-•^^•^•^^'
'.■^■1
^ ■'•'/.'-■fV-i
'(^tfAfiy.. ; ... i
■ ■• i >*■«-'■ ■* ■ ■■'ti.
.'V
.0>.'.'V.
'^'v
I .»
■^
B^fS?
tti>*.' -.
l<«<^.
sa^^K
n -3 y/-/
■*¥^'
/
^s
Theological S |
eminary , |
|
PRINCETON, |
N. J. |
|
Case, * Shelf, |
Division. £s^WSy«^', 1 Seci-cr^i^ O t! err* |
|
Boohy |
.., Ma,, |
V.A. |
'-^^ a/Z^ .^X.^^
3rZ^
^
I S T O R Y
O F T H E
Apoftles and Evaogelifts,
Writers of the
NEW TESTAMENT:
IN WHICH
The Evidences of the Genuinnefs of the four Gofpels, the Ads of the Apoflles, the Epiftles, and the Book of the Revelation, and the Times when they were writ, are reprefented in a Light fuited to all Ca- pacities.
WITH
REMARKS and OBSERVATIONS
UPON
Every Book of the New Teftament, ufeful for all, who defirs to undenland the christian religion.
IN THREE VOLUiVIES.
By NATHANIEULARDNER, D. D.
The Second Edition.
LONDON:
Printed for j. buckland, and w. fenner, in Pater-nofl-er-ro\v; J. WAUGM, in Lombard-ftreet ; p. davy, and r. law, in Ave-oiary-lane i and t. field, in Cheapfide. 1760.
A
*
HISTORY
O F T H E
Apoftles and Evangelifts,
Writers of the
NEW TESTAMENT.
V O L. I.
Containing general Obfervations upon the Canon of the New Teilament, and a Hiftory of the four Evangelifts, with the Evidences of the Genuinnefs of the four Gofpels, and the Ads of the Apoftles, the Times, when they were writ, and Remarks upon them.
By NATHANIEL LARDNER. D. D.
The^Secofid Edition.
LONDON:
Printed for j. buckland, and w. fenner, in Pater-nofter-row ; J. WAUGH, ill Lombard-ftreet ; p. davy, and b. law, in Avemary-lane i and t. field, in Cheapfide. 1760.
Vtt
>: d^m^ ^^ *^i.^*' r^"^ e¥)^ y^ M ^n^ "^^^ ^^'^ "^^ ^^ ^
CONTENTS.
CHAP I. Page.
GENE R AL Denominations of the Colleftion of 7 facred Books, received by Chriftians. j
CHAP. II. General Obfervations upon the Canon of the New"^
1-
Teftament. j
CHAP. III.
Of the Method, in which the Canon of the New Tef- tament has been formed.
CHAP. IV.
Of the Time of writing the Gofpels, efpecially, the firll^ Three. S ^^
CHAP. V. St. Matthew, Apoftle, and Evangelill. 86
CHAP. VI. Of the Time, when the Apoftles left Judea, to go and ) o preach the Gofpel in other countreys. J
CHAP. VII. St. Mark, Evangelift. 155
CHAP. VIII. St. Luke, Evangelift. 209
CHAP. IX.
St. Johnj ApofJe, and Evangelift. 315
CHAP. X.
The Queftion confidered, whether any one of the firlip three Evangelifts had ken. the Gofpels of the others, > 455 before he wrote. b
A PLAN
viu
A Thn of the ^imes and Places of writing the four Gofpels^ and the ASls of the Apof- ties.
Gospel s&c. Place. A. D,
f Judea,! St. Matthew's. *{ or r about 64.
(.near it. J
St. Mark's. Rome 64.
r. . . . 63.
St. Luke's, Greece. \ or
I . . . . 64.
St. John's. Ephefus. .... 68.
theApoftles. J [....64.
A SUP-
HISTORY
OF THE
Apofliles and Evangeliils,
Writers of the , ■ '
NEIY TESTAMENT. CHAP. -L
General De:-2o??iinatiom of the CoUeBlon of facred Books^ 7'ecei'ved by ChriJIians,
I. Scripture. II. Bible, III. Canon, IV. Old and New ^efl anient, V. Injlrimcnf* VJ. Bigefl, VII. Gofpel
I. ^3^^)eC"'2^^ of the general denomlna- Sa-itfure, § O § tiQV\^ of facred books is Scrip- M M ^2^^^> or Scriptures, liferally,
k-^)^Mj>^ and primarily fignifying wri- ting. But by way of eminence and diftinc- tion the books in highefl efteem are called Sc?-ipture, or the Scriptures, Vol. I. ' *B This
General Tjenominatiom Ch. I.
