Page images
PDF
EPUB

Expect upon Earth, he proceeds thus, lib. 3. 39. Which, for want of a thorow understand ing in the Apoftolical Writings, I am of opinion he was induc'd to believe, not difcerning what they delivered myftically and in figurative Speech; for in truth he was but of a shallow capacity, as is manifefily feen from his Books. Yet by reafon of his Antiquity he impos d on many, and perfuaded them of his fictitious Millennium, having, according to Eufebius, given occafion of falling into the fame Error to most of the Ecclefiaftical Writers that followed him, who defended themselves by his Antiquity. And indeed it was no difficult thing for others to take on truft what he had first advanced of St. Matthew's Hebrew Goffel. But this his Teftimony is invalidated, not only by what we have quoted from Eufebius, but by part of what he fays himfelf: neundos aura as idúrato es: Every man interpreted it as he was able. Which words betray that narrow Understanding he is up braided with by Eufebius: for in room of Exas, he ought to have put oss viCeaid SanÉRTY ENTERS C, whoever understood HeIrew; fince the generality of the Greeks could not tranflate it. Nor yet had that been a proper way of speaking; but rather, Which fome skilled in the Hebrew had tranflated for the use of the Greeks, who alone wanted fuch a Tranflation. Eefdes, who can allow of s dvar, as he was able, if he confiders the Gofpel we have? For fuppofing it tranflated from the Hebrew, it could not be done better, nor with more fincerity, as is plain to all that have any relifh in fuch kind of Learning, and may appear from comparing it with the other Gofpels. Befides, if every one interpreted it according to his ability, there muft have been fome account amongst the Antients of this variety of Verfions, as we have of the various Latin Tranflations of both Teftaments, of which St. Jerom, amongst others, makes mention in the Preface to his Gofpels. But we meet with no fuch account, only with fome various Readings, chiefly occafioned by the negligence of Tranfcribers.

Which he plainly enough discovers in these words which we read in the fame place in Eufebius: For I thought I could not profit fo much in perufing of Books, as in confulting thoje that furvived the Authors. From whom not.

wichftanding he imbib'd thofe whimsical Doctrines of the Chiliafts, if he himself was not the Inventor of them; as if thefe were fit to be compared with the Writings of the Evangelifts and Apoftles, which furely none but Fools could think lefs useful than the Difcourfes of their Followers.

This only is certain therefore from Papias, that in his times there was a Gofpel of St. Matthew, which no body doubted to be his. What he relates of the Hebrew Original I can hardly admit. But 'tis objected, St. Jerom affirms he hath read it: For, fays he, The very Hebrew is ftill preferved in the Library of Cæfarea. I also had the liberty of tranfcribing it granted me by the Nazarenes, who make use of no other in Beroea a City of Syria. Moreover he turned it into Greek, as he tells us upon the 12th Chapter of St. Matthew: In that Gospel, which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites make use of (and which I lately translated from Hebrew into Greek, and is called by many Matthew's authentick Work) the Man with the withered Arm is faid to be a Mafon. This I fufpect is another reason why 'tis the common report that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, viz. the Nazarenes boafting they had this Original; and because it did not feem improbable that Matthew, converfing chiefly with the Jews, fhould write in their Language. But on the other hand, it is not more unlikely that a Greek Copy might be turned by the Nazarenes into Hebrew, than the Hebrew by the Chriftians into Greek: And what makes this more plaufible, is, that the Gofpel of the Nazarenes is ftrangely interpolated, as is abundantly manifeft from the Fragments of it, fome of which are collected by Hugo Gratius at the beginning of Matthew. And those who durft thus interpolate the Evangelical History, might with the fame boldness cry up a Tranflation for an Original, and impofe upon the credulous, of whom Papias might be the firft: And from them fuch an opinion might be the more eafily propagated to fucceeding Ages, inafmuch as the Original Copy was reported to be still extant.

