On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
The M ^ rg ^ ret Prof essor now makes $ digression , with the view of eluctdatiug and establishing what he had stated jo , h , is Dissertation on the Three First Gospels , concerning the verbal harmony of certain of the Evangelists .
He thinks tbat his hypothesis does not . ipjlitate against the supposition of Mark ar * d Luke having written independently of each other . That they applied with fidelity the materials which they obtained with certainty , he
proves by the same arguments from which it was inferred , that the apostolic historians employed their materials with fidelity . With a sketch of this proof he concludes his twentyeighth Lecture .
In that which follows he estimates the credibility of the facts recorded in Xhe New Testament , from a consideration of the facts themselves . But , for , the present , he limits his attention t 9 the ordinary events related there ,
without adverting to miracles in particular . In conducting the inquiry thus" modified , he rapidly compares the several parts of each single book , one book with another , and the whole with other works of acknowledged credit .
Each of the Gospels is consistent throughout : each contains a plain and unaffected narrative , all the parts of which have a perfect agreement ; no examples occur of incongruity or incoherence . The Gospels , too , of Matthew , Mark and Luke , are similar both in matter and in manner .
Indeed , when we have deducted what each of these three Evangelists has peculiar to himself , the matter which remains common to all three , constitutes one uniform narrative of our Saviour ' s ministry , from his baptism to his death and resurrection .
To the subject of a common document , which explains the harmony in the matter of the three first Gospels , the Professor once more adverts . Afterwards , he makes some pertinent remarks on the Gospel of John , and notices , in a general way , the alleged
contradictions in the Evangelists . lie refers to vindications of the history of the resurrection , and speaks with signal and deserved approbation of Bishop Sherlock ' s Trial of the JVitnesses . From the Gospels he proceeds to thue Acts of the Apostles , which , says he , must obviously be com-
Untitled Article
pared with t }* e E ^ ris tjtes of Sk ftrol . " The principle , the nature , and the * esult of such a comparison , are accordingly pointed out . Illustrations ef the credibility of the New Testament
from the works of Josephus and of Tacitus , are next alluded to er brought forwards : and the Lecture concludes with a most forcible statement of that proof of the truth of Christianity , which is afforded by the evangelic delineation of the character of its
Founder : < c If the learning and the ingenuity of Plato or Xenophon might have enabled theni to draw a picture of Socrates more excellent than the original itfelf , it was not in the power of unlettered Jews to give ideal perfection to a character which
was itself imperfect , and to sustain that ideal perfection as in a dramatic representation , through a series of imaginary events . Indeed it is highly probable , that the Apostles and Evangelists were not wholly aware of that perfection which
they themselves have described . For that perfection is not contained in any formal panegyric , expressive of the writer ' s opinion , and indicating that opinion to the reader . It is known only by comparison and bv inference . We are reduced
therefore to this dilemma , either the actions which are ascribed to our Saviour , are truly ascribed to him ; or actions have been invented for a purpose , of which the inventors themselves were probably not aware , and applied to that purpose by means which the inventors did not possess . And when we further consider ,
that the plan developed by those facts was in direct opposition to the notion of the Jews respecting a temporal Messiah , we must believe in what was wholly impossible , if we believe that unlettered Jews could have invented them . "—Pp . 72 , 73 .
The thirtieth Lecture , the last m this part of the course , is occupied by a special inquiry into the truth of the miracles recorded in the New Testament . To this kind of evideuce for
the gospel , Bishop Marsh justly attaches the highest degree of importance . " Miracles and prophecy , " he declares , " alone can prove that the origin of Christianity is divine /'
He defines a miracle to be something which cannot be performed without the special interference of God himself . " The attempts of the Jews , in the time of our Saviour , to evade the inference from miracles , ascribing them to the ageocy of evu
Untitled Article
49 $ M 4 view- —rMi * h < ip (> f PetGrbormgh ' * Course of Lecture ** Pt . W .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1822, page 498, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2515/page/42/
-