This word occurs often in the New Tef- tament, in the Gofpels, the Ads, and the Epiftles. "Whereby we perceive, that in the time of our Saviour and his Apoftles this word was in common ufe, denoting the books received by the Jewifli People, as the rule of their faith. To them have been fince added by Chriftians the writings of A- poftles and Evangelifts, compleating the col- ledion of books, received by them as facred and divine.
Some of the places, where the word Scripture is ufcd in the fingular number for the books of the Old TeO:am.ent, are thefe. 2 Tim. iii. ]6. All for ipt tire is given by in- fpiration of God, And Luke iv. 21. John ii. 22. Acts i, 16. viii. 32. 35. Rom. iv. 3. Gal. iii. 8. James ii. 18. 23. i Pet. ii. 6. 2 Pet. i. 20. Scriptures, in the plural num- ber, in thefe following, and many other places. Matth. xxi. 42. xxii. 29. xxvi. ^4. Luke xxiv. 27. 32. 45. John v. 39. Ads xvii. 2. 1 1, xviii. 24. 28. 2 Tim. iii. 15. 2 Pet. iii. 16.
St. Peter applies this word to the books of the New, as well as of the Old Teftament, to St. Paufs Epiflles, in particular. 2 Pet. iii. 16. . * as alfo i?i all bis epijiks . . which they
that
Cb. I. of f acred Books.
that are unlearned^ wrejl^ as they do alfo the
other fcriptures^ unto their own dcflrii^ion.
Plainly denoting, that * St. Paul's Epiftles
are Scriptures in the higheft fenfe of the
word.
II. Bible is another word, which has now Bible. been long in ufe annong Chriftians, denoting the whole colle(5!ion of writings received by , them, as of divine Authority.';
The word, primarily, denotes book. But now is given to the writings of Prophets and Apoftles by way of eminence. This col- ledion is the Book^ or Bible^ the book of books, as fuperior in excellence to air other books. The word feems to be ufed in this fenfe by ChryfoJIom in a pafTage already (a) cited. ** I therefore exhort all of you to " procure to yourfelves Bible Sy (2iQxU. If " you have nothing elfe, take care to have " the Nev/ Teftament, particularly, the " Ads of the Apoftks, and the Gofpels, ** for your conftant inftrudors." And Je- rome fays, *' That (b) the Scriptures being
B 2 « all
* Hac parte (quod bene notandum eft) Petrus canoni- zat, ut ita loquar, id eft, in canonem facrarum fcripturarum afcribit, atque canonicas facit epiftolas Pauli. Dicens e- nim, Jtcut i3' ceteras fcripturas, utique fignificat, fe etiam illas in fcripturarum numero habere. De facris autem fcrip- turis eum loqui, in confefTo eft. EJi. in he.
(a) Vol. X. p. 349. (b) The fame. p. 158.
General Denominations Ch. I.
** all writ by one Spirit, are called one book. We likwife faw formerly a paiTage o^-Au- gujlin^ where he informs us, " That (c) *' feme called all the canonical fcriptures " one book, on account of their wonderful ** harmonie, and unity of defign through- *' out." And I then faid : "It is likely, that this way of fpeaking gradually brought in the general ufe of the word BiMe, for the whole colledion of the fcriptures, or the books of the Old and New Teftament."
In (liort, the ancient Chriftians were con- tinually fpeakin": of tbe Divi?2e Oracles, and the Divine Eooks, and were much employed in reading them, as Chryfoflom directs in a pafiage, tranfcribed (d) below : where he recommends the reading the divine books daily, forenoon and afternoon. At length the whole colleflion was called the bock:, or the Bible.
Dr. Heumann has an Epijile, or fliort Dif- fertation (e) concerning the origin of this
name
(c) Vol. X. p. 256.
(d) 'AaA« cT'ri ^uvjce, Kdiplv ii-nyiJ^eiov YiyeiStcit Tirpoi Tiiv Taw '!g-!>'iVf/.cOiX-ci>v ^'Oyav J^idtXi^tv AvviKroy.Z'^u J^
\7ia<7iui i^.sTU Xe'.pa.'; KuCoifji^ to. '2-t^a ^iChla, Ti;u e^ do\ci.v KctfTT^aydLi K^pkXeiocv. In i. Ge;u horn. jr. 7". 4. /. 81. C. Bcned.
