inference is not very obvious; and is at once destroyed by
the fact, that Jerome’s quotations from the Nazarene Gospel, contain
passages of Matthew’s introductory chapters. In a passage, _e.g._, which
I have adduced above, occur two instances; “Out of Egypt I have called
my son;” and, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
_This_ discrepancy between these two fathers would have furnished Dr.
Tattershall with a more powerful argument against the Editor’s note,
than any which he has adduced; and have enabled him to show that Jerome,
being cited for one purpose, establishes precisely the reverse.
III. Dr. Tattershall adduces in evidence against the worth of the
Nazarene Gospel, the absurd chronological mistake in its first sentence,
which assigns the Baptist’s appearance to the days of Herod, king of
Judæa.
On this I have only to observe, that it might have been well to state,
that the blunder is commonly attributed to Epiphanius himself, rather
than to the Gospel which he cites. Whatever that work may have been, it
was produced near the spot where the Herods lived, in times when the
remembrance of them was fresh, for the people over whom they reigned; so
that a mistake of that magnitude, in its first verse, must be regarded
as of improbable occurrence. On the other hand, Epiphanius, it is
admitted, _had never seen this Gospel_, and therefore cited it from
hearsay; he wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, and is
remarkable for inaccuracy of every kind, and especially with regard to
time. There is then no improbability in the supposition that Epiphanius
confounded Herod the king, with Herod the tetrarch, and with the purpose
of explanation, inserted a mistake, by adding the words, “King of
Judæa.” Eichhorn says, “Two different Herods are confounded
together,—the King Herod under whom John was born, and Herod Antipas,
under whom the Baptist publicly appeared;—an evident mark of a later
annotating or correcting hand, unguided by a knowledge of the true
chronology, as contained in Luke, and so substituting one Herod for
another.”[131] For the foregoing reasons, it appears to me that Dr.
Tattershall has not, by making his strictures sound, earned the right to
render them severe.
The evidence bearing upon the introduction of Luke’s Gospel, is much
simpler and less confused; and to Dr. Tattershall’s estimate of it, no
valid objection, I think, can be urged.
---------------------
C.
_On the Chronological Inconsistency between the
introductory chapters of Matthew, and those of Luke._
In his note on this subject, Dr. Tattershall points out, as an example
of carelessness in the Editors of the Improved Version, the following
discrepancy between two of their statements. In their note on Matthew i.
16, they say, “If it be true, as Luke relates, that ‘Jesus was entering
upon his thirtieth year, in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius;’” and in their note on Luke i. 4, they say, “The Evangelist
(Luke) _expressly affirms_ that Jesus _had completed_ his thirtieth
year,” &c. It would have been only just to add, that in the more recent
editions of the Improved Version, this inconsistency does not exist. The
fourth edition (1817) lies before me; and in it the latter note stands
thus: “The Evangelist expressly affirms that Jesus had entered upon, or,
as Grotius understands it, had completed his thirtieth year,” &c.
To all the other strictures contained in Dr. Tattershall’s note, “the
Unitarian Editors” appear to me to be justly liable.[132] The inaccuracy
of their chronology was long ago perceived, by more friendly critics
than their present assailants; and sounder calculations of the dates of
our Lord’s birth, and ministry, were instituted and published by Dr.
Carpenter, in the admirable dissertation prefixed to his “Apostolical
Harmony of the Gospels.” Not being aware of any method, at all
satisfactory, by which the notes in the “Improved Version,” referring to
this point, can be defended, I do not profess to understand why they
appear again and again without remark or correction, in the successive
editions of that work.
