Page images
PDF
EPUB

ter, by Pharifees and Jews are meant more than once only the Members of the Sanhedrim, as appears from my Paraphrafe.

CANON XIX.

That the adequate meaning of our Lord's Expreffions, and all that is written in the Gofpel, be expreft in a Paraphrafe, nothing ought to be inferted there but what is imported in the words them felves, or visibly confonant with their

Doctrine.

TH

HIS Canon appertains not to the Harmony, but to the Hiftory annex'd, which I thought my felf oblig'd to add to the foregoing, that I may briefly give fome account of the Paraphrafe. I might in more copious terms have given the meaning of all that is faid by our Saviour, and reported by the Evangelifts, taking the liberty Erafmus hath ufed, and fome others in other parts of Scripture, who have made large Expofitions both in Latin and the modern Languages. But there are two reasons why I was unwilling to expatiate. First, I was refolved not to deviate from the plain and fimple Narrative of the Evangelifts, to mix Conjectures of my own: Which in a prolix explication and wire draw ing of every Sentence, could not be avoided; and much more must be faid of neceffity than were deducible from their own words, as I could eafily demonftrate by Paffages alledg'd from Paraphrafes of this nature, but that I think this Experiment properer for the Reader to make himself. Another Impediment which deter'd me, was, that in a copious Paraphrafe the force and drift of the Difcourfe, and chain of reafoning is not fo vifible, which is of the greatest importance in Performances of this nature, where the Readers are more curious to find the connexion and mutual dependance of one thing upon another, than to have every Verfe explained; which, if it be not of it felf perfpicuous, is better done in a Comment than a Paraphrafe. But to fatisfy every man, let who will compare fome Chapters of my Paraphrafe with that of Erafmus, whom I acknowledg my

Superior a great deal, and in all other refpects yield to him, conceiving only this affurance from the method I have purfued, which I could never ground upon my own Ingenuity and Learning. But if, from due comparing us together, the imparcial Reader is not fenfible I have taken a properer courfe, I have nothing to fay in behalf of the Book, why it

fhould not be condemned to Worms and However, I fpeak not this with a defign to Moths, as unworthy of the publick Lights undervalue the Works of thofe Learned Criticks, or reprefent them unuseful, having very much improved my felf from the reading of them, and doubting not but others may do fo too, tho poffibly I might have learnt the fame more conveniently from other Books, and in another method.

I have therefore endeavoured to advance nothing in my Paraphrafe, but what is deducible from the plain import of the Words, or from the tenour of the Difcourfe by Grammatical Conclufions. Which was not fo eafy as perhaps my Readers may imagine: As, in truth, after perfons have made a rugged way fmooth, their labour is ufually reckoned lefs than it is by thofe that walk over the Carpet Ground, and never felt the pains. Especially to give a clear representation of our Saviour's Speeches contained in St. John, required no little thought and application. But as for my trouble, 'tis to no purpose to mention that: for if it had been altogether unsuccessful, it ought rather to be pitied than commended; and if it be thought in any measure useful, the Reader will efteem it in proportion to the profit he may reap by it, and not the pains I have taken. To return therefore; befides what might be drawn by neceffary confequences from the Texts themselves, I do not deny but I have made fome little additions of my own to make the meaning more clear, and to ftrike the deeper into the mind of the Reader. But then I have made it my business to do this very fparingly, and added nothing to our Saviour's Senfe, nor to the Evangelifts, which is not exactly conformable to their known and undifputed Doctrines. I may poffibly have thought I perceived fomething in the Text which was not in it, and not believed fome other things to be in it in which it was Hhhh

really

really implied; but I affure my felf I have written no one thing repugnant to Religion Which might indeed have been better fet off by men of greater Parts and Eloquence than my felf; but I am perfuaded that no body can love it more heartily, or entertain a more reverent notion of it.

I have nothing more to add, but that fometimes reflecting with my felf that I had rendred the Sayings of Chrift in too mean a Style, and low expreffion; and endeavouring to rife up to the dignity of my Subject, I was check'd by the Reverence due to the Subject I was on, which I thought fo folemn, as not to be fet off with the little Ornaments of Rhetorick. And this, very thought hath been a conftant curb upon, whenever I aim'd at it; and ftripping me of all beauties of Stile, if I could ever pretend to any, made me only in love with the fimple and naked Truth; fo that depending on the excellence of the matter, I have only labour'd to give a plain and ingenuous Expofition.