(ej De origins norninis Bibliorum. Heum. Poed/e, Tm, i. p, 412. . . 415.
Ch. I. offacred Bcoh,
name of our facred collection of books. And for forae while he was of opinion, that (f) it was fo called, as being the moil: excellent of all books : in like manner as the Jews had before called their colledion the Scrip- tures, by way of eminence. So Ads xviii. 24. and 28. But (g) afterwards he fufpec- ted, that the origin of this name was in thofe words o( Pauly 2 Tim. iv. 13. T^he cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus ^ when thou comefty bring ivith thee^ and the books, zou ra ISi^Xioc, For he believed, that thereby the ancient Chriflians underftood the facred code. But he afterwards acknowledgeth, that he had not found any inftance of that interpretation in ancient writers. It feems to me there- fore, that this conjeduie fliould be dropt, as deftitute of foundation : and that it fliould be better for us to adhere to the forementioned origin of this name, which appears to have in it a good deal of proba- bility.
B 3 III. Ca-
(f) Sufplcari deinde coepi, ideo Bihlta diftiim efle fa- crum codicem, quod tanquam liber omnium praeftantiffimus %a.r i^oyjiv diftus fit ra ^iCk'ik. Suppetias conjefturae huic ferre videbatur ilia appellatio, qua idem divinum opus vocari folet at y^a^a.U e. gr. Aft. xviii. 24. 28. Id. ib.p, 413.
6 General Denom'matiom Ch. I.
Canon. JJJ. Cdjion is Originally a Greek word,
flgnifying a rule or ftandard, by which o- ther things are to be examined and judged.
As the writings of the Prophets and Apof- tles and Evangehfts contain an authentic account of the revealed will of God, they are the rule of the belief and pradife of thofe who receive them.
Sometimes canon feems equivalent to a lift or catalogue, in which are inferted* thofe books, Vi^hich contain the rule of faith.
Du Pin fays, " This (h) word fignifies " not only a law or rule, but likewife a ta- ** ble, catalogue, lift. Some have fuppofed, " that the canonical books were fo called, " becaufe they are the rule of the faith. But " though It be true, that they are the rule of ** our faith ; yet the reafon of their being ** called canonical, is, becaufe they are placed " in the catalogue of facred books."
Perhaps, there is no need to difpute about this. For there is no great difference in
thofe
(h) Le mot fignifie non feulement une loi, une regie, mais aufii une table, un catalogue, une lifte. . . . Quelques- uns ont cru, que les livres canoniques etoient ainfi appellez, parcequ'ils font la regie de la foi. Mais quoique cela foit vrai, ce n'eft pas ce qui leur a fait donner le nom de cano- niques, qu'ils n'ont que parceque Ton a nomme canon- le ca- talogue dcs livres facrez. DiJJ'. Prelim. I. \. ch. i. §. ii.
Ch. r. of facred Booh,
thofe two fenfes. And there may be paffa- ges of ancient writers, where it would be difficult to determine, which of them is in- tended.
St. Faiil has twice ufed the word canon^ or rule. Gal. vi. i6. As many as walk aC' cording to this rule. Upon which verfe T^heo- doret\ comment is to this purpofe : " He (i) " calls the forementioned dodrine a rule, as " being ftrait, and having nothing wanting, " nor fuptrfluous." Again, fays St. PW, Philip, iii. i6. Whereunio we have already at- tai?iedy let us walk according to the Jame rule. Where he fpeaks of the doctrine of the gofpel in general, or of fome particular maxim of it : not of any books, containing the rule of faith. However, his ufe of the word may have been an occafion of affixing that denomination to the books of fcripture. For it is of great antiquity among Chrif- tians.
TrenacuSj fpeaking of the fcriptures, as the words of Godj calls (k) them the rule, or
B 4 canon
ip^«cr«u. Theod. in loc,
(k) Nos autem unum et folum verum Deum doflorem feqiientes, et regulani veritatis habentes ejus fermones, de
iifdem
8 General Denominations Ch. I.
canon of truth. Here cation is not a cata- logue, but the books, or the dodrine con- tained in the books of fcripture.
