Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For MA RC H, 1781.

ART. I. A Harmony of the Evangelifts in English; &c. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. Concluded. See Review for laft Month.

TH

HE publication under review affords a striking instance of the different opinions, which learned and judicious men, with the fame means of information before them, and an equal love of truth, may form upon the fame fubject. Dr. Priestley has fubjoined to the Critical Differtations prefixed to his Harmony, A Jewish and Julian Calendar for the Time of the Public Miniftry of Chrift, confifting of thirteen months. By this Calendar it appears, that, according to his view of the evangelical hiftory, fo far from a year and a few months not being a fufficient space of time for the events occurring between the baptifm and the death of Chrift, as the generality of Harmonists and Commentators have imagined, there are three whole months out of the thirteen, to which he fuppofes our Saviour's public miniftry to have been confined, and much the greater part of three more, in which we have no account of what Jefus did.

In our former Article, we acquainted our Readers with the general plan and design of this English edition of Dr. Priestley's Harmony; and gave several fpecimens of the manner in which he has corrected our common verfion of the Gospels. We fhall now, as we propofed, make fome extracts from the Notes and Paraphrafe fubjoined, annexing fuch remarks as may affift our Readers in forming a judgment of the ability with which this part of the work is executed.

In the Preface to this edition, Dr. Priestley has endeavoured to prevent his Readers from giving way to that disgust which an unufual interpretation of words and phrafes is apt to excite an VOL. LXIV.

M

the

the mind, and inftanced in one particular as likely as any to alarm their prejudices :

With refpect,' fays he, both to the Paraphrafe and Notes, I would only give my Readers one caution, which is, that they would not reject my interpretation of particular paffages, because, at first fight, they may appear not to be natural: for this first impreffion may arife from nothing more than former fixed affociations of ideas, which may have no foundation in truth. And, judging from myself, I can affure my Readers, that thofe interpretations which for fome time appear the most unnatural and forced, may in time come to appear perfectly natural, and indifputably the true fenfe. A Papift thinks any other interpretation of the words, This is my body, than the most literal one, or that which implies the doctrine of Transubstantiation, to be exceedingly unnatural.

I have every where fuppofed what is called Satan, or the Devil, in the Gospels, to be an allegorical perfonage, or the Principle of Evil perfonified. This will, in fome cafes, appear unnatural; but let thofe perfons who now think fo, only confider the repeated and ftrong perfonification of the Holy Spirit, or Comforter, as a being fent by the Father or the Son, and by fome thought to be the third person in the Trinity, and yet that it is now generally fuppofed to mean nothing more than a divine power or energy, and perhaps they will not think the perfonification ftronger or harfher in the one cafe than in the

other.'

Perhaps Dr. Prieftley would have expreffed himself more unexceptionably, if he had said that the Holy Spirit is, with reason, thought to intend merely a divine power, or energy, instead of faying, that it is generally fuppofed to mean nothing more. The propriety of the remarks in the former of these paragraphs, upon the difficulty with which we bring ourselves to affix a different meaning to words and phrafes from that to which we have been accuftomed, must be allowed by all who reflect upon what paffes in their own minds. The latter paragraph deferves in a particular manner the attention of thofe, who do not believe the perfonality of the Holy Spirit, and yet feel a reluctance, on account of the Scripture phrafeology, to give up the notion that the Devil is a real perfonage, a great wicked being, able to controul the laws of the material world, permitted to corrupt the innocence and deftroy the happiness of other intelligent beings, introducing diforder and confufion into the works of God, and perpetually counteracting the benevolent defigns of Providence.

It is with pleasure we obferve, that Dr. Priestley has enriched his collection with many valuable Notes from the late learned Bishop Pearce's Commentary; to which we may venture to prophefy, that every future expofitor will be not a little indebted. The Notes communicated by Mr. Turner, for the purpose of this publication, discover great judgment and ingenuity, true liberality of mind, and a perfect acquaintance with the language

and

and fpirit of the New Teftament. We fincerely regret, with Dr. Priestley, that his age and infirmities fhould prevent him from pursuing fuch commendable and useful studies.

