Sidor som bilder

expect upon Earth, de proceeds chus, lib. 3. wichstanding he imbib'd those whimsical Doc.

39. Which, for want of a thorowo understand. trines of the Chiliafts, if he himself was ing in the Apostolical Writings, I am of opinion nor the fnventor of them; as if these were he was inducid to believe, not discerning what fic co be compared wich the Wricings of the they delivered mystically and in figurative Speech; Evangelists and Apostles, which surely none for' in truth he was but of a shallow capacity, but Fools could think less useful than the as is marifesily seen from his Books. Yet by Discourses of their Followers. reason of his Antiquity he impos d on many, This only is certain therefore from Papias, and persuaded theni of his fictitious Millennium, thac in his times there was a Gospel of St. having, according to Eusebius, given occasion of Matthew, which no body doubted to be his

. filling into the same Error to moglt of the Eccle. What he relates of the Hebrew Original I can fiaftical Writers that followed him, who defend- hardly admit. But 'cis objected, St. Jeram ed themselves by his Antiquity. And indeed it affirms he hath read it : For, says he, The very was no difficult thing for others to take on truit Hebrew is still preserved in the Library of Cæfawhat he had first advanced of St. Matthew's rea. I also had the liberty of transcribing it Hebrew Gospel. But this his Testimony is granted me by the Nazarenes, who make use of invalidated, not only by what we have quoted no other in Bercea a City of Syria. Moreover from Eufebius,kut by part of what he says him- he turned it into Greek, as he tells us upon self: nigrenivo os ö aura wis érrato e vesthe 12th Chapter of St. Matthew : In that Every man interpreted it as he was able. Which Gospel, which the Nazarenes and the Ebionices words betray that narrow Understanding he is make use of and which I lately translated from uz braided with by Eusebius : for in room of Hebrew into Greek, and is called by man EXASO, he ought to have put össivelguido Matthew's authentick Worke) the Man with the dicem exto ép: TeipG, whoever understood He withered Arm is said to be a Mafon, This I Irew; since the generality of the Greeks could suspect is another reason why 'tis the common ncc trunflate it. Nor yet had that been a report that Mattbew wrote in Hebrew, viz. the froper way of speaking ; but rather, Which Nazarenes boasting they had this Original; jome skilled in the Hebrew had translated for and because it did not seem improbable that the use of the Greeks, who alone wanted such & Matthew, conversing chiefly with the Jews, Translation. Eefdes, who can allow of as thould write in their Language. But on the Siera, as he was able, if he considers the other hand, it is not more unlikely that a Gospel we have? For suppofing ic translaced Greek Copy might be turned by the Nazarenes from the Hebrew, it could not be done better, into Hebrew, than the Hebrew by the Christinor with more sincerity, as is plain to all that ans inco Greek : And what makes this more have any relish in such kind of Learning, and plausible, is, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes may appear from comparing it with the other is strangely interpolated, as is abundantly maGospels. Befides, it every one interpreted nitest from the Fragments of it, fome of it according to his ability, there must have which are collected by Hugo Gritius at the bebeen some account amongst the Ancients of ginning of Matthew. And those who durst this variety of_Versions, as we have of the thus interpolate the Evangelical History, might various Latin Translations of both Tefta- with the lame boldness cry up a TranNacion ments, of which St. Jerom, amongst others, for an Original, and impose upon the are makes mention in the Preface to his Gospels. dulous, of whom Papias might be the fift: But we meet with no such account, only with And from them such an opinion might be che fome various Readings, chiefly occasioned by more easily propagated to succeeding Ages, che negligence of Transcribers.

inasmuch as the Original Copy was reported which he plainly enough discovers in these to be still extant. words which we read in the same place in But St. Jerom, you say, a nice Critick in Eusebius : For I thought I could not profit ļ these matters, was not only of opinion him. much in seruling of Books, as in consulting those self, but adds, 'twas commonly said to be that survived the Authors. From whom nor: Matthew's Original. I agree with him, if