[blocks in formation]

Not refolved TOTWITHSTANDING my Readers may be refolved from my Stile, that I differ in judgment from the Learned Caftalio; but who was not too difcerning in this point, in rendring terms authorized by custom, and confequently intelligible, into lefs fignificant, Latin: I am however oblig'd to inform them, that I have taken all imaginable care to explain every dark Hebraism in Terms clear and obvious to all that understand the Language I write in. I have not indeed confulted Tully, for authentick Expreffion, as not writing for thofe of the Age in which he flourish'd; but I have had strict regard to Propriety, that I might be the more perfpicuous; and avoided all Oriental Idioms, as well as I was able, that I might be understood by them that are igno

rant of thofe Languages. I know that fome
of the Expreffions I have avoided might have
paft without grating the ears of those that
have been habituated to them: But this I
know too, that very many who have been ac-
cuftomed to them from their Infancy, and
us'd them in Converfation, imagin they under-
ftand them, tho really they do not. And thefe
I have with very good reafon rejected, and
put into proper Phrafes to render them in-
telligible. Such are the Expreffions fo com-
mon in all mens mouths, to beseech God in the
name of Christ, to baptize in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. Thefe,.
and more of the fame nature, I have explained
in my Additions to Dr. Hammond's Annotations.
on the New Testament, and have given the fame
explication here in the Paraphrafe, which I
think unneceffary to repeat in this place; and
rather remit my Readers to examine them in
the Paraphrafe, and compare them with the
Goffels themfelves. If they find any Expref-
fions of this nature remaining in my Stile, oc-
cafioned by an inveterate Habit hard to be left;
or if I perceive them my felf, or am acquaint-
ed by others with them, they fhall be altered

in the next Edition, if the Book will bear,

one.

For the fame reafon, namely to avoid ob-.

fcurity, I have omitted all School-Terms, invented rather to caft a mift upon Senfe, than to explain things in their own natures. abftrufe. Chrift, in my opinion, obliges to nothing, either in Faith or Practice, but what I think may be familiarly defcribed, and made now as plain to all that understand ourLanguage, as he formerly spoke it in Hebrew to the Jews, that knew their own Tongue, and whom he inftructed in the Dialect of the Vulgar, and not in Philofophical Terms. And the reafon his words are fo often obfcure to the illiterate, is not for the most part because they are ignorant of Philofophy, but because they underftand not the Idioms of the Jewish Language.

CANON

CANON XXI.

Tho I have not been able to reconcile all places that Seem contradictory, nor to explain all Obfcurities; and admit it were now impracticable by any body elfe, it is no confequence that the Evangelifts do really contradict one another, or are obfcure to a fault.

'HE Reasons of this Canon are obvious, Tand at hand: for where's the wonder, if there be fome things dark and ambiguous in an old Hiftory, written in a dead Language, and a concife method, nor that digefted by Hiftorical Rules? Where's the wonder if Difcourfes addreft to a People, many of whofe Customs and Tenents we do not understand, nor many other things that belong to them; I fay, if thefe Difcourfes, or rather the Heads of them, happen now and then to be fomewhat obfcure to us? Befides, the Ignorance of Commentators has often hindred the clearing of

fome Difficulties, which otherwife might have been furmounted: Of which this and the last Century is a very remarkable inftance, having produced abler Criticks on the Scriptures than have liv'd in fourteen hundred years before. But Perfection is got by degrees: An Age may perhaps fucceed, in which all thofe things may be made clear that puzzle the best of us now. We must not therefore imagine things impoffible, which we cannot accomplish our felves, till we have demonftrated them to be above human Power; nor prefently quarrel with the Scriptures, because we cannot hit upon the right explication of them. For my part, I fhall always be free to correct all miftakes that I have committed in this nature, and to receive a clearer information: And if any one is perfuaded, that he can acquit himfelf better than I have done, I fhall addrefs him in the words of St. Auguftine, De confenfu Evang. Lib. 3. n. 43. If we both of us believe the Evangelifts, do you show how they can be better explained, and I shall freely acquiefce: for I am not in love with my own Opinion, but the Truths contain'd in the Gospels.

The End of the Second Differtation..

Hhhh 2

THE

J

THE

THIRD DISSERTATION,

Concerning

The Writers of the Gospel, the Design of their Work, the Time of their being publifh'd and read in the Chriftian Churches.

The Defign of this Differtation. I. Teftimonies of the Antients concerning Matthew, whe ther he wrote originally in Hebrew. It appears not that the Gofpel of the Nazarenes was Matthew's own writing. II. Teftimonies concerning Mark's Gospel. III. Tefti monies concerning Luke's. IV. The Teftimony of Irenæus concerning John. His Defign, from Eufebius. V. Teftimonies concerning the four Gospels. VI. The Defign of the Evangelifts illuftrated from Hugo Grotius. That they wrote their Gospels pursuant to the Commands of Chrift. VII. They were openly read in the Chriftian Churches not long after their being publish’d.

S

INCE we have no authentick Hiftory of the Life and Actions of Chrift, but what is attributed to thofe holy Men called the Evangelifts; 'tis of the greateft moment to know certainly by whom, and with what defign they were wrote, as alfo at what time they were first publish'd; that our Affent to them appear not a rash Credulity, and liable to be fhock'd by every trifing Objection. Wherefore I defign in this Differtation to make enquiry into all Accounts relating hereto, that may be collected from Writers of the greatest Antiquity; the more modern not being to my purpose, who have taken, without examination, what they have from the Antients, and are not undefervedly reckoned of fufpicious credit, as having fo mixed Truth with Falfhood, that they are fcarce to be diftinguifh'd. I fhall therefore difcover, as far as poffible, the Authors of the four Gofpels, their Defign in writing them, and their Time of putting them forth, and publick reception in the Chriftian Churches.