The Paraphrafe, we are to remember, is occafional: the defign of it being to illuftrate thofe difcourfes of our Saviour recorded by John, and other paffages of the Gofpels, which,' in the Author's opinion, the mode of paraphrafing is better adapted to explain than any criticifms in the form of Notes. Befides the greater part of the difcourfes recorded by St. John, Dr. Priestley has paraphrafed the beginning of St. John's Gofpel, the Lord's Prayer, and some other parts of the Sermon on the Mount, Matth. xi. 25-28. xvi. 17-19. xviii. 10. 1720. xxvi. 26-29. Luke iv. 23, 24. xvi. 9, 10 xviii. 17. xxiii. 31. and several other, both short paffages and fingle texts. We begin our extracts and remarks with a Note by Mr. Turner, on Luke i. 78:

Here feems a plain allufion to Malachi iv. 2. therefore avarwan fhould rather be rendered fun-rifing than day-spring'

Dr. Priestley adds, The word avaron alfo fignifies a branch, and' therefore fome fuppofe that it is a reference to Ifa. iv. 2. and other prophecies of the Meffiah, which speak of him as a branch of the house of effe, or David.'

He fhould rather have referred to Jer. xxiii. 5. and Zech. iii. 8. and vi. 12.: paffages in which the Septuagint have used the word avaroan for branch, and which are as likely to point at the Meffiah as Ifa. iv. 2. or any other in which a double fenfe is admitted.

Dr. Priestley had acknowledged in his Differtations, p. 77, that he was not able to reconcile Matth. iii. 23. with John i. 33. Mr. Turner, in a Note on the former of these paffages, fupposes that the premonition given to John, refpecting the defcent: of the Holy Spirit, would keep up an expectation in his mindof feeing the great perfonage, whofe fore-runner he was; and that the gravity and dignity in the appearance of Jefus, and the wisdom and piety of his difcourfe, when he came to be baptized, might lead him to think that he was the perfon expected, and induce him to fpeak and act in the manner related by Matthew; and yet he might fay very truly afterwards to the Pharifees, I knew him not, &c. A fomewhat different and ftill more fatisfactory folution of the difficulty has been communicated to Dr. Priestley in a letter from the Rev. Mr. Palmer, late of Macclesfield, which, with the Writer's confent, he has prefixed to this edition of his Harmony. Mr. Palmer is juftly of opinion, that John, who was the coufin of Jefus, must have been acquainted with him before his baptifm, and have learned from his mother Elizabeth, that he was a perfonage much fuperior to himself; but did not know him (to be the MESSIAH).

4

M 2

till

till he faw the Spirit defcending and remaining upon him.

In fupport of this argument, Mr. Palmer obferves, that no perfon appears to have known Jefus, to be the Meffiah, till John bore witnefs of him. After the declaration of the thepherds, it is faid, Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. After the prophecy of Simeon, both Jofeph and Mary marvelled at thofe things which were spoken of him. When he was twelve years old, they knew not what he meant by being about his Father's bufinefs, or rather, in his Father's houfe; and Mary still kept all thefe fayings in her heart, as uncertain of their import. And even after his baptifm, his brethren did not believe him to be the Meffiah. The remark with which Mr. Palmer clofes his obfervations, is too ingenious and interefting to be omitted:

From the uncertainty of Mary,' fays he, and the infidelity of the brothers, I infer, that thofe lofty expreffions in Luke the firft and fecond concerning Jefus, were not understood as neceffarily implying. that he was the Meffiah; and of courfe that the application of texts of Scripture among the Jews at this time was not defcriptive, but merely allufive; which I think it of confiderable importance to demonAtrate.'