But St. Jerom, you fay, a nice Critick in thefe matters, was not only of opinion himfelf, but adds, 'twas commonly faid to be Matthew's Original. I agree with him, if

in his own judgment and mature thought he had weighed the cafe, which, in the bufinefs before us, I believe he did not, nor will any one elfe that hath read never fo few of thofe Additions in the Nazarene Gofpel, which are yet to be feen. St. Jerom often, in his Commentaries, fpeaks not only his own thoughts, but the Sentiments of other men: and here he difcourfes with them that never faw this Gofpel, and being ignorant of the many Additions to it, believed it to be Matthew's genuin Work, nor varying from our Copy in any thing but the Language. To give an example of one, fo perfuaded, that had never feen it; Epiphanius, in his Herefy of the Nazarenes, 30. §. 9. fpeaks thus of the Hebrew Gofpel made ufe of then: They have St. Matthew's Gospel compleatly written in Hebrew, which remains unquestionably as it was first written in Hebrew Characters. Now had Epiphanius feen it, or the Tranflation of it, he would never have faid fo, unless he had imagined, at the fame time, that imperfect which the Church made then a general ufe of, which doubtless fuch a declared Enemy to Hereticks did not believe. See what he fays of the Gofpels in his Herefy of the Alogi, which is si. But there needs not much reafoning to prove that Epiphanius never read the Gospel of the Nazarenes; for thus he proceeds: But I know not whether they have mutilated the Genealogies, which are continued from Abraham to Chrift. Hence 'tis plain Epiphanius had not fo much as turned over the Book, and therefore spoke before relying upon the Authority of another. But had thofe Expreffions come out fingly, they might have paffed as from one that had been fatisfied in the point: For who, after full enquiry, could declare himfelf more peremptorily than Epiphanius in the Paffage juft alledged? And yet he was grievously mistaken, and followed the uncertainty of vulgar report. The fame judgment we may pals upon St. Jerom, when he faith, It was thought by many to be Matthew's authentick Work.

Nor is it from mere conjecture that I argue St. Jerom to have followed the common Opinion rather than his own, in his Obfervations upon the Nazarene Gospel: for befides thofe Interpolations in it, of which he was

very fenfible, in another place he talks very doubtfully of it. Thefe are his Words, cited not far from the beginning of his 3d Book against the Pelagians: In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written indeed in the Chaldee and Syrian Language, but in Hebrew Characters, which Gospel the Nazarenes now use, entituled according to the Apostles, but, as 'tis generally believed, according to Matthew, and which is now in the Library of Cæfarea, there is an account, &c. These words, according to the Apojiles, feem altogether to imply, that fome were of opinion there were in this Gospel, befides Matthew's Narrative, other Relations belonging or attributed to other Apoftles: For, as the Phrafe nara Marlaior imports the Labour of Matthew in writing and digefting the Hiftory of the Gofpel; fo, in like manner, xar Amsóλus implies, there were many things added to this Work, not from the fole Authority and Tradition of Matthew, but other Apoftles, whether the report was true or falfe that it was fo.. And certainly there were many things added in that Gofpel, which are wanting in our Copies of St. Matthew's.

But fome object a place in Ignatius's Epiftle to the Smyrnaans, where he produces a Paffage as uttered by Christ, and to be found in the Goffel of the Nazarenes. Thus St. Ferom, in his Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers, under Ignatius: And being come to those that were with Peter, he said unto them, Take, handle me, and know that I am not a Spirit without a Body. Which words, altho I believe (as St. Jerom fays) that they were in the Gofpel of the Nazarenes, yer they feem to have been a Paraphrafe upon St. Luke, chap. 24. 39. which Ignatius might use, after the manner of the most antient Fathers, who frequently cite the fense rather than the very words of Scripture. Certainly Ignatius does not refer those words to Matthew; and the Nazarenes might take that Account from St. Luke, and infert it fomewhat alter'd, into their Copy of Matthew: So that both might borrow from the fame Author, and not Ignatius from the Nazarenes.

From hence we may conclude, that the Gofpel of the Nazarenes doth not appear to be. the undoubted Original of Matthew, contra

ry

ry to the Judgment of Father Simon, in his Critical Hiftory of the New Teftament; whole Reafons, without confidering them apart,I fuppole I have entirely confuted, by fhowing the infufficiency of thofe Principles on which they are founded: In which I appeal to the Learned and impartial Readers, who may compare us together, if they think it worth their while. We may likewife conclude, from what hath been faid concerning the Origin of this current Opinion among the Antients, that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew; that this Tradition doth not make the thing certain, and past dispute.