Dr. Tattershall, I perceive, adopts the usual mode of reconciling the
chronology of Matthew and Luke; and supposes that the reign of Tiberius
must be reckoned, not from his succession to the dignity of Emperor, on
the death of Augustus, but from his previous association with Augustus,
in the tribunitial authority. Widely as this explanation has been
adopted, it cannot be denied that it has been invented to suit the case;
that such a mode of reckoning would never have been thought of, had it
not been for this discrepancy between the two Evangelists; and that it
has nothing to support it but the evidence which belongs to all
hypotheses, viz., that if true, it removes the difficulty which it was
designed to explain. Even the industry of Lardner has failed to present
us with any instance in which a Roman historian has reckoned the reign
of Tiberius, from this association with his predecessor; or with any
distinct trace that such a mode of computation was ever employed. And it
is notorious that all the Christian Fathers calculated the fifteenth
year of Tiberius from the death of Augustus. Should Dr. Tattershall be
in possession of any evidence in support of this mode of reckoning, more
satisfactory than that which has hitherto been adduced, he would render
an important service to biblical literature by producing it.
---------------------
D.
It is so universally understood that we are indebted to Mr. Thirlwall
for the admirable translation of Schleiermacher’s Essay, that I conceive
there can be no impropriety in speaking of the work as his; though his
name does not appear in the title-page;—a circumstance of which I was
not aware, till making this extract for the press. The whole note from
which are taken the words in the Lecture, is as follows:—“The arguments
by which Hug attempted to reconcile the two Evangelists on the residence
of Joseph, are extremely slight and unsatisfactory. He admits that St.
Matthew supposes Bethlehem to have been Joseph’s usual dwelling-place.
But, he asks, was St. Matthew wrong? This, however, is not the question,
but only whether he is consistent with St. Luke. Now, nothing can be
more evident than that, according to the account of the latter, Joseph
was a total stranger at Bethlehem. Bethlehem was indeed, as Hug remarks,
_in one sense_ his own city, but clearly not in the sense that Matthew’s
account supposes. Here too, therefore, Schleiermacher’s position seems
to remain unshaken.”—(See note on p. 44, of Translation of
Schleiermacher’s Critical Essay on St. Luke’s Gospel.)
------------------------------------
Footnotes for Lecture II.
Footnote 48:
Galatians iii. 24.
Footnote 49:
Acts xxvi. 26.
Footnote 50:
John xiv. 23.
Footnote 51:
John vi. 44.
Footnote 52:
John xviii. 37.
Footnote 53:
John x. 37.
Footnote 54:
John x. 27.
Footnote 55:
John vii. 17.
Footnote 56:
Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible. Preliminary
Lecture II. p. 35.
Footnote 57:
Preliminary Lecture I., pp. 4, 5.
Footnote 58:
Jer. xxxvi. 23. See Rev. Dr. Tattershall’s Lecture on the Integrity of
the Canon. Introduction.
Footnote 59:
Rev. F. Ould’s Letter of February 11, 1839.
Footnote 60:
The Improved Version was published in August, 1808. Rev. T. Lindsey,
who had been labouring under the effects of paralysis ever since 1801,
died November 3rd, the same year.
Footnote 61:
See Note A.
Footnote 62:
See Note B.
Footnote 63:
Evidence of Christianity, part III, chapter 2.
Footnote 64:
See Note C.
Footnote 65:
See Note D.
Footnote 66:
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, part II. ch. ii. § 1.
Footnote 67:
Matt. xiii. 58.
Footnote 68:
John iv. 18.
Footnote 69:
John x. 32.
Footnote 70:
John x. 37.
Footnote 71:
Luke x. 17.
Footnote 72:
Acts ii. 1-4.
Footnote 73:
Pp. 236, 237.
Footnote 74:
John xix. 35.
Footnote 75:
xxi. 24.
Footnote 76:
Luke i. 2.
Footnote 77:
Acts ii. 1-4.
Footnote 78:
1 Cor. xiv. 18.
Footnote 79:
1 Cor. xiv. _passim_: especially 4, 5, 13, 19, 23.
Footnote 80:
1 Cor. xii. 8, 10.
Footnote 81:
Acts vi. 1-4.
Footnote 82:
Luke i. 15.
Footnote 83:
Matt. xii. 3.
Footnote 84:
John xiv. 16, 17, 26.
Footnote 85:
Discourses on the principal Points of the Socinian Controversy, p.
