Adoption (for it was poffible that Mary allo might have deduced her Pedegree from the Houfe of David, as well as Jofeph) yet the Jews had no grounds of imagining him a falfe Prophet; for he never made ufe of that Argument to evince himself a true one. So that having himself never propos'd this, or any thing of like nature, to the Jews, as matter of their Belief, the Apoftles, whofe task it was to relate his Difcourfes and Mi racles, and not their own Deductions from them, touch'd upon other matters but by the by. But then, fince Jefus was of the Stock of David, and, what is more, the Son of God, as is declared by John in the beginning of his Gofpel; and had accomplished in a more excellent manner, all that was expected by the Jews from their Meffiah; they had abundant reafon to have received him with all imagi tho in a manner not discoverable by us, and which will continue till he come to judg Mankind at the Refurrection, agreeably to the Laws delivered by him to his Apoftles and Followers; the Obfervers of which thall be crowned with eternal Happiness, but those that have neglected them be caff into everlafting Fire. Now to work a belief of these things into the Apoftles, he did not difpute 'em into a Faith by fubtil Reafonings, or draw proofs from his own Expofitions of obfcure Texts in the old Teftament; but convinced them by Miracles, and the Miffion of the Holy Ghost upon them, pursuant to his promife. Which things being afterwards reported by them, confirmed alfo by additional Miracles of their own, and all the manifeft tokens of Truth, gained credit to the Doctrine of their Mafter from all the honeft part of the World; and do now, from thofe that read their Writ-nable fatisfaction, and to regulate their Lives ings with a fincere defire of being informed in the truth. This is the fum of the Apoftles Teftimony, from which as it is not lawful to detract, neither is it to add any thing, it being the fole Province of Chrift, and not of any Mortal, to establish Laws, on the obfervation of which our everlafting Felicity depends. Which I could with Chriftians had always remembred. But I forbear making any ungrateful Reflections on this Subject, and re turn to Grotius. The account, fays he, we have of his Divine Nativity given us by John, and of his Human by Matthew and Luke, and what Luke relates of his Specimen (as it were) in the Temple of his future Authority, are to be looked upon by way of Preface to the Gospel, for the clearer marking out and recommending the Perfon from whom it derives its Authority. And indeed how ignorant foever the Jews were of the infeparable Union of the Aós with Jefus, treated of by John afterwards, yet they had no grounds to reject him as a falfe Pretender to a Divine Commiffion, and afterwards to crucify him: For his admirable Doctrine, confirmed with mighty Miracles, gave ample manifeftation that he was no Im poftor. And the Jews were obliged upon this account to believe him fent from God: For had he not been of the Lineage of David, as he moft certainly was, at least by after his Gospel, that they might be made partakers of the Benefits of his Heavenly Kingdom. But the Jews, on the contrary, looking for a terrestrial Prince, from whomic was not poffible for them to receive so manifold and fignal Bleffings, were not only defeated of that hope, but (by rejecting Jesus) of all the advantages of his coming, which is the very thing for which they are upbraided by the Apoftles, and for which the Jews have not the leaft colour of excufe. Now fince Jefus did not affume his Ministerial Of fice before his Baptifm, nor wrought any Miracles in publick, 'tis no wonder that that Period of his Life led upon Earth was entirely omitted, as Grotius makes appear in the following words. Wherefore,fays he, fince Chrift had done nothing appertaining to that defign of theirs, before he was compleatly of that Age, all the time before is justly pass'd over in filence by the Sacred Writers. For he lived private till that age, in fubjection to his fuppofed Father and Mother, Luke 2. 51. For which reafon he was not only called the Carpenter's Son, Mat. 13. 55. but also the Carpenter, Mark 6. 3. And indeed, in the Books of the Old Teftament, we usually find no mention of the Prophets, till the time that the Word of the Lord came unto them; that is, till the day of their fhewing unto Ifrael: As Luke observes, chap. 1. 