Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

NOTES

ON THE

HARMONY

OF THE

FOUR EVANGELIST S.

SECTION I.

The Introduction to the Gospel of Luke and John.

LUKE I, 1-4. JOHN L. 1-18.

LUKE

UKE I. &c. From this it appears that there were many imperfect accounts of the life of Jefus in a very early period; nor can we wonder at this, when we confider how very important the events of it were, and that it was an age in which the art of writing was very common. Numbers, no doubt would take down what they had heard the apofles and other eyewitneffes related concerning the difcourfes and the mi

racles

racles of Jefus; and fome, willing to have their accounts correct, would naturally fubject them to the inspection of thofe from whom they had received them, and of others who were equally acquainted with the facts; and the written relations of facts and difcourfes fo authenticated could not fail to gain the greatest credit; and might even be adopted by thofe who compiled the larger and more complete accounts that we call the gospels. As Luke paffes no censure on these histories, except that they were imperfect, they were probably fuch accounts as thefe, collected by well meaning per fons, and put together perhaps without a due regard to method. Indeed the fpurious gofpels were not written fo early, but in imitation of the four which are generally received.

It is on this principle (which appears to me a very natural one) that I account for the great fimilarity between fome accounts of the fame tranfactions in the different gofpels, and efpecially the placing together things which had no natural connection. For I cannot think that any of the evangelifts had feen what had been written by any of the other except John. Their differences with refpect to order, and small circumstances, is too great to allow us to fuppofe that they copied, or abridged, one another. They were all fufficiently well qualified to write without that affiftance; and none of them being very forward to write, they would probably have thought their labour fuperfeded if they had feen any other gofpei.

It is obvious to remark that the evangelift does not claim any infpiration, but that he merely profefes

to

to write from materials collected with care from those whom he thought to be beft informed of the tranfactions he was about to relate.

His work is addressed to Theophilus, of whom we know nothing more than his name; but he was probably a person of eminence in the chriftian church, who had expreffed a defire of having a full account of the history of Jefus from Luke, whom he knew to be well qualified to give it.

John I. 1. I have obferved that the phrafeology of John is peculiar to himself, and it is no where more fo than in this introduction to his gofpel. In order to understand it, and fee the propriety of it, we must attend to the state of things at the time in which he wrote, and this we may easily collect from his epiftles. The profeffed object of them was to oppose the doctrine of the Gnoftics, which was very prevalent before this apostle died, or to prove that Jesus and the Christ was the fame person, and that Jefus had real flesh and blood, like other men, and was not merely man in appearance. The ormer of these all the Gnoftics denied, and the latter, fome of them. For they held that the Chrift was a fuper-angelic being, who entered into Jefus at his baptifm, and many of them faid that Jefus had only the outward appearance of a man, and that he was incapable of feeling pain, or of dying, which they thought to be unworthy of his dignity. For the first corruptions of the chriftian doctrine were introduced on the idea of magnifying the perfon of Chrift, many perfons objecting to chriftianity on account of the meannefs of its founder.

That

That John wrote his gofpel, as well as his epiftles, with a view to counteract thefe doctrines, is evident from his declaration at the close of it. Ch. xx, 21. These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. This is the very language of his epiftles, in which it unquestionably was his object to oppofe the Gnoftic doctrines. To me it is evident that the peculiar phrafeology of this introduction was owing to his alluding to the terms made ufe of in the Gnoftic fyftem, and his fhewing in what fenfe they may be adopted by Chriftians.

The Gnoftics, agreeably to the philosophy of the times, fuppofed that all fpirits were emanations from the fupre me mind, or fomething emitted from his fubftance, like light from the fun. For the idea of creation out of nothing was univerfally difcl.imed by those who were called philofophers. They alfo faid that the fupreme mind dwelt in what they called the πλήρωμα which is literally rendered fullness, without the bounds of which refided the divine emanations, to which fome of them gave the name of Eons. Of thefe Eons they enumerated a 'great number, defcribing their mutual relation, and the production of fome of them from others in a regular fucceffion, or generation, like the genealogies of men. They were alfo particularly dif tinguished by a number of different names, fome of which were life, light, grace, truth, only begotten, and logos, which we tranflate, the word; all of which the evangelift fhews might be mediately or immediately applied to Chrift.

This part of their doctrine was peculiarly fanciful, and the apostle Paul frequently fpeaks of them with indignation and contempt, as endless genealogies and old wives fables. 1 Tim i, 4. Tit. iii, 9.

Confidering the object of John in writing his gospel, as well as his epifles, there is a peculiar propriety in his Introduction, though it has been grofsly mifunderftood, and has occafioned more misapprehenfion of the principles of the gofpel than any other part of the New Teftament.

John might think it more neceffary to give his ideas of the proper ufe of the term Logos, in confequence of the philofophizing Jews, like Philo, making ufe of it as fynonymous to the your of Plato, thereby accommodating the language of their fcriptures to the Platonic philofophy. Philo wrote long before the apoftle John, and therefore it is poffible that he might have feen, or heard of his writings.

The Gnoftics did not iay that their Logos was the Christ, and therefore John had no occafion to fay exprefsly that he was not; but as both Philo and the Gnoftics maintained that the Logos was inferior to the Supreme Being, it might naturally give him occafion to say that when that term was used properly, it fignified nothing more than that word, or power, of God by which all things were made, and therefore was no dif tinct or inferior principle, but God himself.

The proper meaning of the phrase with God “་ཉྱིཔ TOY 0:0, feems to be was God's, or what belonged to him. Thus what we render Ps. L, 11, the wild beafts of the field are mine, is in Hebrew by, and

« AnteriorContinuar »