« AnkstesnisTęsti »
dren with us.” It does not appear that he kept a free school.
i In 1638, Harvard College was established. Private benefactors and public gifts helped endow this first collegiate institution in America. In 1642, the General Court passed a law making it the duty of the selectmen to see that every child was taught “perfectly to read the English tongue;" a fine of twenty shillings for each neglect was imposed. Thus was an attempt made to render education universal, and, in 1647, a law was passed making it also free; every town of fifty families was to have a teacher to instruct all the children in common branches, and each town of a hundred families was commanded to “ set up a grammar school,” where lads might be “fitted for the University.” At that time, Massachusetts contained about twenty thousand inhabitants, and the entire property of the whole people, the valuation of the colony, could hardly amount to more than two or three millions of dollars. This is the first attempt in the world to provide by law for the public education of the people on such a scale. The Massachusetts system was soon adopted at Plymouth and New Haven. In this law, we find an explanation of much of the prosperity of New England, and the influence she has exerted on America and the world.
Another important thing in our history is the trade of the country. New England early manifested the Yankee fondness for trade and manufactures. In 1634, there were watermills at Roxbury and Dorchester, windmills in other places. Vessels were built, the “Blessing of the Bay," and the “ Rebecca,” and a trade began with New York, with Virginia, and the West Indies. In 1675, the little
, ships of New-England stole along the coasts of America, trafficking with Maryland, Virginia, Carolina, Antigua, and Barbadoes, or boldly stemmed the Atlantic wave, sailing to England, Holland, Spain, or Italy. The jealousy, the fear, and hate with which New-England enterprise, on land or sea, was met in Old England, by the merchants and the government of Britain, would be astonishing at this day, if we did not see the same bigotry and toryism reproduced in New-England itself at the present time. But we have not space to dwell on this theme.
It is curious to see how early the habit of self-reliance got established in New-England. Every man was a soldier,
every church member a citizen in full. Soon, all men were able to read and write. Necessity at first forced them to rely on God, and their own right arm.” By and by, when the mother country interfered, she found a child not accustomed to submission.
But we must pass away from this theme, and pass over many other matters of interest touched upon by Mr Hil. dreth in this work, and speak of his book in general, and in special. It strikes us that, on the whole, the history of the colonial and provincial period is better and more happily treated than that of the Revolution. Everywhere we see marks of the same intellectual vigour which distinguishes the former writings of Mr Hildreth. There is a strength and freshness in his style. He writes in the interest of mankind, and not for any portion thereof. He allows no local attachment, or reverence for men or classes of men, to keep him from telling the truth as he finds it. He exhibits the good and evil qualities of the settlers of the United States, with the same coolness and impartiality. His work is almost wholly objective,-giving the facts, not his opin. ions about the facts. He shows two things as they have not been exposed before,--the bigoted character of the settlers of New-England, and the early history and gradual development of slavery in the South. His book is written in the spirit of democracy, which continually appears in spite of the author.
We must say something of its faults of matter and of form. The division into chapters, it seems to us, is not uniformly well made ; sometimes this division disturbs the unity of the subject. He gives us too little of the philosophical part of history; too little, perhaps, of the ornamental. He lacks the picturesqueness of style which makes history so attractive in some authors. He does not give the student his authorities in the margin, as it seems to us he ought to do. His dates are not always to be relied upon. We notice some errors, the results of haste, which we trust he will correct in a second edition. Thus, in Volume I. p. 257, he says that Locke maintained that men's souls, “mortal by generation, are made immortal by Christ's purchase.” It is well known that this was the opinion of Dodwell, who makes baptism a condition sine quâ non of immortality, but we have never found the doctrine in Locke,
In Volume II. page 397, et seq., he omits some important particulars. The provincial troops, who comprised the entire land forces, were deprived of all share of the prize money, which amounted to one million pounds. The land forces were entitled to the greater part of it, but got none; the expense of these forces remained a long time a heavy burden on the colonies, and especially on Massachusetts. Commodore Warren, and the naval forces, kept the whole of the prize money, which was contrary to all law, usage, and equity.
On page 518, he calls Lord Grenville" Bute's chancellor of the exchequer.” George Grenville was chancellor of the exchequer, but was never a lord. Bute was never in the ministry. George Grenville was not of the party called “ king's friends,” as Mr Hildreth intimates on page 533.
Volume III. page 58, Dean Tucker is called “ author of the Light of Nature," which was written by a country gentleman rejoicing in the name of Abraham Tucker, with a literary alias Edward Search.
Page 62 : “The private sentiments of Lord North were not materially different from those of Chatham.” They differed in almost every material point,--as to the right of taxation, and the expediency of asserting it by force.