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

in his own judgment and mature thought he very sensible, in another place he talks very
had weighed the cate, which, in the business doubtfully of it. These are his Words, cited
before us, I believe he did not, nor will any not far from the beginning of his 3d Book
one else that hath read never fo few of those against the Pelagiins : In the Gospel according to
Additions in the Nazarene Gospel, which are the Hebrews, written indeed in the Chaldee and
yet to be seen. St. Jerom often, in his Com- Syrian Language, but in Hebrew Charaflers,
mentaries, speaks not only his own thoughts, which Gospel tie Nazarenes now use, cntituled
but the Sentimenes of other men: and here according to the Apostles, but, as 'tis generally
he discourses with them that never saw this believed, according to Matthew, and which is
Gospel, and being ignorant of the many now in the Library of Cæsarea, there is an ac-
Additions to it, believed it to be Matthew's count, &c. These words, according to the
genuin Work, nor varying from our Copy in Apojiles, seem altogether to imply, that some
any thing but the Language. To give an were of opinion there were in this Gospel,
example of one, fo persuaded that had ne- besides Matthew's Narrative, other Relations
ver seen it; Epiphanius, in his Heresy of the belonging or attributed to other A poftles:
Nazarenes, 30. 9. 9. speaks thus of the He- For, as the Phrase xata Marfaior imports
brew Gospel made use of then : They have St. the Labour of Matthew in writing and digest-
Matthew's Gospel compleatly written in Hebrew, ing the History of the Gospel; so, in like
which remains unquestionably as it was foršt writ- manner, xat? Ancónxs implies, there were
ten in Hebrew Characters. Now had Epipha- many things added to this work, nor from
niks seen it, or the Translation of it, he the sole Authoricy and Tradition of Mat-
would never have said so, unless he had ima- thew, but other Apostles, whether the report
gined, at site same time, that imperfect which was true or falle that it was fo. And cer-
the Church made then a general use of, which tainly there were many things added in chat
doubtless such a declared Enemy to Hereticks Gospel, which are wanting in our Copies of
did not believe. See what he says of the St. Matthew's.
Gospels in his Heresy of the Alogi, which But some object a place in Ignatius's E-
is si. But there needs not much reasoning pisle to the Smyrnæans, where he produces
to prove that Epiph.nius never read the Gospel a Passage as uttered by Christ, and to be found
of the Nazarenes; for thus he proceeds: in the Gospel of the Nazarenes. Thus St.
But I know not whether they have mutilated the Jerom, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical
Genealogies, which are continued from Abraham Writers, under Ignatius : And being come to
to Christ. Hence 'cis plain Epiphanius had not those that were with Peter, he said unto them,
so much as turned over the Book, and there Take, handle me, and know that I am not a
fore spoke before relying upon the Authority Spirit without a Body. Which words, altho
of another. Buc had those Expressions come I believe (as St. Jerom says): that they
out fingly, they might have passed as from were in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, yet
one that had been fatisfied in the point : For they seem to have been a Paraphrase upon
who, after full enquiry, could declare him- St. Luke, chap. 24. 39. which Ignatius might
self more peremptorily than Epiphanius in the use, after the manner of the most antient
Passage just alledged! And yet he was grie- Fachers, who frequently cite the sense rather
voully mistaken, and followed the uncertainty than the very words of Scripture. Certain-
of vulgar report. The same judgment we ly Ignatius does not refer those words to Mat-
may pass upon St. Jerom, when he faith, It was thew; and the Nazarenes mighę cake thar Ac-
thought by many to be Marchew's authentick count from St. Luke, and insert it somewhat

alter'd, into their Copy of Matthew : So chat
Nor is it from mere conjecture that I ar- boch might borrow from the same Author,
gue St. Jerom to have followed the common and not Ignatius from the Nazarenes.
Opinion rather than his own, in his Observa From hence we may conclude, that the
tions upon the Nazarene Gospel : for besides Gospel of the Nazarenes doth not appear to be
those Interpolations in it, of which he was the undoubted Original of Matthew, contra-

