網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

exist in the pseudo-gospel or Protevangelion of James: six others occur in the two gospels of Christ's Infancy, which relate things notoriously contrary to the benevolent design of Christ's miracles, and to his pure and holy doctrine, which prohibited revenge, and promoted universal charity and love. Lastly, for it would exceed the limits of this article (already perhaps too much extended) to specify all the absurd falsehoods contained in the spurious writings which we have been considering, the Acts of Paul and Thecla directly falsify the doctrines and practice of the Apostle, concerning the unlawfulness of marriage (which he is here said to have taught, though the reverse is evident to the most cursory reader of his Epistles); and concerning the preaching of women, Thecla being said to be commissioned by him to preach the Gospel, though it was not only contrary to the practice of both Jews and Gentiles, but also to St. Paul's positive commands in his genuine Epistles. But what proves the utter spurious ness of these Acts of Paul and Thecla, if any further proof were wanting, is the fact that Paul, whose life and writings bespeak him to have been a man of unimpeachable veracity, is introduced in them as uttering a wilful and deliberate false hood. That he is so introduced, is evident; for after an intimate acquaintance between Paul and Thecla, and their having taken a journey together to Antioch, he is presently made to deny her, and to tell Alexander, I know not the woman of whom you speak, nor does she belong to me. But how contrary this is to the known and true character of St. Paul, every one must see. He, who so boldly stood up for the defence of the Gospel against all sorts of opposition, who bazarded and suffered all things for the sake of God and a good conscience, which he endeavoured to keep void of offence towards God and men, most unques

tionably never would so easily have been betrayed to so gross a crime, to make a sacrifice of the credit of his profession and the peace of his conscience at once upon so slight a temptation and provocation.

Having thus gone through the heads of his masterly and conclusive argument, Mr. Horne dismisses the subject with the following general reflections :

IV. From the preceding view of the evidence concerning the apocryphal productions, which have lately been reprinted, the candid reader will readily be enabled to perceive how little cause there is, lest the credibility and inspiration of the genuine books of the New Testament should be affected by them. So far indeed are these books from militating, in any degree,against the evangelical history, that, on the contrary, they most decidedly corroborate it: for they are written in the names of those whom our authentic Scriptures state to have been Apostles and companions of Apostles; and they all suppose the dignity of our Lord's person, and that a power of working miracles, together with a high degree of authority, was conveyed by him to his Apostles. It ought also to be recollected that few, if any, of these books were composed before the beginning of the second century. As they were not composed before that time, they might well refer (as most of them certainly do) to the commonly received books of the New Testament: and therefore, instead of invalidating the credit of those sacred books, they really bear testimony to them. All these books are not properly spurious; that is, ascribed to authors who did not compose them: but, as they were not composed by Apostles, nor at first ascribed to them, they may with great propriety be termed apocryphal; for they have in their titles the names of Apostles, and they make a specious pretence of

delivering a true history of their doctrines, discourses, miracles and travels, though that history is not true and authentic, and was not written by any apostle or apostolical man. Further, we may account for the publication of these apocryphal or pseudepigraphal books, as they were unquestionably owing to the fame of Christ and his Apostles, and the great success of their ministry. And in this respect the case of the Apostles of Jesus Christ is not singular: many men of distinguished characters have had discourses made for them, of which they knew nothing, and actions imputed to them which they never performed; and eminent writers have had works ascribed to them of which they were not the authors. Thus, various orations were falsely ascribed to Demosthenes and Lysias; many things were published in the names of Plautus, Virgil, and Horace, which never were composed by them. The Greek and Roman critics distinguished between the genuine and spurious works of those illustrious writers. The same laudable caution and circumspection were exercised by the first Christians, who did not immediately receive every thing that was proposed to them, but admitted nothing as canonical that did not bear the test of being the genuine production of the sacred writer with whose name it was inscribed, or by whom it professed to have been written.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

THE declaration of St. Paul, Rom. ix. 3; "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh;" is allowed by all biblical scholars to be subject to considerable difficulties. I hope, therefore, an attempt to throw light on that remarkable passage will be candidly received, even though it should be considered by

competent judges unfounded in point of criticism.

I have looked into all the commentators cited by the Critici Sacri; but none of them appears to me to furnish a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. Some of these learned writers consider the Apostle's phrase as a deliberate declaration that he could wish, if possible, to be himself cut off from everlasting happiness for the sake of his countrymen. Others reject

this notion as too monstrous to be entertained, and explain his meaning in a lower sense of suffering contempt like that to which an excommunicated person is exposed. Many, perhaps the majority, of readers look upon the sentence simply as an hyperbole, comparing it with the expression of Moses, when, with like zeal for his brethren, he wished that God would blot him out of his book; but I do not find it easy to bring my imagination to admit of such an extraordinary boldness of assertion as, if it had been first conceived in our own times, and expressed in our language, would have appeared to border on impiety.