Clement oi Alexandria^ referring to a quo- tation of the Gofpel according to the Egyp^ tians^ fays with indignation : " But (I) they " who choofe to follow any thing, rather ** than the true Evangelical Canon, [or the ** canon of the Gofpel,] in fid jupon what fol- ** lows there as faid to Salome!" In another place he fays : *' The (m) ecclefiaftical ca- *' non is the confent and agreement of the " Law and the Prophets with the teftament '' delivered by the Lord."
Eiifebe^ as (ii) formerly quoted, fays of
Origen : " But in the firft book of his Com-
*' mentaries upon the Gofpel of Matthew,
" obferving (o) the ecclefiaftical canon, he
" declares, that he knew of four Gofpels
<« only,"
Ifliall
-airJem femper eadem dicimus omnes. Le». I. 4. c. 35. ah 69. /./). 277.
(I) See Vol. a. p. 529. or 527.
(m) l^xvMV S'i hiy.?H(n:fsiK9i J7 auvcoJ'ia x^ n <7vix(panx v'oix^ '7£ ^ '^fQ(piiTicv Til xctra Tijc TK KV^'m '7saf^(xia.v 'wafxx.J^iS'Q' f.'iVi) cf'iccd-m'.yi, CI. Strain. I. 6. p, 676. C.
(n) Ch. 38. <vol. Hi. p 2^^.
(0) . . , Tov i>i)t^.mtx?^iKov (i/VhuTlcov KdVova.' -^p. Eufeh, /, 6. f. Z^.p. 226. J?,
Ch. T. of/acred Booh,
I {hall add a few more pafTages from later writers, chiefly fuch as have been al- ready quoted in the foregoing volumes : to which paflages therefore the reader may eafi- ly have recourfe.
Athanafius (p) in his Feflal Epiftle fpeaks of three forts of books, the canonical^ the fame, which are now received by us, fuch as were allowed to he read, and then of fuch as are apocryphal : by which he means books forged by heretics.
In the Sympjis of Scripture, afcribed to him, but probably not writ till above a hun- dred years after his time, near the end of the fifth centurie, is frequent mention (q) of canonical and uncanonical books.
The Council oi Laodicea, about 363. or- dains, that (q) *' no books, not canonical, " fiiould be read in the church, but only *' the canonical books of the Old and New ** Teftament."
Rufijj, enumerating the fcriptures of the Old and New Teftament, makes (r) three
forts
(p) See vol. (viii. p. 228. 229. (q) See 'voL 'viii.p. 243. . . 245, (q) The fame. /. 291 . (r) See •vol, x. p. 1 87. 1 88.
lo General Denominations Ch. T.
forts of books, fuch (s) as are included in the canon ^ fuch as are not canonical^ but eccle- Jiajiicaly allowed to be read, but not to be alleged for proof of any dodrine, and laftly, apocryphal books, which were not to be pub- licly read.
'Jerome likewife often fpeaks of the canon of Scripture, as we faw in his chapter, where he fays : *' Ecclejiajliciis, (t) Judith, «' T^obit, and the Shepherd, are not in the ca- <' non :" and " that (u) the Church reads, or " allows to be read, Judith, Tobit, and the " Maccabees, but does not receive them a- mong the canonical fcriptures : and that they, and the books of JVifdom and Eccle- ^ fiajlicus, may be read for the edification of the people, but not as of authority, for proving any doctrines." And for the Old Teftament he recommends [x) the true Jew^ ifo canon, or Hebrew verity. I refer below
to
(s) Haec funt, quae patres intra canonem concluferunt, & ex quibus fidei noitrae affertiones conflare voluerunt. . . . Sciendum tamen eft, quod a!ii libri funt, qui non funt ca- nonici, fed eccleiiaftici a majoribus appelhti funt. . . Quae omnia legi quidem in ecclefiis voluerunt, non tamen pro- ferri ad auftoritatem ex his fxdei confirmandam. Ceteras vero fcripturas apocryphas nominarunt, quas in ecclefiis legi Koluerunt, Rujin. citat, ubi fupra p. 1S5. not. (gj.
(tj Vol. X. p. 41. (u) . . ./>. 43.. (x) , . . 52.
cc
(C
(( cc
Ch. I. of facred Books, II
(y) to another place relating to the books of the New Teftament.
The third Council of Carthage^ about 397. ordains, *' that (z) nothing bedde the cano- " nical fcriptures be read in the Church un- *' der the name of Divine Scriptures."