ry to the Judgment of Father Simon, in his method, as well as the other Evangelifts : And Cricical History of the New Testament, whose nothing hinders but he might receive them Reasons, without considering them apart, I sup- from Peter delivered in that order, which fo role I have entirely confuted, by showing the accurately agrees with most part of Matthew, iofuficiency of those Principles on which they and the other Evangelists. I also very much are founded : In which I appeal to the Learn- suspect what he faith of Mark's being Peter's ed and impartial Readers, who may compare Interpreter. 'Tis much likelier that Peter us together, if they think it worth their should have learn’d Greek when a Boy, a while. We may likewise conclude, from current Language diffus'd through all the

whar hath been said concerning the origin of East, or otherwise attained it by Inspiration. This current Opinion among the Ancients, that No doubt but Peter rehears'd the Deeds and

Matthew wroce originally in Hebrew; that this Discourses of Christ to his Disciples ; but 'cis Tradition doth not make the thing certain, abundantly seen from Paul's Sermons, that and past dispute.

the Apostles did not deliver their Gospel in : The general consent of Sacred Antiquity, which chat naked manner, as to make use only of Grotius urges, is not of any force in the present mere Narrations. Tis much more credible · case: for the question is not concerning some that Mark industriously enquir'd of Peter every

thing undisputed, and delivered as a certain thing, and from his Answers compos'd his Truth by the Writers that succeeded Papias ; History, of which even his method alone is but only concerning an Opinion which they sufficient to persuade one. But to go on seem to have taken upon trust, and without with other Testimonies. examination, upon his fingle Authority. Irenaus, after his usual manner, depending

II. There are in a manner the same Wit- almost in every thing upon Papias, as was neffes concerning Mark which have been pro- observed before, after what we cited out of duc'd concerning Matthew. First of all Pa- him upon Matthew, says, After their decease, pias, whose words are in Eusebius, Eccl. Hift. Mark, the Disciple and Interpreter of Peter what lib. 3. c. 25. where he relates what he knew Peter had preachd, deliver'd to us in Writing. of this matter from John the Elder. The El. The Greek Citation is owing to Eufebius, Eccl. der said that Mark, Peter's Interpreter, faith. Hist, lib.s. c.8. Here boch he and Poiss agree, fully penn'd all he had registred in his memory, only Papias makes him to have written when but had not disposed the Works and Sayings of Peter was alive, but Irenews after his death. Christ in proper order, as having not received Mark is reported to have written his Gospel them from his mouth, nor been his Follower, but, during the Life, and with approbation of as I was saying, a Companion of Pecer after Peter, by Clemens Alexandrinus, in Lib. 6. wards, who delivered the Discourses of Christ in Hypotyposeon, whence Eusebius hach these words, A method applicable and instru&tive to the Hear- Hijt. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 15. With fo ardent a zeal ers, and not with design to have them disposed for Piety were the minds of Peter's Auditors into a methodical History. So that Mark is not inflamed, that they were not contented with to be blam'd for writing things only in the Order baving once heard him reveal that Heavenly they recurred to memory, it being his main scope to Do&trine, but earnestly intreated Mark, the Comomit nothing of all he heard, and to avoid falje panion of Peter, to leave 'em in writing the mixtures. From this testimony, and what Do&trine which they had been thus inftruded in. follows, 'cis evident no body doubred whe-Nor would they cease their importunity, till they ther Mark, the Disciple of the Apostles, was had prevailed upon him to write the Gospel that Author of the Gospel which carries his bear's his Name. Which Peter understanding by Name. The remainder of clris Account, the Revelation of the Spirit, he was pleas'd with which Papios pretends to have learn'd from his their Defires, approud of the Bosk, and by bis Conversation with John the Elder, is, if not Authority recommended it to be used for the film an idle Story, certainly of very little credit. ture in the Churches. The fame alfo in other Let him say what he pleafes, Mark digefted words

Eufebius hath observed of Clemens, in the Deeds and Discourses of chrift into a Hift. Eccl. lib. 6. c. 14. but differing a little,


when he says, that Peter neither encouraged and exa&tness. 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 handsomly of Irenaus the Gospel of St. Luke was bewith the former account ; for what the Learn- liev'd to be the genuin composicion of an ed Valefius hath remarked in the case upon Apostolical Writer, and Disciple of Paul. this latter instance, is not satisfactory. But Eusebius also, lib. 3. c. 24. discoursing of the this however is evident, that Mark received Order of the Gospels, without any scrupla his Gospel from the mouth of Peter, to which makes mention of Luke's Gospel. Eufebius fubfcribes.

