defign throout, as Eufebius would have it, may be perceived by any one that has but look'd into my Harmony; fo that I need not infift here upon a particular proof of it. V. Having demonftrated the facred Volumes afcrib'd to the Evangelifts to be truly theirs, I thall briefly make appear that none elte were held authentick. Ireneus hath a whole Chapter upon this Argument, viz. the eleventh of his 3d Book, under this Head, A Demonftration that there could be neither more nor less than four Gofpels. In which Chapter he argues thus: The Gospel ftands fo mighty firm, that the very Hereticks give teftimony to it, and every one goes about from the Gospels to confirm bis Doctrine. The Ebionites using only Matthew, are from him alone convinced of their undue Prefumptions concerning our Lord. Marcion, tho mutilating Luke, is notwithstanding, from what he has left of him, fewn to be guilty of Blafphemy against the one exifting God. Those that feparate Jefus from Chrift, affirming Chrift remined impaffable, and that Jefus only fuffered, from Mark's Gofpel, which they prefer, upon impartial reading may correct their mistakes. And the Valentinians that extend the Gospel of St. John to the widest purposes, to prove their Conjugations, from him are detected in their Errors, as I made evident in my first Book. Since therefore those that speak against us, bear us witness, and make use of these very Gospels, our Demonftration of them is true and valid, that there are neither more nor less than Four Gofpels. Which is a ftrong Argument of Ireneus, and clear evidence of the number of the Gofpels. But he difgraces this manifeft Truth afterwards by frivolous Inductions, endeavouring to prove it from the Divifion of the World, and the number of the Cherubims. But here the difpute is not upon what Reafonings Irenaus proceeds, but what was the perfuafion of the Chriftians his Cotemporaries concerning the number of the Gofpels; and what it was is evident from his Words. Tertullian in many places argues for the fame number; but more efpecially in his Tracts against Marcion, from whence I fhall cite one or two Paffages. Accordingly in Book 4. chap. r. We, fays he, lay down first that the Apostles were Authors of the Gospel, on whom the Office of propagating the Gospel was im pos'd by our Lord himself. And, admitting their Followers were engaged, yet 'twas not of themselves lone, but in concurrence with the Apostles, and after them. For the Difciples would have been fufpe&ted of vain Glory in their Miniflry, had they now been back'd with the Authority of their Mafiers, and of Chrift himself, who made the Apofties Mailers. In fine, John and Matthew lay the foundation of our Faith, which is built upon by Luke and Mark, advancing on the fame grounds as they with respect to one God the Creator, and his Chrift, born of a Virgin, the fulfilling of the Law and the Prophets: For fo long as they are agreed in the capital point of Faith, let him know what he pleases of their varying in the difpofition of their Narratives. He thows afterwards in the stb Chapter, That Luke's Gofpel was upheld from the very date of its Publication, and vigorously maintained, not only by the Apofto lical Churches, but univerfally by thofe that were of the fame Communion with them. which, amongst more of that nature, that the very Authority of the Apoftolical Churches gave Patronage to the other Gofpels, which from them were handed to us by their order; I mean John's Gospel, and that of Matthew: altho Mark's be afcribed to Peter, whofe Interpreter he was; and Luke's also they are wont to make Paul the Author of Add to This of Tertullian is very abftrufe, occafioned by the obfcurity of his Expreffion, and brevity of Stile; but deferves a better Light, which I will endeavour to give it in a fhort explication. And firft, by a fingular Providence, the Gofpels were written partly by the Apoftles, and partly by their Followers. Had the Apostles been fole Authors, it might have been difputed afterwards, whether our Saviour's Promife had been accomplished concerning the miffion of the Holy Ghoft upon the Apoftles: For the Apostles themfelves could not fatisfy Pofterity in a matter which not a little tended to the advancement of their own Authority, nor could they be Evidences in their own Caufe; but their Difciples, Luke and Mark, have given a bright Teftimony to this point, and thereby confirmed the whole Gospel, Mark at the end of his, and Luke in the Preface to his