341. Disc. xi.
Footnote 86:
1 John ii. 20.
Footnote 87:
2 Pet. i. 21.
Footnote 88:
Unwilling to repeat what I have already said, in a former publication,
I have contented myself with a brief and slight notice of this
celebrated text. It is discussed in a less cursory manner in the notes
to the first Lecture in the “Rationale of Religious Inquiry.” I would
only add, that Schleusner considers the word θεὀπνευστος, as
belonging, not to the predicate, but to the subject, of the sentence.
See his Lexicon in Nov. Test. in verb. “In N. T. semel legitur 2 Tim.
iii. 16. πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata,
seu, quæ est originis divinæ.”
Footnote 89:
Sermon on the Nature and Extent of the Right of Private Judgment p.
238.
Footnote 90:
P. 249.
Footnote 91:
Schleiermacher’s Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke.
Introduction by the Translator, p. xv.
Footnote 92:
Pp. xv. and xi.
Footnote 93:
Evidences of Christianity, part III. ch. i.
Footnote 94:
Matt. iv. 12-22.
Footnote 95:
John i. 35-51.
Footnote 96:
Mark i. 16-20.
Footnote 97:
Luke v. 10, 11.
Footnote 98:
Matt. xxvi. 69-end.
Footnote 99:
Luke xxii. 56-62.
Footnote 100:
John xviii. 15-25.
Footnote 101:
xxvii. 32.
Footnote 102:
xxiii. 26.
Footnote 103:
xix. 17.
Footnote 104:
xxvii. 37.
Footnote 105:
xv. 26.
Footnote 106:
xxiii. 38.
Footnote 107:
xix. 19.
Footnote 108:
xxvii. 44.
Footnote 109:
xv. 32.
Footnote 110:
xxiii. 39-43.
Footnote 111:
Pp. 243, 244.
Footnote 112:
See Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, 1809, pp.
97, _seqq._; 152, _seqq._; 274, _seqq._; 384, _seqq._
Footnote 113:
Reply to Magee, p. 302.
Footnote 114:
Καὶ Ἐβιωναῖοι χρηματίζουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὡς Χριστὸν
παραδεξάμενοι.—_Contr. Cels._, lib. ii. c. 1. Op. tom. i. pp. 385 C.
386 A. Ed. Delarue. Paris. 1733.
Footnote 115:
Οὗτοι δε εἰσὶν οἱ διττοὶ Ἐβιωναῖοι, ἤτοι ἐκ παρθένου ὁμολογοῦντες
ὁμοίως ἡμῖν τὸν Ἰμσοῦν, ἤ οὐχ οὕτω γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὡς τοὶς
ἀνθρώποις.—_Contr. Cels._, lib. v. c. 61. Op. tom. i. p. 625 A.
Footnote 116:
Οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν πιστεύοντες οὐ καταλελοίπασι τὸν
πάτριον νόμον· βιοῦσι γὰρ κατ’ αὐτὸν, ἐπώνυμοί τε κατὰ τὴν ἐκδοχὴν
πτωχείας τοῦ νόμου γεγενημένοι. Ἐβίων τε γὰρ ὁ πτωχὸς παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις
καλεῖται.—_Contr. Cels._, lib. ii. c. 1. Op. tom. i. p. 385.
Footnote 117:
Καὶ ἐπὰν ἴδῃς τῶν ἀπὸ Ιουδαίων πιστευόντων εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὴν περὶ τοῦ
σωτῆρος πίστιν, ὅτε μὲν ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ οἰομένων αὐτὸν εἶναι,
ὅτε δὲ ἐκ Μαρίας μὲν μόνης καὶ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος, οὐ μὴν καὶ μετὰ
τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ θεολογίας, ὄψει πῶς οὗτος ὁ τυ φλός λέγι &c.—_Comment.
in Matt._, tom. xvi. c. 12. Op. tom. iii. p. 733 A.
