Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

pains and labour of the investigation have not been commensurate to the difficulty or importance of the end proposed. If I have erred, it has been on the score of an over-anxious diligence to render my Dissertations even tediously scrupulous and elaborately minute, rather than leave them perfunctory or superficial. Perhaps, too, there are some of these controverted instances, in which I may be considered to have approximated to the truth as nearly as, under the circumstances of the case, was practicable; for, if the results of the speculations of learned men upon such questions are not every where final and decisive, the cause must be ascribed to a defect for which no ingenuity nor industry can compensate, the defect of data. In the course of my researches, it has more than once fallen to my lot to observe that very great names, in every department of sacred literature, have lapsed into mistakes, and mistakes which frequently might have been avoided. Nor do I mention this as if to claim any merit to myself for discovering errors into which they had fallen, much less to put myself on a footing of equality with them, but that I may plead the failures of more competent and more learned persons in extenuation of my own.' Pref. pp. xi, xii.

The present work first suggested itself to the Author, in the course of an examination of the most popular Harmonies, which he was led to consult, in preparing an exposition of the Gospel Parables. The striking inconsistencies which he observed in the several Harmonies he examined, convinced him that the principles upon which they rested, could not be correct; and the dissatisfaction produced by this discovery, induced him to lay them all aside, and to take the four original narratives into his hands, with a view to frame for himself a system that should at least avoid the difficulties that appeared so glaring and palpable in the works referred to. The result of this endeavour, is the Harmony before us, which has assumed a shape very different from the idea of it which its Author had originally conceived. Had he fully comprehended the extent of his undertaking, and into how wide a field of research and disquisition it would lead, he must have shrunk back, he says, from the arduous attempt; and he considers it as a fortunate circumstance, that he was too inextricably involved in the task, and too deeply interested in its completion, to be able or disposed to recede from its prosecution, when experience had convinced him of its magnitude and difficulty. The rule which he determined to adopt, was, to trust as much as possible to his own researches, so that the work, though of course containing much that is in accordance with the opinions and conclusions of preceding writers, is strictly original, being the result of an independent inquiry. While prepared to find that he has been anticipated in many things, Mr. Greswell states, that he has abstained from introducing any borrowed matter; and regarded as a whole, the Harmony which he offers to the public, may still be considered as unlike any other. He disclaims all affectation of novelty or the

6

wish to deviate without reason from the opinions of his predecessors. Could I,' he says, have met with any Harmony which was not apparently fraught with more difficulties than it was intended to remove, most gladly would I have acquiesced in its 'use.' The number and diversity of the Harmonies in circulation, afford a presumption that the true principle remains to be ascertained, upon which a perfect Harmony is to be constructed, or such a one as should unite the suffrages of the learned in favour of its satisfactory character.

If it is not in the nature of things impossible for the four Gospel narratives to be satisfactorily reduced to one, it is not in the nature of things impossible for a perfect Harmony to be composed: but, as only one method of reconciling these accounts can be absolutely just and true, so only one Harmony, such as should be founded altogether on the principle of that method, would be absolutely just and perfect." Pref. p. iii.

What is not, in the nature of things, impossible, is sometimes, however, from circumstances, impracticable; and how desirable soever it may be to harmonize the order and succession of events in the several Gospels, we cannot for a moment admit the necessity of ascertaining the true method of reconciling apparent discrepancies, in order to vindicate the credibility and consistency of the narratives. This would be a gratuitous concession to the sceptic, which the nature of the case does not warrant. Mr. Gresswell remarks, that, with some minds, the difference of opinion which prevails among commentators upon Scripture, the great variety and incompatibility between their several 'modes of reconciling the same accounts, would be calculated to operate reflexively against the belief of the truth, or the consistency of the accounts themselves.' But would this be a rational inference? If there are various modes of reconciling independent accounts of the same transactions that appear to differ, although but one mode can be the true one, yet, the possibility of reconciling them is established by the diverse hypotheses; and the objection founded upon their alleged incompatibility falls to the ground. That objection originates in our imperfect knowledge of all the circumstances, and of all the relations of time and place affecting the order and succession of the events recorded. Such perfect knowledge of the circumstances as would enable us to adjust their precise order with certainty, is unattainable; but if we can hypothetically harmonize them, although the hypothesis be but an approximation to the fact, it will suffice to shew that no necessary incompatibility exists. If the theory employed is fraught with more difficulties than it is intended to remove, this is a good reason for distrusting its correctness; but it may still be of use as shewing that these difficulties are capable of solu

tion;-if by the false hypothesis, still more by the true one. All that is requisite is, that we prove there is no essential disagreement between the separate accounts: the rest is matter of curiosity, or, at least, of subordinate importance.

Even although the present Writer should be thought to have failed to detect the true method, or to construct a perfect Harmony, the value of his labours will suffer little depreciation on that account. The satisfactory determination of the various questions that present themselves in the course of the attempt to reconcile and arrange the details of the four Gospels, is far more important than the object proposed as the ultimate result. The greater part of these Dissertations have for their immediate design, to clear up points affecting not so much the harmony of the various accounts, as the credibility or accuracy of each particular narrative. We do not mean to deny the utility of Harmonies; but we are inclined to consider their indirect utility as greater than their direct benefit. It is often by an assumed hypothesis that the philosopher is conducted to the discovery of recondite facts,— facts not merely more certain, but more important than the principle it was sought to establish. The construction of a diatessaron is the purpose to which the scheme of the Harmonist is intended to be subservient; but no diatessaron can possess the authority, the internal evidence, and the effectiveness of the separate documents. The stamp of genuineness, the seal of Inspiration are wanting. Digests or summaries of the evangelical history, whether in the words of the Evangelists or not, are legitimate vehicles of religious instruction; but they must never be substituted for the four Gospels. That would be, to shape by the wisdom of man the wisdom of God,--to bend the rule of faith to our own notions of harmony and fitness, and, by obscuring the genuineness, to weaken to a great degree the authority of Scripture. Harmonies are for the learned, not for the unlearned: they are of more service in silencing the cavils of the sceptic, than in edifying the plain and ingenuous believer. They form a valuable part of the expository apparatus for illustrating the sacred text, as they enable the commentator or teacher to throw, as it were, upon each Gospel, the concentrated light of all. They afford a tabular view of the substantial accordance, the characteristic difference, and the separate value of the four documents respectively, and serve as an illustrative index to their contents. But here, we think, their legitimate purpose terminates.