Acts of the Apoftles. Of which Promife had Chrift defeated his Apoftles, they had been without Iiii 2 any any number of Difciples; for to have been mistaken in a matter of that mighty moment, would have utterly ruined their Credit. And fo far would they have been from finding Difciples to take Memoirs of Chrift's and their own Actions and Sayings, that they would have been a publick Derifion to all, and unable to propagate their memories to Pofterity. For who would not have forfaken and defpifed men of no polite Learning, of no Authority, and fupported by no Eftates, and above all, the Difciples of a Mafter who had fo notorioufly failed in his Promife? Who could have credited the Apoftics relating the Miracles wrought by that Jefus of Nazareth, who had not (tho under an engagement) confer'd the like ability of working upon them? Or who could have forbore calling them a pack of credulous,tho perhaps honeft men, put upon by their Mafter, and of no manner of repute? 'Twas therefore of greatest importance to have tranfinitted to after Ages a Hiftory of the Gospel delivered by our Saviour, and by his Apostles: For 'tis plain the Difciples of the Apostles were convinced from thence that they were fent from God, and that Jefus was in his Heavenly Kingdom, from whence he had difpers'd the Gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, who had otherwife been with out Followers. Now as the Difciples of the Apoftles bring weighty Teftimony to their Mafters; fo their Relation, fo agreeable to the Writings of their Mafters by them unfeen, is not a little confirm'd: For 'tis not credible that Mark or Luke had feen the Gofpel according to St. Matthew, who otherwife would have avoided all Repetitions of what was well related before, and all feeming Clafhings. John indeed might have had a fight of them all, having repeated very fparingly what had been faid by others before. The third thing is, that the moft primitive Churches founded by the Apofiles ever fince the publication of the Gofpels, constantly believed 'em to be theirs whofe Names they bear. Some Hereticks, 'tis true, as we have gathered from Irenaus, adher'd only to one of the Evangelifts; but neither did they agree in their choice, and they were condenin'd by much the greater part of Chriftians. But Marcion's (fays Tertullian, meaning Luke's Gospel corrupted by him) was unknown to moft, and by those that knew it disapprov'd of. Origen, admirably skilled not only in the Tenents of his Age, but in the Antiquities of the Church, hath this obfervation upon the four Gofpels, in a Fragment of his first Tome of Annotations upon Matthew, which is preferved by Eufebius in his Eccl. Hift. lib. 6. c.25. As I have learn'd by Tradition concerning the 4 Gospels, which alone are indisputably received in Chrift's univerfal Church upon Earth, viz. That the first Gospel was writ by Matchew, fometime a Publican, afterwards an Apostle of Jefus Chrift, who put it forth in Hebrew for the fake of the Jewish Converts. The next we are informed, is Mark's, compiled from the Inftructions of Peter; for which reafon Peter in his general Epiftle calls him his Son: The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, faluteth you, and fo doth Marcus my Son. The third is the Gospel of Luke, commended by Paul, and compos'd for the benefit of the Gene tiles. The laft of all is the Gospel of John. The concluding Teftimony fhall be of Exfebius, abundantly confirming the former Allegations, and whofe Authority here is fo much the weightier, for that in recounting the Records of the more antient Writers in the Church, he hath us'd a more diligent Enquiry than ever was made before, what Apoftolical Tracts they had taken notice of, whether genuine or fuppofititious, which is manifeft to all that have read his Ecclefiaftical History. And thus he, Lib. 3. c. 24. Only Matthew and John of all the Difciples of our Lord have left us their Commentaries, being, as 'tis faid, neceffitated to write: For Matthew, &c. Then follows the Paffage concerning Matthew, cited before No I. He proceeds: Now, after Mark and Luke had published their Gospels, John, they fay, who had been all his Life-time a Preacher only, and not a Writer, was obliged to write for this reafon. Then he fubjoins what is alledg'd before from him upon John. From these Teftimonies it appears that univerfally the Chriftians, whofe Tenents were moft conformable to the Doctrine of the Gofpel, were always of a perfuafion that there