But St. ferom hath argued the closest of Agreeably to which, in his Eccl. Hift. all for Luke, 'in his enumeration of EccleBook 3. c. 24. making mention of the four fiaftical Writers. Luke, says he, a Physician Gospels, without the least hesitation he re- of Antioch, was not ignorant of the Greek counts Mark among the Evangelifts. From Tongue, as his Works evidence : He was a whom Sc. Ferom seems to have borrow'd this Follower of Paul the Apostle, ard Companion of Observation upon Mark in his Book of Eccle- all his Travels.

He wrote a Gojpel, of which siastical Writers

. Mark, the Disciple and In- take a Character from Paul. With him, be terpreter of Perer, at the importunity of the saith, we have sent the Brother, whose praise Brethren in Rome, wrote a short Gospel, which is in the Gospel chroout all the Churches. when Peter had heard, by bis Approbation be And to the Colossians, Luke the beloved Phyrecommended it to the use of the Churches, as sician saluteth you: Als to Timothy, Only Clemens bath written in his fixth Book of Luke is with me. He put out another excellent Hypocoposes. And certainly 'ris far more cre- Piece, with the Title of the Acts of the Adible that Peter should commend

the under- postles-Whensoever in his Epistles Paul says, taking, than what is observ'd by Eusebius juft (After my Gospel] he alludes to this Treatije before.

of Luke, tho he learn'd his Gospel, not only III. But to proceed to Luke, Irenæus has from Paul, who had never been with the Lord in these words concerning him, Lib. 3. c. 1. the Flesh, but from the rest of the Apostles ; And Luke, the Follower of Paul, compos’d into which he thus acknowledges in the beginning of a Book the Gospel that was preached by Paul. his Book, (Even as they, doc.] so that he The Greek is as follows in Eusebius, xj Asra's wrote his Gospel from report, but was an Eyeδο ακόλεθG- Πανλε το α' εκείνε κηρυατόμωον witners in what he relates in his Ats of the evaszándor Bibaiq narkosto, Lib. s. c. 8. Apostles. He lived 84 years, and never marBut since Paul was not present at the Actions ried. But as for the word Gospel made use of and Discourses of Jesus, he could not relate by Paul, the best Interpreters have observed, those particulars upon his own experience, that it signifies only the Evangelical Doctrine, but only as he had received them from other or ac molt che preaching of it, and not any. Apostles. Therefore Luke cannot be said particular Volume concerning it. properly to have compos'd that Gospel into a IV. The Thred of my Discourse now leads Book, which Paul had preach'd, unless Irenæus me to make a large Disquisition concerning the is to be understood of the Acts of the Apo- Gospel of John; but have already handled stles, whereas he is discoursing of the Gof- this Argument in the Dissertation prefix'd to pels': And Luke no where declares he had the my Exposition of the first Chapter of his Materials of his Gospel delivered from Paul, Gospel, where I have proved it to be the but from those which from the beginning were genuin Product of John the Apostle. I shall Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word, here cnly make some short addicion concernChap. 1. 5. 'Tis strange Irenæus should not ing his Design. And I wonder Facher Simon, remember this; but from this and innume- in his critical History of the New Testament, rable instances we may learn not to give too speaking of this Gospel, should not only afcafy a credit co the best and honestest firm, That there remain no Records authentick men, especially if we cannot discern in their enough to give the reasons upon which the Holy Writings and Judgments any great accuracy Apostle was moved to this Undertaking after be