Footnote 118:
Ἤδη δ’ ἐν τούτοις τινὲς καὶ τὸ καθ’ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον κατέλεξαν, ᾧ
μάλιστα Ἑβραίων οἱ τὸν παραδεξάμενοι χαίρουσι.—_Hist. Eccles._, lib.
iii. c. 25. vol. i. pp. 246, 247. Heinichen Lips. 1827.
Footnote 119:
Εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ μόνῳ τῷ καθ’ Ἑβραίους λεγομένῳ χρώμενοι, τῶν λοιπῶν
σμικρὸν ἐποιοῦντο λόγον.—Lib. iii. c. 27. vol. i. p. 252. Both
passages are in Jones, Pt. II. ch. 25.
Footnote 120:
Διό καὶ ὁ Ιωάννης ἐλθὼν ὁ μακάριος, καὶ εὑρὼν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους
ἠσχολημένους περὶ τὴν κάτω Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν, καὶ τῶν μὲν Ἐβιωναίων
πλανηθέντων διὰ τὴν ἔνσαρκον Χριστοῦ γενεαλογίαν, ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ
καταγομένην, καὶ Λουκᾶ ἀναγομένην ἄχρι τοῦ Ἀδὰμ· εὑρὼν δὲ τοὺς
Κηρινθιανοὺς καὶ Μηρινθιανοὺς ἐκ παρατριβῆς αὐτὸν λέγοντας εἶναι ψιλὸν
ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τοὺς Ναζωραίους, καὶ ἄλλας πολλὰς αἱρέσεις, ὡς κατόπιν
ἐλθὼν, τέταρτος γὰρ οὗτος εὐαγγελίζεται, ἄρχεται ἀνακαλεῖσθαι, ὡς
εἰπεῖν, τοὺς πλανηθέντας καὶ ἠσχολημένους περὶ τὴν κάτω Χριστοῦ
παρουσίαν, καὶ λέγειν αὐτοῖς (ὡς κατόπιν βαίνων, καὶ ὁρῶν τινὰς εἰς
τραχείας ὁδοὺς κεκλικότας καὶ ἀφέντας τὴν εὐθεῖαν καὶ ἀληθινὴν, ὡς
εἰπεῖν) Ποῖ φέρεσθε, ποῖ βαδίζετε, οἱ τὴν τραχείαν ὁδὸν καὶ σκανδαλώδη
καὶ εἰς χάσμα φέρουσαν βαδίζοντες; ἀνακάμψατε. Οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτως, οὐκ
ἔστιν ἀπὸ Μαρίας μόνον ὁ Θεὸς λόγος, ὁ ἐκ πατρὸς ἄνωθεν
γεγεννημένος.—_Epiphan. adv. Hæreses_, Hær. 49 vel 69. § 23. Op.
Petav. Colon. 1682, vol. ii. pp. 746, 747.
Footnote 121:
Jewish Testimonies, I., Works: Kippis’s ed. 4to. vol. iii. p. 484.
Footnote 122:
Acts xxi. 20. Wall’s Preface to Critical Notes on the N. T. p. 12.
Footnote 123:
Hæres. 29, § 9, as cited by Jones, Part II., ch. 25, and by Dr.
Tattershall, p. 89.
Footnote 124:
Hæres. 30, § 13, as cited by Jones, Part II. ch. 25, and by Dr.
Tattershall, p. 89.
Footnote 125:
Matt. ii. 15.
Footnote 126:
Matt. ii. 23.
Footnote 127:
Catal. vir. illust. in Matth. Giving Jones’s translation, I do not
think it necessary to quote the original Latin. See Jones on the
Canon, Part II. ch. 25.
Footnote 128:
Hær. 30, § 13, quoted by Jones, Part II. ch. 25.
Footnote 129:
Ibid.
Footnote 130:
See Eichhorn’s Einleitung in das N. T. I., § 8; Leipzig, 1820.
