Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Besides, considering how long Paul had been absent from Ephesus, his saying that he had heard of their faith was by no means unnatural, though he himself had been the first to preach among them; since in the mean time they might have swerved from the faith, or at least their zeal might have abated.

Though the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp are, I believe, greatly interpolated, and especially the former, yet there is evidence that they did write such epistles as those that are ascribed to them, and, therefore, where there was no apparent reason for falsifying, I think they afford some arguments with respect to this subject, as well as others. Now Ignatius appears to have read the Epistle to the Ephesians, and Polycarp that to the Philippians, both of which are objected to by Mr. Evanson.

2. "The same insuperable objection," says Mr. Evanson, "lies against the Epistle to the Colossians, which is manifestly fabricated by the same opificer who composed that to the Ephesians. In chap. i. 4-9, the author makes St. Paul say, that it was Epaphras who first preached the gospel to the Colossians; and that it was from him he had heard of their faith and love in Christ Jesus. And, chap. ii. 1, he makes him expressly declare, that neither they nor the Laodiceans had seen his face in the flesh. Yet Colosse and Laodicea were both cities of Phrygia, where St. Luke assures us, St. Paul, accompanied by himself, repeatedly preached the gospel to every city in order."†

But from its being said that Paul went over the cities of this district in order, it cannot be inferred that he missed none of them, or that he founded Christian churches in any of them. Such great cities as Ephesus, Antioch, and Alexandria, (which last place we do not know to have ever been visited by any apostle,) were, like Rome, places of such general resort, that it cannot be supposed that they could be long without Christians; and the same might have been the case of Colosse, and other cities.

3. Mr. Evanson's objections to the genuineness of the Epistle to the Philippians, and also to that to Titus, he owns are not so strong as those against the preceding epistles, though, in his estimation, they "render them both highly apocryphal." His first objection is, that the writer first mentions "the saints, or Christians" in general, and then

"Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23." Dissonance, p. 263. Ed. 2, p. 314. ↑ Ibid. (P.) Ibid. (P.)

"the bishops and deacons, which," he says, " is not to be found in any other epistolary address of St. Paul; and which, if it be not an interpolation, savours very strongly of a much later age than that of the apostles." If, however, there were regular officers in Christian churches, as we know there were, in the time of the apostles, how could it be unlikely that Paul should mention them separately, after speaking of the Christians in general?

4. Mr. Evanson also thinks that there could not have been, as is intimated in this epistle, any Christians in "Nero's court, a fact in the highest degree improbable, and far from being confirmed by Luke or any Roman historian; and that many disciples of the gospel, who, to be many, must have been converted before St. Paul's arrival at Rome, which St. Luke's history makes quite incredible, emboldened by his success, preached the gospel there at the same time that he did, some of them, good Christians! only enviously, for contention and strife's sake, in hopes to vex and tease him; all which seems irreconcileable to the account given us in the last chapter of the Acts."+

Since, however, some persons of rank were converted in Judea, and in other places, where is the peculiar improbability of some such converts being made at Rome? Ecclesiastical history makes this more than probable with respect to times a little posterior to these. But as this circumstance would be favourable to the existence of a Christian church at Rome before the arrival of Paul there, which would give some probability to the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans, Mr. Evanson cannot admit it.

as is

5. Mr. Evanson thinks that Paul could not use such language as, "Beware of dogs, and of the concision." He also thinks that he could not have had any yoke-fellow, mentioned (iv. 3); or speak of the Lord being at hand (ver. 5); and that, no accusation being sent to Rome by the Jews against Paul, he could not have been under affliction there. But surely it cannot be necessary to reply to such trifling objections as these.

Dissonance, p. 264. Ed. 2, pp. 314, 315.

manner of

↑ Ibid. pp. 264, 265. (P.) "The latter," Mr. E. says, "seems a very improper, unbecoming speaking of a divine ordinance, which, as the Mosaic covenant was not then actually abrogated, still subsisted and was even practised by St. Paul himself on his disciple Timothy, though he was only the son of a Jewish mother by a Greek father. And if by the former we are to understand the Cynic philosophers, what was there in their numbers, doctrines, or lives, that could make St. Paul point them out as so peculiarly inimical to Christianity above the other philosophic Dissonance, p. 265. See, on Phil. iii. 2, Vol. XIV. pp. 315, 316. § Dissonance, pp. 265, 266. Ed. 2, pp. 316, 317.

sects >"

6. His objections to the Epistle to Titus are still more manifestly weak. "The very introductory address," he says, "excites in my mind a strong suspicion that it was not written by St. Paul; for he calls himself, what he never does in any other epistle, a servant of God; though to the Galatians, chap. iv. 6, 7, he says, 'Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father: wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son,' &c. He adds also, An apostle of Jesus Christ,' (not by the will of God, as he usually expresses it, but,) according to the faith of God's elect and the acknowledging of the truth,' all which, in St. Paul's mouth, is quite a new kind of language.' He is next offended at a quotation from" a Greek poet,-and the poet himself denominated a prophet ;" and at the writer including himself in saying, that "we ourselves were sometimes foolish," &c.t

"

7. To the Epistle to Philemon, which contains as many marks of genuineness as any of the epistles of Cicero, he objects to the mention "of his fellow-prisoner, though,' he says, "we learn from the Acts that he himself was the only Christian prisoner sent thither by Festus, and that he was permitted to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept him.'"+

I fear I have tired your patience by many unnecessary replies to objections to the other epistles, and therefore I leave these, as I am confident I very safely may, without any answers at all. As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the authenticity of which, though not its antiquity, was objected to in very early times, I have little doubt of its having been written by Paul, though his name is not annexed to it, and the style is different from that of his other epistles. I likewise pass over Mr. Evanson's objections to the Epistle of James, those of Peter, and of John.§

I cannot conclude these remarks without observing, that had Mr. Evanson read that truly masterly piece of criticism, the Hore Pauline of Mr. Paley, he would have saved himself the trouble of writing his treatise, and me that of answering it. The epistles that he objects to contain more,

Dissonance, pp. 267, 268. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 318, 319.

