Page images
PDF
EPUB

his eye the other gospels, and where there was any thing either defective or incorrect, gently rectified and supplied both. For, after all, the great argument of the adversaries of Christianity rests upon ostensible and partial contradictions, and frequently upon points of such insignificance, that they would not be noticed in other historians. But, besides this, our published harmonies of the gospels have, occasionally, a forced and artificial character, which we are not accustomed to find even in contradictory historians of minor importance, and which consequently leave in our minds, an unpleasant or a suspicious feeling. He, who has read the defence of Lessing may easily judge of his sentiments, which seem to have been grounded upon this feeling. No man better understood the force of language, but he is now dead, and I have, therefore, no means of ascertaining the extent of our agreement. I must here make another, and a very important observation. We should always inquire," Who is it, that contradicts, or seems to contradict, the other evangelists?" for some contradictions, although they appear so evident and unanswerable, have no connection with our doctrine of inspiration, and we merely confine

ourselves to contradictions, between the two apostles, Matthew and John. These cases are,

1. The last twelve verses of Mark xvi. 9— 20, contradict another evangelist. But here the doctrine of inspiration does not apply, for no man can say, whether these last twelve verses were written by Mark or not. It is here, that the most prominent contradictions are said to occur; these I have endeavoured, with what success the reader will judge, to obviate; at all events, they may be admitted, without affecting the doctrine of inspiration.

2. The remaining or genuine part of Mark contradicts another evangelist.

In

3. The gospel of Luke contradicts another evangelist. In all these cases, the doctrine of inspiration is not affected, as these evangelists were not apostles, and it was to these last alone the promise of recollecting the words of Jesus was given, upon which promise we found the inspiration of the apostolic writings. the case of Luke, this is more particularly striking, as he himself states, he was not an eye-witness, and, consequently, if he had no supernatural infallibility, was more likely to fall into error, and hence it is, we find in his gospel, those difficulties, which are the most

difficult to obviate. In my introduction to the New Testament, I have mentioned some doubts, as deduced from 2 Peter i. 15, in favour of the canonical authority of Mark, but I am far from thinking them satisfactory, for Peter might confide to Mark the writing of a gospel, and supply him with materials, which Matthew might not have, and yet not transfer to him the spiritual advantages, which were promised to himself. It may be asked, whether we do not deviate from the doctrine of our church, if we give up the inspiration of Luke and Mark? But who are the we, to whom this question is addressed? Certainly not the Lutherans, for our books have not decided what writings are canonical, and what are not. Luther himself was doubtful upon this point, namely, whether inspiration was confined to doctrine, or extended to historical facts. Our books, not our sermons, must determine this question. The only case therefore, that can occur, is between Matthew and John, both apostles, and both eye-witnesses, particularly John. The only one, that approaches to it, is in Matthew xxvii. 60, where, in point of fact, there is no contradiction, and even if there is, still a various reading exists to supply or correct this deficiency

But were this latter not even the case, and the contradiction remained unanswered, it would be still subject to this exception. Matthew and John, were, according to the promises of Christ, inspired; let this promise extend from matters of faith and moral doctrine, to historical facts; the promise would then only apply to the original text. This, in the case of Matthew, was the Hebrew; for so I must believe in connection with all antiquity, and this text is now lost to us: we have only a Greek translation: there is no translator who does not err; the contradiction, therefore, is not between Matthew and John, but between John and the Greek translator of Matthew, who, as I shall observe in another place, appears to have erred in his translation, for the whole contradiction rests upon two words, which Mark, who had Matthew before him, has not, or at least has in a different way. In fact, therefore, our doctrine of inspiration, as it was promised to the apostles, and adopted by us as the ground of faith, the guide of our conduct, and the principle of knowledge, has no connection with the remaining, if, indeed, there are any remaining, contradictions: the doctrine only of other writers, not canonical,

is affected by them. Great as my respect is for Lessing, there is one requisition of his, to which I cannot easily assent. He says, "The man, who maintains the infallibility of the evangelists in every word, will here find a sufficiency of uncultivated ground. In attempting this he must answer ten celebrated contradictions; but let him answer them all, for to answer them partially, and pass over others with the triumph of contempt, is, in fact, not answering them at all.”

Against this I have to remind my reader,

1. That to answer them all is certainly unnecessary to the attainment of the proposed object; for if the contradictions between the last twelve verses of Mark and the other evangelists were unanswered (and this is the chief field of controversy) and all the other contradictions were answered, there would be then no necessity to give up the doctrine of the infallibility of the evangelists. But I go further; it need not be given up, if the Greek translator of Matthew, unsupported by Mark, should be contradicted by another evangelist.

go

2. The requisition is besides severe, because I certainly have the right of exercising my own judgment as much as in any other historical in

« PreviousContinue »