80. And this is the mean meaning of that Expreffion, A Prophet ftood up. We should therefore greatly injure the Apoftles, if we undervalued their Labours, becaufe they have not gratiaed our foolish Curiofity, in taking fo little notice of what paffed during the Infancy and Youth of Chrift: For they did not write his Life, but his Miniftry, containing only fuch matters of Faith and Practice as may lead us to everlafting Salvation. But what the Apostles had been filent in, and no body for the two first Centuries knew, fome idle and mifchievous Perfons pretended to have a light into, and fet out fome filly Books of the Infancy of Chrift, the beginning of one of which Cotelerius has published from the King's Manufcript, in his Apoftolical Conftitutions, lib. 6. c. 16. This, I take it, is a true, or at leaft very probable account of the Design of the Evangelifts, and I doubt not but this was their drift in writing the Miniftry of our Saviour, that being enjoined by their Mafter to go and make Difciples of all Nations, teaching them to obferve all things whatsoever he had commanded them, they could not conveniently execute thefe Orders without a Hiftory of his Words and Actions, and that for three reasons. First, The twelve Apoftles could not travel all the World over, and make that proper ftay in every City, as was fufficient for them by word of mouth to declare all things neceflary to bring them over to the Faith, and to confirm them in it. The Jews and Gentiles laboured under many foolish Prejudices and grofs Errors, and would be difficultly retrieved, fo far as to have afteddy Faith, and to retain a clear and diftinct impreffion of the Christian Doctrine Many and frequent Inculcations were neceflary for that purpofe. Another reafon was, that a matter of fuch infinite confequence, to be transmitted down to the very laft Ages, could not with fafety be committed to Tradition wholly, nor be by that means preferved uncorrupted for fo many Ages. Human Memory is naturally frail, and moreover apt to be carried away with the Affections; fo that we often think we remember what we are willing should have been told us. And we know a great Door is opened to Frauds, when matters are committed to the memory only, without being preferved in any written Re cords. How could we be able to detect the Moreover, Matthew, Mark,: and John wrote at the request of the Chri-, ftians; but John later than the reft, three Gofpels being already published from which the whole Doctrine of Chrift might be eafily deduced. Since therefore the Apoftles could not without written Records, make Disciples of all Nations, fo as to fettle a Foundation to continue uniform and lafting, I am apt to be lieve that among the other Commands of our Saviour, he left them in charge alfo to tranf mit to Pofterity a written Account of his Kkkk Doctrine. VII. VII, Whosoever marurely confiders thefe things, will eafily believe that the Gof pels, in a few years after their compofure, were read in the Chriftian Churches, as I have already fhewn from the Teftimony of antient Writers. For the Jews having Mofes and the Prophets read in their Synagogues, the new Chriftians imitating their example in a great many cafes, ordered the Old Testament not only to be read, but the Bocks of the Evangelifts, containing the Words and Actions of Jefus Chrift. For what could they hear in the Church any way comparable to them? I own that the particular Year in which each Gofpel was writ and publifh'd, cannot be certainly determined: For the most antjent Writers differ, as appears, by Citations from them; and the modern, that have fupplied the defects of Antiquity with Inventions of their own, defèrve no credit. However, I am apt to think that the three first were pubbith'd, and generally known a confiderable time before the conclufion of the first Cen tury, agreeably to the opinion of Eufebius, who in a place already quoted makes men tion that they had been seen and approved by John. Which agrees alfo with what I have obferved concerning John's omitting, for the moft part, what had been already related by the other Evangelifts, as may appear at first view to whoever reads my Harmony of the Gofpels. Otherwife it is not at all credible that John would have neglected fo many remarkable Actions of our Saviour as are recorded by the other three. And this likewife concurs with a Remark both, antient and modern, why he gives the number of the Paffovers, not minded by the other Evangelifts; that by them the Years of Chriff's Miniftry might be known, which otherwife had been difficultly diftinguifh'd, Befides, relying in this matter upon fome Teftimonies from the Antients already cited, we may affirm that Mat thew, Mark, and Lake wrote their Gofpels before the expiration of Nero's Reign, in which Peter and Paul fuffered Martyrdom, which Affertion may further be confirmed by an Argument of weight taken from Mat, chap. 24. Mar. chap. 13. Luke, chap. 21. where is fet down the Prophesy of the Deftruction of Je rufalem, as not yet accomplish'd when the Gospels were compos'd : For had those Examgelifts put down that Prophely after in hast come to país, they would in, fome short Nere have given at least a hint that it was fulfilled; which Matthew and Mark are so far from, that in this Admonition, He that readeth let bim understand, annest to the Prophefy, they rather exhort the Chriftians to give diligent heed to thofe future Prefages, to provide the better for their own fecurity. See Mak. 24, 15. and Mark 13. 