The general confent of Sacred Antiquity, which Grotius urges, is not of any force in the prefent cafe: for the queftion is not concerning fomething undifputed, and delivered as a certain Truth by the Writers that fucceeded Papias; but only concerning an Opinion which they feem to have taken upon truft, and without examination, upon his fingle Authority.

II. There are in a manner the fame Witneffes concerning Mark which have been produc'd concerning Matthew. First of all Papias, whose words are in Eufebius, Eccl. Hift. lib. 3. c. 25. where he relates what he knew of this matter from John the Elder. The Elder faid that Mark, Peter's Interpreter, faithfully penn'd all he had registred in his memory; but had not difpofed the Works and Sayings of Chrift in proper order, as having not received them from his mouth, nor been his Follower, but, as I was saying, a Companion of Peter afterwards, who delivered the Difcourfes of Chrift in a method applicable and inftru&tive to the Hearers, and not with defign to have them difpofed into a methodical Hiftory. So that Mark is not to be blam'd for writing things only in the Order they recurred to memory, it being his main scope to omit nothing of all he heard, and to avoid falfe mixtures. From this teftimony, and what follows, 'tis evident no body doubted whether Mark, the Difciple of the Apoftles, was Author of the Gofpel which carries his The remainder of this Account, which Papias pretends to have learn'd from his Converfation with John the Elder, is, if not an idle Story, certainly of very little credit. Let him fay what he pleafes, Mark digefted the Deeds and Difcourfes of Chrift into a

method, as well as the other Evangelifts: And nothing hinders but he might receive them from Peter delivered in that order, which fo accurately agrees with moft part of Matthew, and the other Evangelifts. I alfo very much fufpect what he faith of Mark's being Peter's Interpreter. 'Tis much likelier that Peter fhould have learn'd Greek when a Boy, a current Language diffus'd through all the Eaft, or otherwife attained it by Inspiration. No doubt but Peter rehears'd the Deeds and Difcourfes of Chrift to his Difciples; but 'tis abundantly feen from Paul's Sermons, that the Apoftles did not deliver their Gospel in that naked manner, as to make ufe only of mere Narrations. Tis much more credible that Mark induftrioufly enquir'd of Peter every thing, and from his Anfwers compos'd his Hiftory, of which even his method alone is fufficient to perfuade one. with other Teftimonies.

Irenaus, after his ufual manner, depending almoft in every thing upon Papias, as was obferved before, after what we cited out of him upon Matthew, fays, After their decease, Mark, the Disciple and Interpreter of Peter,what Peter had preach'd, deliver'd to us in Writing. The Greek Citation is owing to Eufebius, Eccl. Hift, lib. 5. c.8. Here both he and Papias agree, only Papias makes him to have written when Peter was alive, but Ireneus after his death.

Mark is reported to have written his Gofpe! during the Life, and with approbation of Peter, by Clemens Alexandrinus, in Lib. 6. Hypotypofeon, whence Eufebius hath these words, Hift. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 15. With so ardent a Zeal for Piety were the minds of Peter's Auditors inflamed, that they were not contented with having once heard him reveal that Heavenly Doctrine, but earnestly intreated Mark, the Companion of Peter, to leave 'em in writing the Doctrine which they had been thus inftructed in. Nor would they ceafe their importunity, till they had prevailed upon him to write the Goffel that bears his Name. Which Peter understanding by the Revelation of the Spirit, he was pleas'd with their Defires, approv'd of the Book, and by bis Authority recommended it to be used for the future in the Churches. The fame alfo in other words Eufebius hath obferved of Clemens, in Hift. Eccl. lib. 6. c. 14. but differing a little,

when

when he fays, that Peter neither encouraged and exactnefs. In the mean time 'cis agreed Mark, nor forbad his Undertaking. Which I in the principal thing, viz. that in the time know not how can be reconciled handfomly of Irenaus the Gofpel of St. Luke was bewith the former account; for what the Learn- liev'd to be the genuin compofition of an ed Valefius hath remarked in the cafe upon Apoftolical Writer, and Difciple of Paul. this latter inftance, is not fatisfactory. But Eufebius alfo, lib. 3. c. 24. difcourfing of the this however is evident, that Mark received Order of the Gospels, without any fcruple his Gospel from the mouth of Peter, to which makes mention of Luke's Gofpel. Eufebius fubfcribes.