'No one,' Mr. Greswell remarks, can study the Gospels with 'that attention which they deserve, or with that sense of personal interest in them which they are calculated to excite, without ' endeavouring to harmonize them, in some manner or other, for ' himself.' This is true. But there is a great difference be

tween harmonizing the statements of the four witnesses, and harmonizing the order in which they severally narrate particular circumstances and sayings, by reducing them to one chronological arrangement. If their statements could not be reconciled, it would affect the credibility of at least one of the witnesses; but that they should observe a different order, forms no objection, unless they each professed to adhere to a strict chronological arrangement. This is not the case; and the hypothesis, that the Four Evangelists constantly observed such an order, is not merely encumbered with insuperable difficulties, but is utterly deficient in probability. Many reasons might be given for their observing a different order. A work may be a regular composition, without being a regular history. The plan and design of the writer may require that he should bring together facts or discourses of a certain class, without reference to the topographical scene of the one, or the immediate occasion of the other; in order to present the evidence they furnish in a cumulative shape, or as specimens of what took place at many times and in many places. The connexion will not, in such a case, be less real or natural, because it is the connexion of subject, not that of chronology. We admit that a transposition in the order of leading events, would, if unexplained, affect not merely the regularity, but the accuracy, if not the absolute truth of the history; whereas transpositions of illustrative incidents and topics are allowable even to an historian, and still more natural in a composition which is not simply or strictly historical.

Most Harmonists have set out with the assumption, which we cannot but regard as altogether erroneous, that the four Gospels are alike regular and independent histories; or that, at least, the first three are Gospels communis generis, and must be classed together. Mr. Greswell in some degree sanctions the latter opinion, with this modification; that, though each is a history of the rise and progress of the Evangelical dispensation, no one of them is a separate and independent account. Like the subject to which they all relate, they are so connected together, that the one entire history of this one entire scheme, is that which is 'made up of them all.' Our Author's hypothesis with regard to the supplemental character of the last three, we shall examine presently; but it appears to us, that the first Gospel, that of Matthew, is a composition very different in its structure from those of Mark and Luke. Mr. Greswell affirms, indeed, that the Gospel of St. Matthew is regular in part, and irregular in part; while the Gospels of St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John are 'regular throughout.' In our judgement, that of St. Matthew is not a less regular composition than the others; although it is not, and does not profess to be, a regular history. It is, as we have

elsewhere endeavoured to shew*, an account of the ministry of Our Lord, with copious specimens of his discourses, having for its specific object, to establish his Messiahship, and to combat the objections of the Jews. The historical notices are brief and, as it were, incidental and subsidiary to the main purpose. St. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the use, primarily, of the Christians of Palestine; at a period, probably, when all the historical facts were fresh and notorious. Hence, he is much more concise than any of the Evangelists in narrating occurrences, except when referring to such as were called in question by the Jews. In narrating, for instance, the story invented by the chief priests to account for the disappearance of Our Lord's body from the sepulchre, he is remarkably particular and minute; and yet, he does not mention the Ascension. There are other peculiarities in this Gospel, which, together with the supposed irregularities, seem to us to admit of easy and natural explanation according to the view we have taken of it, but which ill agree with the character of regular history. Upon this ground, and not because we deem the irregularities of St. Matthew's Gospel greater than those of the other Evangelists, we think with Mr. Greswell, that it cannot be safely made, throughout, the basis of a Harmony for the rest. In the following remarks, some of the points of characteristic difference between the several Evangelists, are ably discriminated.

6

The argument of those learned men who contend that, because St. Matthew would write as an eye-witness, he would write the most regularly of all, however plausible in theory, is completely false in fact. Nor, indeed, is it difficult to retort the argument; for one, like St. Luke, or St. Mark, who, though not an eye-witness, yet proposed to write an account of the same things, it might naturally be supposed, even humanly speaking, would take so much the greater pains to remedy this very defect; both to acquire a perfect knowledge of his subject, and to verify, in every instance, the order of his facts. Meanwhile, if St. Matthew in particular, though he must have written as an eye-witness, has yet written at all irregularly, this may be a good presumptive evidence that he must have written early,—while the recollection of the facts was still unimpaired,-and among, and for, eye-witnesses as well as himself, whose own knowledge, or possibilities of knowledge, would supply omissions or rectify transpositions for themselves.

Those also who contend that the principle of classification is the characteristic principle of St. Luke's Gospel, are not less mistaken: for, while St. Luke is uniformly attentive to historical precision, this constructive tendency, by which facts really distinct in the order of time, are brought together out of deference to certain principles of ascociation, and related consecutively, is rather the predominant characteristic of St. Matthew. The structure of all the Gospels, indeed,

* Eclec. Rev. Third Series, Vol. V. p. 379.

« ElőzőTovább »