Page images
PDF
EPUB

vestigation. One man has it not in his power to do every thing; he may resolve some difficulties, but still he must leave others for some another and more successful person, and when I find some difficulties gradually removed, I live in hopes of seeing the others removed also. It is thus that we proceed in the regions of reason and probability, we believe one thing, in consequence of overwhelming evidence, notwithstanding another difficulty may still remain behind. Some readers, perhaps, may require more-they may require me to speak without doubt, (for doubt will unavoidably attach to every man,) and at once distinctly declare, whether I believe the evangelists to have been inspired and infallible in matters relating to fact, or not? To speak plainly, but, at the same time, to influence no other person, I here coincide with Lessing, although twenty years ago I thought differently. I see no proof of the inspiration of the evangelists in historical facts, but what they must have already known from ocular demonstration; or what, as in the case of Luke, they must have known from other, and preceding writers, and then have appealed to eye-witnesses, to ascertain whether the facts were true or not. (Luke i. 1—4.) The promise

of Jesus (John xiv. 26,) applies only to his words, the last and the highest ground of our belief; these the Holy Spirit was to bring again to the recollection of his apostles (and Mark and Luke were not apostles); but the promise did not comprise history and matters of detail. I hold the same opinion with respect to the historical books of the Old Testament, with the exception, however, of one book, which no reasonable man would attempt to compose, without the help of revelation, namely, the history of the creation, for this, in fact, if he was desirous of writing truth, he could not have from witnesses, and as little from books, as the materials and foundation of his history. I put conjectures out of the question, for conjectures are not history; if, therefore, Moses, the great prophet, writes, by the command of God, a book, of which the history of the creation forms the beginning; a history, which contradicts the system of the ancients, rises over all the knowledge of the times, in which Moses flourished, and even in its very commencement singularly coincides with the freshest discoveries of the present and preceding centuries, then I think, that this history he could only know from God. I therefore look upon

these historical books, written and preserved by divine command, as essential to religion; without them we should not know the ground, upon which we stand; but that which depends upon matter of fact, and upon the memory and the senses of man, is equally attached to other histories, and does not presume inspired infallibility.

I must here make some special observations upon the manner of writing by the evangelists, and particularly by the last evangelist John, as of more immediate import to the history of the resurrection. I have alluded to this branch of my subject several times in the book itself, but being unable to enlarge upon it at any particular passage, I have reserved it for my preface. The common opinion which has been handed down to us from Eusebius, in conformity with ancient tradition is,

1. That John wrote subsequently to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and was the last of the evangelists.

2. That John had read the three other evangelists.

3. That he confirmed them in main facts, and added, intentionally, many circumstances, which he did not find in their gospels.

I adopted this principle in my introduction to the New Testament, because it appeared to me just as clear and indispensable, as it does now. The extensive influence of the two last propositions upon the harmony of the gospels was a subsequent consideration, and forms an appendix to the introduction, which I hold to be one of the most important parts of the essay.

It appears to me, from the book itself, that John had seen and read the other evangelists, although Dr. Semler doubts it from the authority of the words, chap. xx. 30, "which are not written in this book," in which John does not mention any other evangelist; upon which I made the following comment: "John omits so much, as to make it probable, he supplies the deficiency from other sources; indeed, without this supposition, his gospel would be unintelligible; such for instance as in John xviii. 24-28, the hearing before Caiaphas, and the answers of Jesus, upon which his subsequent accusation before Pilate is grounded. In general, in the history of our Saviour's

* Read with attention the verses, observing, that the facts are stated, as already notorious.

C

sufferings, which he has in common with the other evangelists, he purposely avoids saying, what the others have said before him, except, where, in conformity with the subject, or with a view to elucidation, it becomes necessary."

1. John says nothing of what Jesus did, or intended to do before Caiaphas, who, according to him, was the next great person, and actually high priest; he takes him to Caiaphas, v. 24, and v. 28, he conducts him again to Pilate. This is, in other words, assuming, that the reader must have known from distinct sources, what took place before the proper judge. 2. There is no accusation, no production of evidence, no sentence even; he is delivered up to Pilate, as a condemned malefactor. 3. The two false witnesses are omitted, whose evidence, as we find in another evangelist, John had virtually prepared his readers to understand, chap. ii. 20, 21.

I will show, in a few examples, that John not only had read the gospels, but wrote for those, who had read them, and assumes, therefore, many things as known through them, without which assumption his gospel could not be well understood. We should always bear in mind, that of all the evangelists, and bibli

« PreviousContinue »