↑ Ibid. p. 268. See, on Titus i. 12, iii. 3, Vol. XIV. pp. 147, 150.

Dissonance, p. 269. (P.) § See ibid. pp. 275–283. Ed. 2, pp. 327-335. Mr. Evanson says, that he "read that work almost as soon as it was published;" and wishes" that every professional teacher of religion would imitate the worthy archdeacon's highly meritorious example in so diligent, rational and useful a mode of studying the Sacred Scriptures." Letter, p. 89.

and more various, internal marks of genuineness than perhaps any other ancient writings whatever. And the genuineness of Paul's epistles furnishes as strong a proof of the truth of Christianity, as that of Cicero's does of the general facts in the Roman history of his times. The only thing that is wanting is a due attention to the circumstances.

I am, &c.

LETTER XII.

Of the arbitrary Proceeding of Mr. Evanson in making the Gospel of Luke his Standard, by which to examine the other Gospels.

DEAR SIR,

HAVING replied, as far as I have thought necessary, to all the objections that Mr. Evanson has made to the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and to that of several of the epistles universally deemed canonical, I am tempted to give you one Letter more, to shew you how easy it is to make such objections; and with how little reason Mr. Evanson has fixed upon the Gospel of Luke as his standard, by which to try all the others.

Had Mr. Evanson been previously disposed to object to the Gospel of Luke, as he was with respect to those of Matthew, Mark, and John, he would, I doubt not, have found as little difficulty in the business; and his ingenuity would have exhibited the passages he objected to in a light equally ridiculous. This I shall not attempt to do for him. I should feel an invincible reluctance to it. But I shall just mention a few circumstances of the kind, to shew that there is no real difference in the several evangelists in this respect. They are equally entitled to our highest respect, though, from their peculiar circumstances, equally open to superficial and unreasonable cavils.

The quantity of interpolation that Mr. Evanson supposes in the Gospel of Luke, makes it little better than a spurious work. He intimates a suspicion, that besides the two first chapters of introduction, the story of the demon going into

Mr. Evauson complains, that Dr. Priestley has left unnoticed "the proofs urged that the pretended Matthew and John could not be Jews, because their writings shew that they did not even reckon their time as the Jews did, with several other objections, which do not apply to Luke." Letter, pp. 90, 91.

the swine, the circumstance of Jesus promising the thief on the cross to be with him in Paradise that night, and the account of the transfiguration, that of the genealogy of Jesus, of the temptation, and of his baptism, are all interpolations. "It well deserves our notice," he says, "that if we pass from the account of John's imprisonment by Herod, chap. iii. 20, to chap. iv. 14, and read, Then came Jesus, instead of, and Jesus returned, the histories both of John and Jesus proceed regularly and in order; and the ministry of the Messiah, as is most probable, commenced upon the cessation of the Baptist's ministry by his being shut up in prison. But if the account of our Lord's being baptized by John is genuine, Herod's imprisoning the latter is related very much out of its proper order, and St. Luke has given us no date for the commencement of our Lord's ministry, though he has been so particularly exact in fixing the date of the commencement of John's preaching. Besides, John was sent only to prepare the people for the reception of the Messiah and his new covenant, by preaching to them the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; and (to say nothing of the bodily shape like a dove, which savours strongly of the superstition of the second century)

• Mr. Evanson thinks the story of the demon's going into the herd of swine an interpolation in the Gospel of Luke, chiefly because, if it be admitted to be genuine, Jesus will be found" on the eastern side of the Lake" of Galilee, "without the slightest insinuation of having crossed the lake again.-If," says he, "this very exceptionable miracle be an interpolation, and not part of the original writing of St. Luke, the narrative proceeds consistently and regularly; but if it be taken as authentic, there is such a geographical confusion and disorder in this part of the history, as occurs no where else in this author's works; and such as can neither be allowed nor indeed supposed in an historian, who, writing upon a subject of the greatest importance, sets out with professing to write accurately and in order." Dissonance, pp. 27, 28. [Ed. 2, pp. 47, 48.]

[ocr errors]

Now all this supposed confusion arises from nothing more than the evangelist omitting to say in what manner Jesus and his disciples came to that desert place. Had he said by sea, there would have been no room for the objection, and surely a mere omission implies no contradiction. It is remarkable, that all the other evangelists particularly mention the passage to this desert place by sea, so that if Mr. Evanson, without considering their writings as authentic, had only read them as ancient books which might occasionally supply a commentary on the Gospel of Luke, he would have had his great difficulty removed. Matthew says, (xiv. 13,) "When Jesus heard of it," viz. the death of John the Baptist, "he departed the ce by ship into a desert place apart," Mark says, (vi. 32,) "And they departed into a desert place by ship privately." John, (vi. 1,) "After these things, Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias." But Luke says the same in effect; for he says, (ix. 10,) “ And he took them and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida;" which being on the east side of the lake, clearly implies that they crossed the sea. How natural is it to remark, that this variety in expressing the same thing, proves that all these writers wrote from their own knowledge, without any communication with each other; and that John, though he might have seen the other Gospels, did not copy them! (P.) + "See Acts x. 37." Dissonance, p. 55, Note. Omitted ed. 2, p. 81.

« AnteriorContinuar »