The most satisfactory explanation to my own mind, is the comnent writers and commentators— mon one adopted by various emiamong others, Scott and Doddridge

that the Apostle wished himself made a curse "after the manner of Christ" (ano TOU Xploтov), who was made a curse for us; that is, he could be content to submit to the same ignominy and personal suffering. This rendering is usually supwhere the same Apostle "thanks ported by a reference to 2 Tim. i. 3. God, whom he serves (аnо πрoуovν) from his forefathers;" that is, after the manner of their religion, or after their example. Many good biblical scholars, however, entertain doubts whether the two passages can be deemed parallel.

Without discussing this point at terpretation which I believe has present, allow me to suggest an in

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

never been suggested, but which I think will bear examination. I conceive the phraseology in the passage in question to be strictly parallel to that of Genesis iii. 14., where the Almighty pronounces the serpent, cursed above all cattle." The construction in the Septuagint, bears a most striking accordance to that of St. Paul, (ɛtıkarapatos σv ΑΠΟ παντων των κτηνων. αναθεμα ειναι ΑΠΟ του χριστου): and it seems me highly probable, that the blessed Apostle, whose whole mind was full of the doctrines of the fall and the redemption,-whose heart was melted by the love of Christ, in becoming" a curse" for the whole human race,-in contemplating the dreadful obstinacy of his countrymen, was led to break out into an impassioned wish, that he could convert them, even at the expense of being himself made a curse above Christ. There were no bounds to the ignominy he could be content to undergo for the great object so near his heart he would bear, if possible, even the measure of contempt and reprobation heaped on the Redeemer himself, or, if it could even be exceeded, he would still be willing to endure it.

To this view of the passage I see no objection either on the score of doctrine, or of grammatical construction; but, if I am in error, I shall be happy to be corrected by some of your learned correspondents.

D. R. N.

[ocr errors]

attribute the low state of practical religion in the case of far too many of our laity and clergy, that I am anxious the consideration of the subject should be extended beyond a mere passing remark; particularly in reference to the theological pursuits of students for holy orders, and, I may add, of academical students in general.

In the case of Oxford, considerable attention has of late years been devoted to the science of divinity; and from the ample investigation which the subject has undergone at Cambridge, it may, I think, be confidently predicted, that it will not be very long before some measures are adopted, in that university also, for adding Christian theology to the pursuits necessary for the attainment of a degree. The wish to do so is, I believe, very general; so that the chief difficulties regard only the details of the question, as connected with Cambridge habits and institutions. It is not, however, my present purpose to touch upon points of this nature; but solely to remind. readers, that, after all, little is done for the extension of religion by the mere application of the buman intellect to the critical studies of theology. Such an application is indeed highly valuable and desirable; but it is at best but a small part of what the exigencies of the present times, and, I may add, of all times, demand. I could wish to see it embossed in conspicuous characters on the gates of our colleges; on the walls of our endowed and national, and all other academical, institutions; on the doors of the examination-rooms of our episcopal palaces; over every theological library in the kingdom; and on the title-page of every volume of critical, controversial, and argumentative divinity, that

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. IN your last Number, in the review of" Pamphlets on the Infidelity of the Times," occurs the following observation (p. 98): "We may remark of most large schools, whether for rich or poor, that religious knowledge, rather than religious duty, is the object of solicitude."'"knowledge [when alone] puffeth I so fully agree with your reviewer in the truth of his observation; and am so strongly convinced, that to this grievous defect we must

up; but charity [Christian love to God and man] edifieth." Science, even the science of divinity itself, is not religion, any more than the

science of ethics is practical morality. The importance of the critical studies of theology can scarcely be too highly estimated in their place: every scholar who lives under the influence of Christian principles, feels doubly the value of his scholarship, and only laments that it is not far greater; as almost every attainment he can possess, when dedicated to the service of God, and made the handmaid to sacred studies, is found by him to be of use in the elucidation of the inspired volume. It is not therefore, I think, without the strongest grounds, that yourself, Mr. Editor, and your correspondents, have so frequently and zealously insisted upon the importance of the critical studies of theology, and have urged the younger clergy especially to become competently versed in the learning, as well as to be endued with the moral qualifications, of their profession. There are, however, dangers in this as in most other questions on both sides; and I think I should not err if I added, that the danger in our universities, and indeed in all places of learned resort, is far greater on the one side than on the other. I trust I shall not appear invidious in my remarks, if I urge, as an illustration strongly in point, the line of semitheological studies to which the labours of the present Bishop of Peterborough have chiefly directed the attention of Cambridge students. I select this example the rather because I am enabled to fortify my remarks by the authority of one of the ripest scholars, and most deeply read biblical critics, whom the Church of England can at present boast; I mean the pious and learned Bishop of St. David's. In the course of last summer, amidst his indefatigable labours, his lord ship found time to carry through the press a work small in bulk, but of great erudition, entitled "A Vindication of Bishop Cleaver's Edition of the Decretum Lacedæmo niorum contra Timotheum." The