were no more Gospels than these four now in ufe, from which the Writers, both Greek and and Latin, of the fecond and third Century, of famous perfons to other mens Works. quote a great many Paffages perfectly agree. The best Teftimony to be relied on is that of ing with our Copies, which put it beyond cotemporary Writers, or (for want of thefe) doubt that ours now are the very fame they of those who lived not long after. But we received from their Ancestors. There are, I need fay no more in a matter requiring fo confefs, now and then fome various Readings, little; or if it needed a more prolix Difquibut of very fmall regard, compared with fition, would it be fo pertinent to the Subthofe in which the antient and our modern ject of this Difcourse. Copies agree. For fatisfaction let the Index's of places of Scripture annex'd to the best Editions of the moft primitive Fathers be not only confulted, but their Reafonings alfo carefully confidered, and it will appear they generally argued from the Readings we now ufe, and find in the most antient MSS. And befides, let the old Verfions now extant in the Polyglot Bibles, be but compared with the Texts cited by the Antients, and no body will doubt but they had the fame Copies. I am fenfible fome will diflike my method of proving the Legitimacy of the Sacred Text; but thofe are wholly ignorant of the Art which prescribes us Rules in Examinations of this nature: They must therefore learn that, before they can deferve an Anfwer; for they confound matters of the moft different kind, thro their unskilfulnefs in that very Art which they profefs. 'Tis one thing, for example, to prove the Doctrine of the Gospels divinely inspired; but another to demon ftrate them to appertain unquestionably to thofe Authors whofe Names they bear. This laft is all I aim at in this Differtation, tho they are in themselves fo nearly allied. The Divinity of the Evangelical Doctrine is demonftrated from its own Excellence, and alfo from the Miracles by which God has confirm'd it. Now a Book is proved genuine from the concurring Teftimony of thofe through whofe hands it has paft fince the publication, and who have unanimoufly given it the Name it carries; for there is no other way to come at the knowledg of the Author. From the matter of the Book is perceived the Excellence of the Argument, and the Learning of the Author; but no body can divine his Name from thence, especially if that be the only Book of his remaining. Nor is it fufficient for the Editor to prefix the Name to refolve us of the undoubted Author: for to enhance the purchase, they frequently put the Names VI. A Learned Man put formerly this Queftion to H. Grotius, the ableft Commentator we ever had upon the Sacred Text, Why no mention was made of any Paflages of our Lord's Life before his thirtieth Year, fave that one fingle inftance reported by Luke to have happened in his twelfth? To which this excellent Critick, in the 33d of his Letters written to perfons in France, makes a compendious, but very acute Anfwer. Since therefore, in purfuance of my Defign, I am to account here for the fame thing, I fhall tranfcribe Grotius piece by piece, and illuftrate him as often as it fhall appear neceffary.. What every Author ought to relate, and what to omit, is deducible from the defign of his Work. The intention of the Apostles, and their Difciples, was not to write a compleat Hiftory of Chrift; but the matter of their Writings was the fame as that of their Preaching, viz. what the Title imports, no other than a Goffel.. For in miniftring the Word, and calling People to Repentance, two things were principally incumbent upon the Apoftles to account for, which they might cafily have an exact know ledg of; namely, who this Jefus was, from whom they pretended to derive their Miffion and what Duties he exacted from Men: not what he had done in his Minority, which was not poffible for them to know, unless from his Mother and Relations. Wherefore, to make evident who that Mafter was, whofe Difciples they profefs'd themfelves, their bu finefs was to tell, how they knew him, what Miracles he had wrought, and all those other particulars which we read in their Gofpels; in which they made ufe of no Difquifitions, but in a plain and faithful Narrative declared their knowledg of thofe matters. And this looks like the fingular Care and Wifdom of Divine Providence, that nothing of human Invention might be faid to be mix'd, with the Gofpel, which could