Dr. Prieffley has the following Note on John i. 29. the latter part of it appears to us to point out the true meaning of the Baptift:

• The Lamb of God which taketh away the fin of the world.] This feems to be an allufion to the facrifices of lambs under the Law, for the removal of ceremonial uncleanneffes, &c. And fince the moral precepts and promifes of the Gofpel, which was confirmed by the death and refurrection of Christ, are a means of reforming the world, or removing the fins of men, there is a fufficient resemblance to justify the comparifon. But perhaps the only circumftance that fuggefted the comparison of Chrift to a lamb, in the mind of John, might be his innocence, connecting with it that of his preaching, and thereby producing a great reformation in the world, of which he certainly was apprized. For I do not think it at all probable, that John was apprized of the death of Chrift; and therefore he could not allude to it. His meffage from the prifon feems to imply the contrary; viz. that he, like the reft of the Jews, expected a glorious and triumphant Meffiah.'

On John iv. 25. we have the following ingenious remark by Dr. Jebb:

This woman appears to have had a jufter conception of the Meffrah's character than the Jews, because the Samaritans admitted only the Pentateuch, wherein the Meffiah is fpoken of as a Prophet. Whereas in the confequent books the Meffiah is fpoken of as a King, which was the fource of many mistakes.'

In a Note on Matth. v. &c. Dr. Priestley obferves,' This dif courfe, called The Sermon on the Mount, was delivered to the peculiar difciples of Christ, and not to the mixed multitude, who followed him on account of his miracles. These he purposely avoided by retiring into the mountainous part of the country, whither his difciples,

6

only followed him.' This, we apprehend, is not confiftent with the affertion of St. Matthew, ch. vii. 28. that the people, oi xo, the multitudes, were astonished at his doctrine; or with Luke vii. 1. Now when he had ended all his fayings in the audience of the people, to haou, &c. The account which is given in the remainder of the Note of the leading design of the difcourfe, is very rational and judicious. The great object of it feems to have been to inculcate the principles of a better morality than was taught by the Doctors of the Jewish Law in that age, and also gradually to undermine fome of their notions concerning the outward fplendor of the Meffiah's kingdom. For, in oppofition to the pride and haughtiness which thofe notions could not fail to infpire, he begins his difcourfe with pronouncing bleffings upon perfons of a quite different temper and difpofition, as the poor in Spirit, as the humble, the mourners, the meek, the merciful, &c. and efpecially the perfecuted for righteoufnefs fake, of which they who expected a triumphant Meffiah could have no apprehenfion.'

The following is Dr. Prieftley's paraphrafe of the Lord's Prayer, which, on account of its plainnefs and fimplicity, may be of more service to common Christians, and lead them more eafily into the meaning of a form of words, which fo frequently makes a part of their devotions, than a longer or more elegant dif course :

O God, our heavenly Father, the Author of our being, whe knoweft all our wants, and whofe care and goodnefs we daily experience. It is our earnest with and prayer, that thy being, attributes, and providence, may be universally known and reverenced, and that the pure worship of thee may prevail over the whole world. May thy kingdom under the Meffiah, a kingdom of truth and righteoufnefs, be firmly established; that thy will may be done by all men, with the utmost chearfulness and readiness, as it is done by the angels in heaven. Grant unto us as much of the good things of this life as may be fufficient for our prefent ufe; but for this and all our future fupplies we chearfully rely on thy infinite wisdom and goodness. Forgive, we beseech thee, our offences against thee, as we from our hearts forgive those who offend us. Bring us into no trials or temptations that fhall be too hard for us; but may all the difcipline of life be fuch as thall exercife and improve us, and be a means of delivering us from all vice, and establishing us in the practice of virtue. Thefe our requests we address unto thee, as the fupreme and perpetual Governor of the Universe, who canft do more for us, than we can afk'

Dr. Priestley has the following Note on Luke xi. 7.:

It is cullomary for a whole family to fleep in the fame room, but not in the fame bed: fo that fleering in the fame room was probably all that was meant by being with him in bed.'- . Perhaps it may be rendered, My fervants as well as myself are in bed; fince wasdion, as well as wak, may fignify a fervant.'

Bishop Pearce, if we mistake not, has proved from other paffages, in which the fame mode of expreffion occurs, that the proper import of the original, in this text, is merely, My children, or fervants and I are in bed.

M 3

The

« AnteriorContinuar »