« FöregåendeFortsätt »
racle for his own relief, which was a step very contrary to his practice."
The expulsion of the cattle-dealers and money-lenders from the courts of the temple, has likewise appeared to our learned author to require a few words of explanation. The overturning of the tables, and the chiding with which it was accompanied, manifests, Mr. Nares thinks, inore severity than usually belonged to the character of Jesus; but it is well accounted for by his bringing to the recollection of the reader that it was to vindicate the honor of God's house that he so exerted himself, and that, agreeably to this notion, an ancient prophet had said of him, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." We do not thiuk he is quite so successful in the matter of the devils entering into the swine. He imagines that the miracle operated collaterally as a punishment to the possessors of those forbidden animals; but he should have adverted to the obvious fact, that the removing from the demoniacs into the swine, originated entirely with the devils themselves, and Mr. Nares himself is decidedly of opinion that the “ devils must have hoped to remain in the swine.' On this account it is perfectly clear that our Saviour wrought the miracle for inercy and not for punishment.
The remarks on the Purables are all very judicious and edify, ing, and shew in a striking manner the attention with which Mr. Nares bas studied the style and spirit of our Saviour's mode of teaching. He justly observes, that all of thein are distinguished by a degree of allegorical contrivance, invention, and various knowledge, not at all within the reach of such men as St. Matthew and his brother Evangelists; and that many of them denote a knowledge which at the time of writing they could not possibly have possessed, except by inspiration.
We cannot pass over in silence the observations of Mr. Nares on our Lord's Discourses, as they are highly deserving of the reader's attention. We shall select the first part of the chapter upon this subject, as it contains much that to the young and enquiring mind must be highly satisfactory.
“ Besides the parables of Christ, there are also many of his other discourses related in the Gospels, which lead us to very similar conclusions. They well deserve a separate consideration, If these divine discourses at all resembled any that ever were delivered by man, there might be some pretence for considering them as the invention of men; but since they have a style and character entirely peculiar to themselves, suited to the mysterious nature of Christ, and to no other, I cannot but regard it as infallibly certain, that they were actually delivered by him, and are faithfully reported by his Evangelists. “These discourses, very various in length, amount to no less
tbag than fifty; after excluding all those which consist of parables. I mušt therefore, as in that case, confine my observations to a few of the most remarkable. Let us begin with that which first occurs, his discourse with the woman of Samaria, at Jacob's well. We see here at once the characteristic style of our Lord's discourses. Taking occasion from the water of the well, of which they were speaking, he begins a figurative allusion to the gitts of the Holy Spirit *, which he was to bestow on those who should believe. This, however, was no new figure, invented by himself, but the accustomed language of the ancient prophets. "Isaiah, in particular, exclairus t, “ Ho, every one that thirsteth come'ye to the waters.” The same figure was resumed by Jesus himself at the feast of tabernacles, when he afterwards attended, it. For St. John tells us that, ' in the last day, that great day of the feast ý, Jesus stood, and cried, 'If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink, He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said l, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water 1:' and here the Evangelist explicitly interprets the allusion, adding, . but this he spake of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive **' Exactly in this style then, Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, · Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again : but whosoever shall drink of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst: but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting lifetti
“ St. John alone records both these accounts: evidently because, as in other instances, he was desirous to supply the omissions of the former Evangelists, in matters, which he justly considered as important. In the remainder of the discourse, there are many things which could only have come from the authoritative teaching of Jesus. . God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth 11. Could St. John have presumed to say what God is ?-he who also recorded the true declaration of Christ, that ' no man knoweth the Father but the Son?" Certainly not. It must have been the declaration of the Son himself. With equal authority does Jesus inform the woman, first, that. Salvation is of the Jews $$,' and yet that the hour was coming, when Jerusalem itself should no longer be the appropriated place for the worship of the Father ||II. This intimation belongs indeed to the prophetic declarations of the Lord, of which I mean separately to treat. But here it cannot be omitted. The worship at Jerusalem was not yet abolished, when St. John wrote this account. How
66 * John iv. 10. + Is. lv. 1."
“ † See also Is. xliv. 3. xii, 3, &c." “ $ On which the bringing in of water was an accustomed, though not enjoined, ceremony."
ll Is. lviii. 7. a John vii. 37, At Ibid. 13, 14. If John v. 24. $ Ibid. 22. Ibid. v. 21." E e2
** Ibid. 39.
could he then, except by inspiration, know that it would so soon happen!-- But men inspired are not exactly those whom we should suspect of writing fictitious narratives. Inspired or not, however, he could not fail to be right, if he faithfully recorded the words of his divine Master : and this, I contend, he certainly did, in the present, and all other instances.
I pass on to the sermon on the mount, the most remarkable, in some respects, of all our Lord's discourses. This adınirable collection of divine precepts, always original, often sublime, what Christian does not know and revere? If we say that no man ever lived, who could have framed or invented this discourse, we shall speak not only what must be felt by every considerate reader, but what may admit almost of positive proof. Most assuredly, no precepts or system of moralily existed, in the time of the Apostles, from which these doctrines could have been extracted, or by which they could have been suggested. That which would have approached the nearest to them might have been found in the ancient Scriptures. But even thence they could not have been drawn by any conscientious Jews, since, though they agree in fundamental points, there are many instances in which the ancient law is either improved or superseded by them. Thus, in the following passages.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery--but I say unto you *? &c.