not have been pre * vented vented, had the Apoftles in their Writings fet down not only what they themselves had feen, but their Conjectures alfo and Deductions from the Actions and Sayings of our Saviour. Now to fignify what Duties were required from us by Chrift, they related his Difcourfes in the manner they had heard them, as they occurred to their Memories, which were miraculously ftrengthened by the affiftance of the Holy Ghoft, and thus delivering the plain Doctrine of our Saviour, without any artificial Difguife, whether Logical or Rhetorical, they rendred themselves cafily intelligible to their Hearers. This was the main fcope of the Gospel, which hindred not but that on other accounts the Apofiles might draw confequences of their own from the Doctrines of our Saviour, in application to the particular neceffities of thofe they had to deal with; tho upon a due ballance we fhall find this was not fo much the Gospel it felf, as an accommodation of it to the particular exigencies of Converts, and those that were yet to be converted. Their Additions did not confift in Notions of their own, never learned from their Mafter, and propounded as neceffary to Salvation; but in confirmation of the Doctrine delivered to them by Christ, and that with a particular regard to the edification of the refpective Hearers, Jews or Gentiles. This is plain from Paul's Preaching and Writings, where he argues with the Jews for the most part from their own Law, and with the Gentiles from Heathen Practices and Maxims, being all things to all men, that many may be faved; but exacts from no body the belief of any thing as neceffary to Salvation, but what he had received from Chrift; that is,that they would believe the Gospel which Jefus himself published. And what is that Gofpel? It is, faith Grotius, a new Do&trine, requiring fincere Repentance, and promifing Remiffion of Sins and everlasting Life; proclaimed at firft by John Baptift to prepare the minds of men to entertain it, when it should be more perfectly revealed by Chrift, who enjoined it to be preached by his Minifters all the World over, Mat. 4. 23. chap. 9.35. chap. 24. Mark 1. 14. Eph. 6.15. Acts 10. 36. Luke 16. 16. Indeed the Mofaical Law had no Referves of Pardon for the contumelious Defpifers of it, or thofe that violated a Precept enjoined upon a capi tal Penalty, tho they repented afterwards; whereas the Gofpel, on the contrary, pro mifes God's Pardon to every Sinner, requiring no expiation, only a fincere Conver fion, and a new Life: which was obfcurely hinted by the Baptift, but after him exprelly taught by Chrift and his Apoftles, inculcating to their Difciples a Sanctity of Manners, as the one thing abfolutely neceffary to Salvation, without any obfervation of the Ceremonial Law, tho they did not condemn it. But fo great was the Converfion required of them, whether Jews or Gentiles, that the hearty Penitents might be truly faid to beconie regenerate, and new Men. The Jews were to learn, that all the Rites fo highly valued by them, an extreme regard to which had made them fhun all familiar affociating with other Nations, were of finall concern, that a Religion pleafing to God confifted in our awful Thoughts of him, and in expreffing the Sincerity of our outward Profeffions by a futable Holiness of Life. They were to think Divorce unlawful, tho tolerated by Mofes ; and were to put on a more refined Sanctity than heretofore, manifefting it felf in bro therly Love and Charity to all men, altho they did not obferve the Mofaic Rites. And certainly the Jews could never be brought to fuch a perfuafion and behaviour as this, without that entire change of Judgment and Will, as might juftly make them feem to be new men after fo great a Reformation. And if this may be fo juftly faid of the Jews, with greater reafon may it be applied to the Heathens, that entertained fuch abfurd Notions of the Deity, and were men of the most profligate Lives. Now to thefe, equally with the Jews, hath our Lord engaged Remiffion of Sins, impofing no external obfervance of Rites, only obliging to fuch a Reformation of Manners as may make them frame their future Lives to a conformity with his Gospel Precepts; and prefently, upon promife of Obedience to thofe his Precepts, Chrift enjoins this their Profeffi on in a more folemn manner to be renewed in Baptifm, an eafy Rite before in ufe amongst Jews and Gentiles. Now to all that made good this their Baptifmal Engagement by a con ftant