14. with the Annotations upon them. But there is a Learned Gentleman, of great penetration and skill in Ecclefiaftical Antiquities, who does nor a little differ from Eufebius's Opinion and mine, that hath many chings upon the Gospels deferving a nice difquifition Tis. Mr. Henry, Rodmel,, whofe words, in his firft Differtation upon renaus, & fall faithfully transcribe, and take into examination. No man has a greater value for his Writings than my felf, and I have frequently made honourable mention of him in feveral of my Treati fes; tho in fome points I diffent from him And therefore if I profefs my felf of a cor trary opinion in the business before us, and endeavour a confutation of his, I hope na body will attribute my Proceeding to Envy or ill Nature. But as this Great Man, harh departed from the Sentiments of the Ancients, where he hath believ'd 'em in an error; fo, if our of a defice of the Truth, I feparate from him, and take the liberty to arraign his Conjectures, 'tis the lefs to be admir'd by himself or others. He hath before many things upon the tradition of the Elders, who were Difciples of the Apostles, to which I cannor pay an intire affent, but those not being per tinent to this Defign, I fhall only examine what he has concerning the Evangelifts, and cine his own words,, as I have Grotius's juft before. Before Trajan's Reign (he obferves in his Diff. I. S. 39.) there was no fet Canon of Scrip ture, nor any certain number of Books received. in the Catholick Church,;, to which afterwards they were obliged to have recourfe, as to a Rule by which they might determine matters of Faith: nor were the spurious Traits of the Hereticks under falle Titles, exploded, nor the Qribedus cautioned to avoid em. marrer. I confers no Synod, univerfal, or more particular, had then given Rules in this But whence is he inform'd that none of the Apoftles, no not John the Surviver of them all, nor any of their Follow. ers, had directed the Chriftians, what Books, that were then very frequent in their hands, they might fecurely confult for our Saviour's Story? Is it credible that the Christians were incired by no manner of curiofity in a point, as I have faid, of that exceeding weight and moment? or that the Apoftles were fo little concerned for the diftinguishing the true Gafpels from the falfe? Should I fufpect any thing of this nature concerning them, methinks I fhould entertain too mean an opinion of them; and certainly the Preface to St. Luke's Gofpel is a demonftration that thofe holy men were very hearty in it. We have very few remains of the Hiftory of the firft Century immediately enfuing the Acts of the Apostles; but, as few as they are, they fuffer us not to deny any thing to have been, which is not abfurd in the Notion, or includes no contradiction to any authentick Hiftory, because not obferved by Writers that lived then: For Irenaus, of that very age, not to inftance in Papias, and foon after him Clemens and Origen, both of Alexandria, and both excellent Writers, affirm the fame, as may be concluded from my Citations from them. And should any advance the contrary, it would leaft of all be expected from thole that pay that deference to Primitive Authority as Mr. Dadwel feems to do. But, fays he, Now the genuin Writings of the Apoftes were want to be bound up to promiscuously with Apocryphal Traits, that, for want of a mark of distinction, or a publick Decree of the Church, no body could tell which to prefer and rely on, I do not deny but the Tracts of Barnabas, Clemens, Hermas, and others were fometimes bound up with the Apoftles own Works; bur this appears not to have been done in the Apoftolical Age. I would attribute this to the negligence of the ad Century, of which we have frequent inftances given us by the Learned, rather than accufe the Apostles, and thofe who had convers'd with them, of that Supineness which I am afraid would be unpar donable in them. But whoever they were that have mixt fpurious and Apoftolical Pieces together, making no diftinction, they muft be of a very weak judgment, which I dare not fufpect of the Apofties own Difciples, who from their Writings and Dictates compiled the Gofpels. But the Learned Mr. Dod. wel proceeds. We have now extant fome Ecclefiaftical Writers of note, of thofe times; for example, Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, who all of them wrote in the order I have mentioned them, after all the New Testament was published, except the Epiftles of Jude, and of both the fJohns. In Hermas there is not a fingle Paffage of the New Testament to be met with; and in the others not one Evangelift is fo much as named. And if any Expreffions are cited that bear a refemblance with fome contwined in our Gospels, they are for the most part for changed and corrupted, that 'tis not difcernable. whence they had them, whether from the Gospels, or others Apocryphal Writings. I fhall not here make any digreffion coucerning the time when the forementioned Aμthors wrote, neither will I fay any thing concerning Jude, and the other John beides the Evangelift, altho I want not Arguments to oppofe the Conjectures of our Learned Author, this being foreign co my defign, which was only to give an account of the Evangelists. To come therefore to his Inftances. We cannot gather from Hermas his Silence