I fhall produce in the first place the Testimonies of the Antients concerning the Evangelift St. Matthew, and examine them afterwards for the clearer understanding what use may be made of them. Papias, who had been converfant with the Disciples of the Apoftles, fpeaks thus of St. Matthew, in a Work, confting of five Books, entituled, Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως, An Explication of the Oracles of our Lord; as Eufebius obferves, Eccl. Hift. lib. 3. cap. 39. towards the end: Matthew wrote his Oracles in the Hebrew Tongue, which every one interpreted as he was able.

Irenaus, who much valu'd the Authority of Papias, and had carefully perus'd his Books, agrees with him, lib. 3. c. 1. and is thus cited by Eufebius in Greek, Eccl. Hift. lib. 5. c. 8. ò μèv ♪ Martai in This Εβραίος τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτῳ καὶ γραφὴν

[ocr errors]

vef Evay sexis, Пéter IIQUAS EV Ρώμη αγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιώντων τω ExxAnoiar. Which after the antient Version:

Thus

Thus St. Matthew publifh'd his Gospel in the Language of his Countrymen, the Hebrews, amongst whom he was at the time when Peter and Paul preach'd at Rome, and laid the foundation of the Church. See Iren. c. 11. of the fame Book. To Irenæus we may fubjoin not any certain Author, but an antient Tradition mentioned in this manner by Eufebius, Eccl. Hift. lib. 5. c.1o. treating of Pantanus, who flourish'd under the Antonines: Fantanus is faid to have travelled among the Indians, and reported to have found St. Matthew's Gospel there amongst certain that had heard of Chrift from the preaching of Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, who had left them that Gospel in the Hebrew, which they had preferved to the time mentioned.

Origen has written to the fame purpofe in his ift Book of Explications upon Matthew, where is this Paffage concerning him cited by Eufebius, Ecclef. Hift. lib. 6. cap. 25. That according to St.Matthew was firft compofed by him in Hebrew for the fake of the Jewish Believers.

Eufebius himself, who produc'd the preceding Teftimonies, recedes not from them, freaking of the Gofpels, Ecclef. Hift. lib. 3. cap. 24. and thus of St. Matthew: For Mat thew having preached to the Hebrews, and going to other Nations, compofed his Gospel in the Language of his Country; that what was wanting might be fupply'd by his writing in his abfence.

Laft of all St. Jerom, in his Book of Ecclefiaftical Writers, obferves to this purpose: Matthew, the fame with Levi, of a Publican the first Apoftle in Judæa, wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, for the fake of the Believers of the Circumcifion. Who tranflated it into Greek is uncertain, but the Hebrew Edition is at this day in the Library of Cæfarea, which Pamphilus the Martyr carefully collected together. I alfo had the liberty to transcribe it granted me by the Nazarenes, who make use of this Volume in Beroea, a City of Syria.

Not to infift upon more modern Witneffes, and whose Authority may be fufpected, nor yet, that in almost all the Remains of the Writers of the fecond and third Centuries,there are many Paffages of this Gofpel cited by them, which they exprefly attribute to St. Matthew; I think we may fairly conclude from the Teftimonies already alledged, which are fo firm of themselves, that they need no others to

fupport them. However, I will add fome more afterwards, only deducing thefe Corollaries from what has been produc'd already : First, That the Gofpel called St. Matthew's is undoubtedly his whofe Name it bears, fince all Antiquity is agreed in it. Secondly, that 'twas commonly believed this Gofpel was written originally in Hebrew, for the fake of the Jews that understood not Greek. Thirdly, That the Interpreter was unknown, to whole care we are fuppofedly indebted for the Tranflation. This laft Papias and St. Jerom exprefly affert, which others now cited feem to confirm by their filence, agreeable to that Maxim of the Civilians: He that is filent does not confefs indeed; but 'tis likewife manifeft that he does not deny. Certainly one would think that Irenæus, Origen and Eufebius, would never conceal his Name, if they knew it, efpecially when fenfible what Papias had already declar'd in the matter.

The first Corollary is unquestionable to all, but fuch as can doubt if Virgil wrote the Aneids, i. e. to fuch as know not upon what evidence we take Books to be theirs whofe Names they bear. For there is not a Book in the World attributed to any one by a greater confent than this Gofpel is to Matthew. I know the Marcionite, and after them the Manichees, have excepted against ir, but without any critical Arguments upon the matter; indeed without any judgment, or fo much as common fenfe: and therefore I fhall take no notice of them.

I dare scarce fay the fame for the fecond Corollary: for tho I know 'tis generally af firm'd by the Fathers that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; yet, to fpeak my own Sentiments, I fear they were induc'd to think fo upon two Reafons, which appear to me fomewhat infufficient. The firft is the Authority of Papias, who firft of all advanced that which no body could ever collect from the Copy we now have of Matthew, which looks no more like a Tranflation than Mark or John: And all know of what little weight Papias's Teftimony muft be, when alone. He might either relate what he did not well understand, or perhaps what he himself had forg'd. Which Eufebius in other cafes obferved of him long fince, when fpeaking of the Millennium, which Papias affirm'd we muft

« PreviousContinue »