Agreeably to which, in his Eccl. Hift. Book 3. c. 24. making mention of the four Gospels, without the leaft hefitation he recounts Mark among the Evangelifts. From whom St. Jerom feems to have borrow'd this Obfervation upon Mark in his Book of Ecclefiaftical Writers. Mark, the Disciple and Interpreter of Peter, at the importunity of the Brethren in Rome, wrote a short Gospel, which when Peter had heard, by his Approbation he recommended it to the ufe of the Churches, as Clemens bath written in his fixth Book of Hypotopofes. And certainly 'tis far more credible that Peter fhould commend the undertaking, than what is observ'd by Eusebius juft

before.

III. But to proceed to Luke, Ireneus has these words concerning him, Lib. 3. c. 1. And Luke, the Follower of Paul, compos'd into a Book the Gospel that was preached by Paul. The Greek is as follows in Eufebius, Auxas ἢ ὁ ακόλεθΘ Παύλε τὸ ὑπ ̓ ἐκείνα κηρυπτόμενον Evansor Ev Bibig natibero, Lib. 5. c. 8. But fince Paul was not prefent at the Actions and Difcourfes of Jefus, he could not relate thofe particulars upon his own experience, but only as he had received them from other Apoftles. Therefore Luke cannot be faid properly to have compos'd that Gospel into a Book, which Paul had preach'd, unless Ireneus is to be understood of the Acts of the Apoftles, whereas he is difcourfing of the Gofpels: And Luke no where declares he had the Materials of his Gofpel delivered from Paul, but from those which from the beginning were Eye-witneffes, and Minifters of the Word, Chap. 1. 5. Tis ftrange Ireneus fhould not remember this; but from this and innumerable inftances we may learn not to give too eafy a credit to the best and honefteft men, efpecially if we cannot difcern in their Writings and Judgments any great accuracy

But St. Jerom hath argued the closest of all for Luke, in his enumeration of Ecclefiaftical Writers. Luke, fays he, a Phyfician of Antioch, was not ignorant of the Greek Tongue, as his Works evidence: He was a Follower of Paul the Apostle, and Companion of all his Travels. He wrote a Gospel, of which take a Chara&er from Paul. With him, he faith, we have fent the Brother, whofe praife is in the Gofpel throout all the Churches. And to the Coloffians, Luke the beloved Phyfician faluteth you: Alfo to Timothy, Only Luke is with me. He put out another excellent Piece, with the Title of the Acts of the Apoftles-Whenfoever in his Epiftles Paul fays, [After my Gospel] he alludes to this Treatife of Luke, tho he learn'd his Gospel, not only from Paul, who had never been with the Lord in the Flesh, but from the rest of the Apostles which he thus acknowledges in the beginning of his Book, [Even as they, &c.] So that he wrote his Gospel from report, but was an Eyewitnes in what he relates in his ads of the Apoftles. He lived 84 years, and never married. But as for the word Gofpel made use of by Paul, the beft Interpreters have obferved, that it fignifies only the Evangelical Doctrine, or at moft the preaching of it, and not any particular Volume concerning it.