Page 66, the bridge spoken of was in Salem, not between Salem and Danvers; it was not a company of militia under Colonel Pickering, but a party of citizens.
Page 319, the praise of Arnold appears excessive. He was hardly “one of the most honoured [officers] in the American army.” He was distinguished for courage more than conduct, and not at all for integrity.
Page 418, he speaks of an intercepted letter, which “ seemed to imply a settled policy, on the part of France, to exclude the Americans from the fisheries and the Western lands." Mr Sparks, in his Life of Franklin, has successfully vindicated the French court from the charge of ill faith in these negotiations.
Page 419, he relies on John Adams' letter to Cushing, as authority for an odious sentiment ascribed to Mr Adams. This letter was a forgery, and was so pronounced by Mr Adams himself, in a letter written at the close of his administration, dated the 4th of March, 1801, and published extensively in the newspapers of that period. It is in the Columbian Centinel.
These are slight blemishes, which may easily be corrected in a new edition.
On the whole, this history must be regarded as a work of much value and importance. It is written in the American spirit, in a style always brief but always clear, without a single idle word. We look with high expectations for the volume which will bring the history down to our own times.
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT RELATIVE TO THE PERSONALITY OF JESUS.
I. Let us first ascertain the opinion prevalent in the lifetime of Jesus himself, as the basis of our inquiry. It appears
from the New Testament that the contemporaries of Jesus regarded him as the son of Joseph and Mary (Matt. xiii. 55, Luke iv. 22, John vi. 42). His brothers and sisters also are mentioned (oi åồe poi aŭtoù), and Jesus is called the first-born son of Mary (TÒv mpwrótokov), in some manuscripts, and the common editions (Matt. i. 25). In the third Gospel the author calls Joseph and Mary his parents (oi yovels autou), and Mary herself is represented as calling Joseph his father. In the fourth Gospel Philip speaks of Jesus as the son of Joseph of Nazareth (John i. 45).
The genealogies still preserved, in the first and third Gospel, in curious contradiction to his divine origin, proceed on the supposition that Jesus had two human parents,a mortal father, as well as a mortal mother. So, on the side of his father, his descent is traced back to Abraham in the one author, and to Adam in the other.
The Ebionites, who were the primitive Christians, it seems always adhered to the opinion that Jesus was a man, born and begotten in the common way, selected and anointed, and so becoming the Christ, not by his birth, but his selection and inspiration. It seems highly probable that this was the opinion of the earliest church at Jerusalem.*
See Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryphone, cap. 49 (Opp. ed. Otto, Tom. II. p. 156), and Eusebius, H. E. Lib. III. 27 (ed. Heinichen, Tom. I. p. 252).
It seems that the celebrated Gospel according to the Hebrews regarded Jesus as a man born after the common way, and made his divinity commence only with the baptism by John : for after the descent of the Holy Spirit it is stated, “There came a voice from heaven and said, Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten thee.'” Justin found this passage in the Memoirs of the Apostles extant in his time, t and it is still preserved, with many other curious and instructive readings, in the celebrated Cambridge manuscript, the Codex Bezee (Luke iii. 22).
These monuments very plainly refer us to a period when it may reasonably be supposed that the prevalent opinion among the followers of Jesus was, that he was a man born after the common way, of two human parents, and subsequently became the Christ, the Hebrew Messiah. This is the nature and this the office assigned him. Such is the basis on which successive deposits of speculation have been made and continue to be made. It is no part of our present concern to determine what the Christians at first thought of his history,of his miracles, and of his resurrection, for we limit our inquiry to the nature and office of Jesus.
II. In the first and third Gospels, as they now stand in manuscripts and editions, it is taught that Jesus was the son of Mary and a holy spirit (Matt. i. 18, and Luke i. 35, it is in both cases πνεύμα άγιον, not το πνεύμα άγιον). He was miraculously born, with no human father. He is also the Christ, the Hebrew Messiah, predicted in the Old Testament. He is called the Son of God (ó viòs toll Deoû). He is endowed with miraculous powers, is transfigured, returns to life after his crucifixion, and is to come back yet
Such is the highest office, and such is the highest nature assigned him in the first and third Gospel.
There is, however, one curious passage in Matt. xi. 27, and Luke x. 22, in which Jesus is represented as saying, “ All things are delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows who is the Son, except the Father, and who is the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal him.” This passage may possibly mean only that
See also Schwegler, Nachapostolische Zeitalter (Tubingen, 1846, 2 vols. 8vo), B. I. p. 90, et seq.
+ Dial. cum Tryphone, cap. 88 (Tom. II. p. 308). See, too, Epiphanius Hæres. xxx. 13, and Schwegler, l. c. B. I. p. 197, et seq.