*? &c. It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife shall give her a bill of divorcement, but I say unto you ti' &c. It hath been said, thou shalt not forstvear thyself, but I say unto you, swear not at all 1.' It hath been said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you,
that ye resist not evil Ç.' It hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy, but I say unto you love your enemies ll.' In all these cases, already referred to for another pur. pose, there is clearly an addition or improvement made, by authority, to the commands of the first covenant.
* Whatever the Evangelists might have learned of the sublime morality of the ancient Scriptures, these things they could not have learned, for they are not there: and the greater was their veneration for those inspired books, the less would they have ventured thus to deviate from them. It was impossible that they should; since to improve upon them was beyond the powers of mun; and to contradict them no pious person could have dared, who had not the authority of God, to deliver a more perfect law. If God permitted some things to the Jews, on account of the hardness of their hearts, who could presume that he would ever cease to permit them? Who could foresee that he would at length abrogate his own indulgence, in contemplation of a purer system? It required the authority, as well as the wisdom of the divine Jesus, to do this; nor could it have entered into the mind of any inferior
Matt. v. 27.
+ Ibid. 31.
Ibid. 33. # Ibid, 43.”
person, born in Jullea, and educated under the law of Moses. These parts of the sermon, therefore, speak decisively their own origin.
“ But to be more particular. This divine discourse is noticed by two only of the Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Luke *. The reports of these are very different in extent. That of St. Matthew occupies tlıree entire chapters; it gives the sermon in full detail, and probably contains the whole, or nearly the whole, of what our Lord delivered. St. Luke only touches upon some principal heads, but in the same order; and so as to give, most evidently, fragments of the same discourse. It seems as if one had been an actual hearer of the whole, which, from the manner and circumstances, of its delivery, had sunk so deep into his mind, that every word of it was retained; while the other had only caught up separate parts, as reported to him by one or more of the persons present, but had no means of preserving or obtaining the connection of the whole. Now this is precisely what would arise, in the most natural manner, from the circumstances of these two Evangelists. St. Matthew being a constant attendant and follower of Jesus, from the time of his calling to be an Apostle, which was only a very short time before the delivery of his sermon; St. Luke, only a disciple, and though generally a companion of the Apostles, after his conversion, probably not so early attached as to have been present on this occasion. St. Matthew, recently called, would naturally listen with the more eager attention to the first extended discourse of his Master. St. Luke who collected it long after the time, would obtain only broken parts, deprived of some of their energy, and much of their original connection.' P. 192.
It cannot be supposed that in passing our judgment upou any publication of Mr. Nares, even if it had less merit than the volunse before us, we could wholly divest ourselves of partiality. There is a pietus due to the first author, and founder of the BRITISH CRITIC, there is a tribute of respect and regard, which if we paid not to our venerable precursor in these our literary labours, we should sink in the estimation not less of ourselves than of the public. In times, politically speaking, far more troublous than our own, Mr. Nares stood forth at the bead of a literary phalanx, with no less power than intrepidity to stem the torrent of atheistical and republican principles, and to guard the palladium of our constitution in church and state, from the deadly blows which were aimed against it by the philosophic disciples of sentimental blasphemy, and the frantic associates of anarchy and rebellion. The literary exertions of Mr. Nares at a period so momentous, cannot be ton gratefully remembered especially by those who in times no less perilous to the doctrines
« * Matt. y. 6, 7.
Luke vi. 20 49.
and discpline of our primitive and Apostolic Church, have snc. ceeded to a duty so laborious, and a station so responsible.
Postquam non æqua merenti
Art. VII. 'H KAINH AIADHKH. Novum Testamen
tum; cum Scholiis Theologicis et Philologicis. IIl Vol.
8vo. 1816. 'H KAINH AIAOHKH. Novum Testamentum: Juta
Exemplar Pracipue Griesbachianum. In Usum Scholurum.
12mo. Law and Whittaker. 1816. In undertaking the removal of very deep or inveterate prejudice, success has been rarely attained by him, who rather seeks to bear down opposition by a sudden attack, than studies to gain upon it by insensible approaches. With how deep a sense of the policy of this measure the last able and popular reviser of the New Testament was impressed, must be apparent in the progress of the care with which he matured his growing work, to the standard, wbich he had formed of imaginary perfection. In his first edition, those important passages, which he had proscribed, were merely marked for ex. punction. When his second edition appeared, it exhibited the sentence by which those passages were denounced, carried fully into execution. And while it acknowledged the necessity of further defalcation, under the soft appellation of improvement, it marked several passages, which were still retained in the text, as maintaining their place by a very precarious tenure; the author avowing his intention to expunge them also, when an accession of further evidence would justiiy their removal *. If similar policy be at any time defensible, it must be surely allowable when it is opposed to an enemy who becomes thus dangerous, by his insidious advances. Nor will we longer dissemble, that in countervailing his designs, we too kept back our reserve; feeling the policy of con mencing our first operations, with a cautious moderation. We are now prepared to engage in a different mode of hostility, which must either ensure our success, from the want of opposition, or occasion our discomfiture.
The system of the German critic is indeed exposed to objec. tions, to which we expected some answer would, ere ibis, have
• Griesb. Prolegomm, Nov. Test. Sect. II. pp. lii. liii.