perfeverance in the Laws of his Gofpel to their Lives-end, he made a general promife of Remiffion of Sins, and after this Mortality of Life Eternal, without any exclufion, of what Nation foever the penitent Convert was, and whatsoever his former Offences had been. But this Perfeverance is not that which we might be content to pay, when our Honour, or our Lives and Fortunes are at ftake; but difcovers it felf in our willingness to part with all these, rather than deny him, or renounce our Profeffion of being his Difciples. The Truth of which Doctrine revealed by Christ, continues he, and the certainty of his Promife, is confiderably evidenced from his Death, Refurrection, Afcenfion into Heaven, and Miffion of the Holy Spirit, all which are manifelt tokens that he is the Son of God. So that the Gospel confifts of two parts, the Do&rinal, and Hiftorical confirming the other. We are not to look on the Gofpel Precepts as Systems of Morality, tending only to make our Lives as happy as may be in this World; but as Divine Conftitutions, fecuring Heavenly Rewards from God to the due Obfervers. That we may have this juft Notion of the Gospel, and pay a ready Obedience to it, 'tis neceffary for us to be rightly informed, and believe the Divine Defcent of Jefus upon Earth: otherwise, tho his Rules be exactly confonant to right Reason, and excellently accommodated to the condition of our Nature, we should only embrace them as the Inftitutions of an excellent Politician, and follow them on no other obligation than as conducing to our good; but should never hazard our Lives, or fubmit to any grievous Calamity for their fakes. For having no hopes of a State after this, where Rewards are laid up for Virtue, 'twere our Intereft to improve the enjoyment of prefent Happiness, and to love Virtue no more than as it promotes our fecular ends. Since therefore Jejus hath commanded us, in compliance with his Laws, to lay down our Lives cheerfully upon occafion; that is, if men will oblige us upon that penal confequence to a violation of them; it became our Great Lawgiver, in compenfation for Life loft, and to commute for the Croffes to be undergone in keeping his Gospel, to promife us a Refurrection and happy Immortality. * Which Promife we could never have relied upon, unless he had carried himself as became a Teacher commiffioned by God, and confirmed his Doctrines by the Miracles that are relat ed in the Gofpels. So that an account of the Miracles of Chrift, his Refurrection, and Afcenfion into Heaven, is no inconfiderable portion of the Gofpel, as he thus confirms in the following words. Wherefore (St. Peter faith) of those men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jefus went in and out among us, beginning from the Baptifm of John unto the fame day that he was taken up, must one be ordained to be a Witness with us of his Resurrection, Acts 1. 22. And in another place he calls this Difpenfation, the Word which was publish'd throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the Baptifm which John preached, Acts 10. 37. Luke briefly gives us the Argument of my former Treatife, in an account of all that Jefus began to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up; that is, from the time he began to teach, and to work Miracles. Now that which he did in Cana of Galilee, John 2. 11. after· he had been baptized by John, being then about thirty years of age, Luke 3. 23. was the begin ning of his Miracles. Not to enlarge upon the Morality of the: Gofpel, which we have already mentioned, we likewife find in the Evangelical History, that many Miracles were wrought by Jefus, and for his fake, as alfo an account of his Re furrection, Afcenfion into Heaven, and the Miffion of the Holy Ghoft: and this, that we may apprehend in the first place that Jefus was fent from God, and then confide in him, in reference to his Doctrine, which inftructs us in the Eleffings that will be the confequence of a holy Life, and the Punishments attending Sin, and not only fo, but give Faith to his Affertions of himself both before and after his Refurrection. So for inftance, we must ́ believe that he is the Son of God in a wonderful manner; that he died not for any Crime of his, but to procure credit to his Doctrine by his Refurrection, and to his Believers and Servants Redemption from Sin and Punishment; that moreover all Power was given him. in Heaven and on Earth, from which time commenced his Reign over the whole World, tho |