in the matter, that the Gofpels were not then publish'd and openly received in the Churches, for two reafons. One is, because his Book treats of Vifions, and the Conferences of the Angels, which need no places of Scripture to confirm them. The other is, becaufe he is as filent in refpect of the Old Teftament alfo; but no body will infer from thence, that the Canon of the Old Testament was not yer eftablished. Clemens indeed cires no one of the Evangelifts by name, but twice fome Exquotes preffions of our Saviour, which he admonishes the Carinthians to be mindful of. Thus in his 13th Chapter: zur Kueix 'lur, Be ye mindful of the words of the Lord Jelus. And in the 46th Chapter, Maur 'Ino Kuets nur, Remember the Kkkk 2 Words Words of our Lord Jefus. Which words have a plain reference to his written Sayings, which had been often read by the Corinthians. And indeed the first Paffage is in Luke 6. 36,37. tho not altogether in the very words, yet in the very fame fenfe. The latter is in Matthew 26. 24. Mark 9. 42. Luke 17. 2. Mat. 18. 6. I confefs he chiefly regards the fenfe. But the Apostles alfo in many places thus quote the Old Teftament, and collect varicus Paffages into one Difcourfe, nor is it queftioned whether they allude to the Sacred Writings which we yet have, and whofe Authority was look'd on as Divine. If any make a doubt of it, he may for fatisfaction confult the Catalogue of places cited from the Old Teftament in the New, and compare them with the Hebrew Original, or the Greek Tranflation of the LXX. Barnabas produces no Authority of any Evangelift by Name; and no wonder, having poffibly feen none but Matthew: For who can determine at what time he wrote after the Destruction of Jerufalem? 'Tis certain he hath quoted this Gofpel twice; once in his 3d Chapter, after this manner: Take we heed, left, as it is written, we be found many called, but few chofen. Where the Phrafe, as it is written, is very remarkable, as being in common ufe among the Sacred and other few ifh Writers, when they cite any Paffages out of the Old Teftament: from which may be inferred in what efteem Barnabas held Matthew's Gofpel. And again in his 5th Chapter Chrift is faid, εκ ἐλθεῖν καλέσαι δικαίες, αλλά aμaSTORY's His μETávody, To come not to call the Fuft, but Sinners to repentance: Where he plainly alludes to Mat. 9.13. As for Ignatius, he frequently alludes to the Gofpels and Apoftolical Epiftles, and fometimes quotes their exprefs words, tho without mentioning their Names. But no one will doubt whether the Gofpels were then publickly read, who remembers what I have already faid concerning the Gofpel of St. John. Why then does he not name the Gospel? I don't know any more than why he has not produced more exprefs Teftimonies from the Old Teftament. Perhaps the places did not. occur: It may be he knew not how to make a dextrous afe of the Scripture. But what need is there of any Conjecture? As nothing can be infer'd from his Silence againft the Canon of the Old Teftament, fo neither against the publick reading of the New. One Author cites the Scripture frequently and openly, and another refers to it obliquely. The former way is obfervable in Ireneus, the latter in Juftin, both cotemporary Writers, in whofe time the Books of the Evangelifts were publickly read, without all controverfy. All men have not the fame method in writing, and no body is obliged to account for the variety of Difpofitions. of his Epiftie, borrows fome Expreffions Laft of all, Polycarp, in the little Fragment from Paul, and cites from Matthew and Luke (without naming them) these words: EY Kue donar, Which the Lord faid teaching. And 'tis not always customary to name the Evangelift, whenever we produce a Saying of our Saviour, tho taken out of the Gofpels. I have not taken notice that they have in any place exprefly quoted the Gospels, or any Apocryphal Writings relating to the Hiftory and Doctrine of Chrift, except only Citation from the Gospel of the Nazarenes; one place in Ignatius, which looks like a but is rather taken from Luke, as I have faid already. And tho there were Books falfely attributed to the Apostles in the very first Age, yet the vaft increase of fictitious Works is rather owing to the fecond Century, when Hereticks abounded more, and spurious Productions were fathered upon the Apostles and their Followers, long fince dead, upon fairer hopes of impofing upon the World. Eut Mr. Dodwel thus goes on: And fometimes they make use of Apocryphal Expreffions, which are no where to be met with in the Gospels that we have. hence it appears the Church had not as yet made And from any certain diftinction between the Apocryphal and Canonical Books of the New Teftament: And the rather, if we likewife confider, that they fix no Cenfure upon what is Apocryphal, nor give the Reader any Sign whereby to conclude that they pay not the fame deference to the Apocryphal, as to the genuine Gospels. Wherefore we may reafonably fufpect, that the Citations in them, agreeing with our Text, were collected with no determinate design of confirm |