bad seen the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and " three former Evangelists had only accountLuke ; but that he should also add, That" ed for one year's Adions of our Saviour, Irenæus had declared no more than that Joha « after fobn Baptift was caft into Prison, and had published his Gospel at Ephesus, omitting « declared as much in the beginning of their the time and reasons inducing him thereto, re “Works. Matthew, after the 40 days faftferring us in the Margin to Irenæus, lib. 3.C.I." ing, and the Temptation immediately falNow Father Simon ought to have known, that “ lowing is, specifies the cime of his Hißory Irenæus had taken notice of John the Evan « in these words : Nom when Jesus bad gelist in another place, viz. the sith Chapter 9 heard that John was cast into Prijon, be of that same Book, in these words : John, “ departed into Galilee. Likewise Mark: the Disciple of the Lord, preaching this Faith, " Now after that John was put into Prifon, and being desirous, by the promulgation of his Jesus came into Galilee.

And also Like, Gospel, to extirpate that Error which had been “ before he enters upon the Actions of our Sown by Cerinthus in the minds of Men, and had “ Saviour, thus specifies the time, saying, been broached formerly by the Nicolaicans, a “ Herod to all the Evils that he had done, Set of the Preudo-Gnosticks; to convi&t and added yet this also, that be fout up Joba Teclaim the seduced, &c. As Civilians tell us, “ in Prison. These reasons they give for 'Tis dangerous in their Faculty to give a stated John's accounting in his Gospel (upon the definition, as being liable to be overthrown by ex “ importunicy of his Friends) both for the ceptions. So 'tis likewise indiscreet to deny" cime omitted by the Evangelists before him, a particular Passage to be in the Anciencs, e “ and the Actions of our Saviour preceding ven for those that have most carefully read John's being caft into Prifor: which he them over : for the happiest memory may s gives us to understand, first when he saich, sometimes fail.

This beginning of Miracles did Jelus; and But to increase the wonder, after the fore " afterwards in the course of his Narracive mentioned Allegation, Father Simon gives us “ of the Actions of Jesus, when he makes a recital out of Eusebius, of what he ima- “ mention of John Baptist, as still executing gines Clemens Alexandrinus to have written « his Office of baprizing in Ænon near Salem; concerning the scope of John, which is plain- " which appears plainly from these words ly repugnant to what he has advanced in the “ For John was not yet cast into Prifon. There beginning of his Chapter : For there is no “ fore John cakes into his Gospel the Actions body but allows as great Authority to Clemens “ of our Saviour before John Baptift was comas to Papias, especially fince part of that “ mitted to Prifon, the other three after his which Simon supposes attributed by Eusebius « Confinement. Whosoever therefore arto Clemens, carries its confirmation with it. “ tentively considers this, will find the Gof But it is not Clemens who is Author of these u pels do not at all vary from one another, Remarks upon the Gospels found in Eufebius, “ since John's Gospel contains the beginning Book 3. c. 24. but Exjebius himself. Father“ of our Saviour's Adions, the other Gospels Simon mistakes the first Lines of the Chapter, « only an account of the subsequent time : which he applies to what follows; whereas “ And with very good reason hach fobre a they refer to a preceding Account in the 2zd “ mitted the Genealogy of Christ according co Chapter. But his Cication is well worth the " the Flesh, as having been before related by reading ; for which reason I have transcribed “ Matthews and Luke; buc commences his it. “The three Gospels coming abroad, “Work from the Divinity of our Saviour, " and to the knowledg of John, he is “ a Task peculiarly resery'd for him, as che « said to have paffed his approbation upon “ most worthy, by the Holy Ghoft. And so * them, and confirmed their Testimony“ much of St. John's Gospel. * with his own ; but withal perceived that a 'Tis manifestly plain, i think, from com « Relation of those things which Jefus had paring John with the other Evangelists, chat * done in the beginning of his Ministry, was he delign'd to supply what was wancing in wanting, which indeed is crue : for the their Relations : But that this was not his

« FöregåendeFortsätt »