Footnote 131:
Einleitung in das N. T., I., § 8, 31; Leipzig, 1820. See also
Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, by Andrews Norton, Note
A. sec. V. i. Boston, U. S., 1837.
Footnote 132:
There is a misprint in Dr. T.’s note, p. 104. The sentence at the end
of the third paragraph should close thus: “nine months _after_ that
event, on one calculation, or three months _before_ it, on the other.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LECTURE III.
CHRISTIANITY NOT THE PROPERTY OF CRITICS AND SCHOLARS;
BUT THE GIFT OF GOD TO ALL MEN.
BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
“FOR GOD WHO COMMANDED THE LIGHT TO SHINE OUT OF DARKNESS, HATH SHINED
IN OUR HEARTS, TO GIVE THE LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GLORY OF GOD
IN THE FACE OF JESUS CHRIST.”
2 _Cor._ iv. 6.
No fact can be more extraordinary than that a Revelation from God should
give rise to endless disputes among men, that “light” should produce the
effects of “darkness,” causing confusion and doubt. A Revelation in
which nothing is revealed! A Revelation that occasions the most bitter
controversies upon every question and interest it embraces! A Revelation
that perplexes mankind with the most uncertain speculations, and splits
the body of believers into sects and divisions too numerous to be told!
A Revelation in which nothing is fixed, in which every point is debated
and disputed from the character of God to the character of sin! A
Revelation which is so little of a Revelation, that after nearly two
thousand years the world is wrangling about what it means: this surely
is a fact that demands an explanation, which should make the Believer
pause and ask whether he may not be guilty, by some dogmatism about what
he calls essentials, of casting this discredit upon Revelation, making
the very word a mockery to the Unbeliever, who inquires in simplicity
“what is _revealed_? I find you disputing about everything and agreeing
about nothing;” and to whom the Believer is certainly bound to render an
account of this strange state of things, before he condemns his
infidelity. Can any two ideas be more opposed, more directly
inconsistent, than Christianity considered as a Revelation, a gift of
LIGHT from God, and Christianity as it exists in the world—the most dark
and perplexed, the most vexed and agitated of all subjects, no two
parties agreeing where the light is, or what the light is, or who has
it? Surely if Christianity is a Revelation, the things it has _revealed_
must constitute the essence of the Revelation, and not the things which
it has left _unrevealed_. Surely the illumination from God must be in
the clear Truths communicated, and not in the doubtful controversies
excited. Surely it is a mockery of words to call that a Revelation upon
which there is no agreement even among those who accept the Revelation.
A Revelation is a certainty, and not an uncertainty: and therefore we
must strike out of the class of revealed truths every doctrine that is
disputed among Christians. Many of these doctrines we may possess other
and natural means of determining; but it is clear that that which is so
far _unrevealed_ as to be constantly debated among believers themselves,
cannot yet be _revealed_ by God. Now the UNITY of God is not one of
these debated points. All Christians regard it as revealed; and
therefore _it_ remains as a part of the Revelation. But the doctrine of
the Trinity, an addition to the Unity, and as some think a mode of the
divine Unity, _is_ a disputed point; it does not manifest itself to all
believers; it does not make a part of the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; Christ’s life would teach no
man that there are three persons in the Godhead—neither would Christ’s
words; the doctrine is not anywhere stated in Scripture; it is deduced
by a process of fallible reasonings from a number of unconnected texts,
doubtful both in their criticism and in their interpretation; it is not
a declaration made by God, but an inference drawn by man, and, as many
think, incorrectly drawn; the doctrine of the Trinity therefore, whether
true or not, cannot be regarded as a _revealed_ Truth; what is still a
subject of controversy cannot be a portion of Revelation. If then,
turning away from our disputes, we could ascertain the universal ideas
which Christianity implants in _all_ minds which receive it; the images
of God, of Duty, and of Hope, which it deposits in _all_ hearts; the
impression of Christ taken off by every spirit of man from the Image and
Son of God;—these would be the essentials of the Revelation, for since
these are the only uniform impressions that Christianity has actually
made upon those who believe it, we must suppose that these were the
chief impressions which God intended it to make. This alone can be “the
light which, coming into the world, lighteth every man.”