work is not printed for sale, but "is distributed as presents to a few friends, for the sake of that part of its contents which relates to the celebrated verse of St. John, in his first Epistle; the authenticity of which he hopes to prove on grounds of external evidence, as well as internal, by Greek autho rities as well as Latin*." In the course of his remarks his lordship adverts to what he considers, and justly, "a very great misrepresentation," which occurs in the Theological Lectures of the present Bishop of Peterborough, in reference to the late Bishop Cleaver's "list of books for the younger clergy." The chief occasion, however, of the Bishop of St. David's animadversion, and, I may add, of the present reference to it, is not merely that the Bishop of Peterborough has done "injustice" to Bishop Cleaver, but that his remarks "appear calculated to mislead the younger clergy, by confounding the order of their studies, and withdrawing their attention from what ought to be the first and last object of their ministry." This is a grave charge, but his lordship fully substantiates it. Having stated the Bishop of Peterborough's objection, that "there is nothing like system" in Bishop Cleaver's arrangement of books, his lordship observes:

"Its purpose was to assist the younger clergy in such a prosecution of their studies, as might best qualify them for the duties of their profession. And what are the sentiments and attainments necessary

His lordship, in addition to some prefatory remarks on the subject, in his Collection of Tracts on the Divinity of our Lord, has recently published the work here alluded to, entitled "A Vindication of 1 John v. 7. from the objections of M.

Griesbach; in which is given a new View of the external Evidence, with Greek Authorities for the Authenticity of the Verse not hitherto adduced in its Defence." Rivingtons and Hatchard. 1821. Price 3s. 6d.

for their acquitting themselves best in their profession?

"1. A strong sense of duty. "2. A devout feeling and exercise of personal religion.

"3. A decided conviction of the truth of Christianity.

"4. A thorough knowledge of the Scripture; namely,

"5. Its doctrines;

"6. Its ordinances; and

“7. A zealous and practical attachment to the church of which they are members.

"These are the sentiments and attainments prescribed by the Bishop of St. Asaph. And how are they to be acquired?

"1. By the study of professional duties.

"2. By prayer.

"3. By examining the evidences of Christianity.

"4. By the daily study of the Scripture, (with the aid of comments and other subsidiary means); "5. In all its doctrines of faith and works;

"6. And the ordinances of Christ and his Apostles;

"7. And by a comprehensive knowledge of ecclesiastical history, especially of their own church, and of ecclesiastical law as far as concerns the rights of the church, and the correct performance of their ordinary duties."

The Bishop of St. David's then proceeds to shew that Bishop Cleaver's classification corresponds with this enumeration; though, not being intended as a strictly systematical analysis of subjects, it is scarcely fair to submit it to such a test. It was quite sufficient if it answered the purpose of convenient arrangement. The Bishop of St. David's, however, remarks:

"I can hardly conceive a course of professional reading more calculated to make a conscientious, able, and useful minister of the Church of England, than that which is prescribed by the Bishop of St. Asaph's list of books. It appears to me much more judiciously disCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 243.

posed than the Professor's (Dr Marsh's) own system of theology. To lay the foundation of theology in a critical knowledge of the manuscripts, various readings, and editions of the Scriptures, is inverting the order of theological studies. It can have no general or practical influence on the ministry of the church. It lends no aid to the conversion of the infidel, or to the instruction of the ignorant. The great cardinal passages of Scripture derive no benefit from it. Patricius Junius was converted by reading the first chapter of St. John; Lord Lyttelton, by the conversion of St. Paul; and Gilbert West, by the evidences of Christ's resurrection. If ή των λογων κρισις πολλης εστι πειρας ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟΝ επιγενnua, the criticism of the Bible, in the sense here adverted to, should be among the last branches of theology, instead of the first. By making it a large and prominent part of theology, it fixes the mind on the subsidiary means of the science, rather than the end. Its end is seen in its very name. Theology is Doctrina de Deo; and Christian theology is Doctrina de Christo Deo. Among the ancient Fathers, theology was the doctrine of Christ's Divinity. In this sense they understood the words oλoyεL and θεολογια. The knowledge of Christ then, and of the means of man's salvation, should be the governing principles in Christian theology; and the foundation of it, as a science, should be laid in such preparatory grounds as point directly and obviously to those great subjects which are the ends of Christian theology."

His lordship adds:

"As all our knowledge of these subjects is derived from God's revelation of his will in the Scriptures, whatever tends to certify the truth of the Christian revelation, and explain the languages in which the Scriptures are written, must ever be a necessary subject of theology. But Providence has so merT

« 上一頁繼續 »