[ocr errors]

IV. The Thred of my Difcourfe now leads me to make a large Difquifition concerning the Gofpel of John; but I have already handled this Argument in the Differtation prefix'd to my Expofition of the firft Chapter of his Gospel, where I have proved it to be the genuin Product of John the Apostle. I fhall here only make fome short addition concerning his Defign. And I wonder Father Simon, in his critical Hiftory of the New Teftament, fpeaking of this Gospel, fhould not only af firm, That there remain no Records authentick enough to give the reasons upon which the Holy Apostle was moved to this Undertaking after be Iiii

bad

had seen the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but that he fhould alfo add, That Irenæus bad declared no more than that John had published his Gospel at Ephefus, omitting the time and reafons inducing him thereto, referring us in the Margin to Ireneus, lib. 3. c.1. Now Father Simon ought to have known, that Irenaus had taken notice of John the Evangelift in another place, viz. the 11th Chapter of that fame Book, in thefe words: John, the Disciple of the Lord, preaching this Faith, and being defirous, by the promulgation of his Gospel, to extirpate that Error which had been Jown by Cerinthus in the minds of Men, and had been broached formerly by the Nicolaitans, a Set of the Pfeudo-Gnofticks; to convict and reclaim the feduced, &c. As Civilians tell us, 'Tis dangerous in their Faculty to give a stated definition, as being liable to be overthrown by exceptions. So 'tis likewife indifcreet to deny a particular Paffage to be in the Antients, even for those that have most carefully read them over: for the happiest memory may fometimes fail.

"three former Evangelifts had only account"ed for one year's Actions of our Saviour, "after John Baptift was caft into Prifon, and "declared as much in the beginning of their "Works. Matthew, after the 40 days faft "ing, and the Temptation immediately fol"lowing it, fpecifies the time of his History "in these words: Now when Jefus bad "heard that John was caft into Prijon, be

departed into Galilee. Likewife Mark: "Now after that John was put into Prifon "Jefus came into Galilee. And alfo Luke, "before he enters upon the Actions of our "Saviour, thus fpecifies the time, faying, "Herod to all the Evils that he had done, "added yet this also, that he shut up John "in Prison. Thefe reafons they give for “John's accounting in his Gofpel (upon the "importunity of his Friends) both for the "time omitted by the Evangelifts before him, " and the Actions of our Saviour preceding "John's being caft into Prifon: which he "gives us to understand, first when he saith, "This beginning of Miracles did Jefus; and "afterwards in the course of his Narrative "of the Actions of Jefus, when he makes "mention of John Baptift, as ftill executing "his Office of baptizing in non near Salem; " which appears plainly from these words: "For John was not yet caft into Prifon. There "fore John takes into his Gospel the Actions

But to increase the wonder, after the forementioned Allegation, Father Simon gives us a recital out of Eufebius, of what he imagines Clemens Alexandrinus to have written concerning the fcope of John, which is plainly repugnant to what he has advanced in the beginning of his Chapter: For there is no body but allows as great Authority to Clemens" of our Saviour before fohn Baptift was comas to Papias, efpecially fince part of that "mitted to Prifon, the other three after his which Simon fuppofes attributed by Eufebius "Confinement. Whofoever therefore at to Clemens, carries its confirmation with it. "tentively confiders this, will find the GofBut it is not Clemens who is Author of thefe "pels do not at all vary from one another, Remarks upon the Gofpels found in Eufebius," fince John's Gofpel contains the beginning Book 3. c. 24. but Eufebius himself. Father Simon mistakes the firft Lines of the Chapter, which he applies to what follows; whereas they refer to a preceding Account in the 23d Chapter. But his Citation is well worth the reading; for which reafon I have transcribed it. "The three Gofpels coming abroad, "and to the knowledg of John, he is faid to have paffed his approbation upon "them, and confirmed their Teftimony "with his own; but withal perceived that a "Relation of thofe things which Jefus had "done in the beginning of his Miniftry, was wanting, which indeed is true: for the

[ocr errors]

"of our Saviour's Actions, the other Gofpels " only an account of the fubfequent time: "And with very good reafon hath John o"mitted the Genealogy of Chrift according to "the Flesh, as having been before related by "Matthew and Luke; but commences his "Work from the Divinity of our Saviour, "a Task peculiarly referv'd for him, as the "moft worthy, by the Holy Ghoft. And fo "much of St. John's Gofpel.

'Tis manifeftly plain, I think, from comparing John with the other Evangelifts, that he defign'd to fupply what was wanting in their Relations: But that this was not his

« PreviousContinue »