Augufiin^ in 395. and afterwards, often (a) fpeaks of canonical fcriptures^ and the (b) whole canon of fcripture^ that is, all the facred books of the Old and New Teftament. We " (c) read of fome, fays he, that they fear ch^ " ed the fcriptures daily , whether thofe things ^^ were fo, Adls xvii. 11. What fcriptures, *' I pray, except the canonical fcriptures of " the Law and the Prophets ? To them have " been fince added the Gofpels, the Epiftks "of Apoftles, the A<fls of the Apoftles, and " the Revelation of "Johny Of the fuperior authority of the canonical fcriptures to all others, he fpeaks frequently in pafTages af- terwards alleged {d) in the fame chapter. Chryfojlom in a place already cited (e) fays :
'* They
(y) Vol. X. p.S6. fzj . . . p. 193.
(a) 'The fame p. 20"] > ■
(b) Totus autem canon fcripturarum . . his libris conti- netur. lb. not. (r) p. 2o8.
(cj , . . p. 252. ((/J Seep. 253. 256. 259. . . 263.
(e)Vgl.xii.p. J 26.
12 General Denominations Ch. I.
" They (f) fall into great abfurdities, who '« will not follow the rule (or canon) of the ** divine fcripture, but truft entirely to their *' own reafoning." I refer to another place (g) to the like purpofe.
Says Jfdore of Pelufium, about 412. " that " (i) thefe things are fo, we fhail perceive, " if we attend to the rule [canon] of truth, ** the divine fcriptures/'
And LeontiuSy oiCovjlanUnople, about 610. havinjy cited the whole catalogue of the books of fcripture from Genefis to the Re- velation (k) concludes : " Thefe (I) are the '* ancient and the new books, which are re- ** ceived in the Church as canonical."
By all which v/e difcern, how much the ufe of thefe words, canon and canonical, has obtained among Chriftians, denoting thofe books, which are of the highefi: authority, and the rule of faith : as oppofed to all other
what-
(f) "Ofa^, ei{ oam aTOTTieiv \yj7ri'7f\\i(rtv ol /xri ^vXoiJ.ivot rS in? '^(nctf ypa(p'iii xaToacoK^id-eiv Kavm >s. A. /« Gef:. cap. 33. iom. 58. T. 4.^. 566.5.
CgJ Vid. horn. 33. /« ■^^' Ap. fuhjin.
(i) "Otj Si taZta 'ira; £%«, tov Kctvova. rtii aha^eicLcf T«f -S-tHaf (?«//« y^xtpa;, v.Axx'/liudcoi/.iv. Ifui. ep. 114./. 4,
(k)SeeVol.xi.p. 381.
(I) Tat-vra hi to. Kavovt^oyAVct ^iCh\a h 7} iMhYHfif, i^ mahoilot 39 vix. Citat. ibid. p. 380, not. (ej.
Ch. I. of facrd Booh. 13
whatever, particularly, to ecclefiaftical, or the writings of orthodox and learned catho- lics, and to apocryphal^ the productions, chiefly, of heretics, which by a fpeciousname and title made a pretenfion to be accounted among facred books.
IV. The moft common and general divi- on and fion of the canonical books is that of anciejit iaZJ. and new ^ or the Old and New ^ejiament. The Hebrew word, berith^ from which it is tran- flated, properly fignifies (m) covenant. St.
Faiil 2 Cor. iii. 6 18. fhewing the fupe-
rior excellence of the gofpel -coven ant, or the difpenfation by Chriji^ above the legal cove- r.ant, or the difpenfation by Mofes, ufeth the word tejlamenty not only for the covenant it- felf, but likewife for the books, in which it is contained. At iefi: he does fo, in fpeaking of the legal covenant. For, reprefenting the cafe of the unbelieving part of the Jewifti People, he fays v. 1 4. Until this day remaineth the fame 'vail imtaken away in reading the OldTeJlatnenf,
It is no v/onder therefore, that this way of fpeaking has much prevailed among Chrifti-
ans.
(m) Notandum, quod Brith, verbum Hebraicum, Aquila cvv^nmv, id eft, paaum, interpretatur : lxx femper S'toc^ium, id eft, tejiamentum : et in plerifque fcripturarum locis tefta- mentum non voluntatem defundorum fonare, fed padum vi- venlium. Uieron. in Malach. ca^. ii. 2". 3 . /.. 1 8 1 6.
14 Ge?jeral Denominations Ch. I,
ans. Melito, Bifliop of Sardis about the year J 77. went into the Eaft, to get an exadt ac- count of the books of the Law and the Pro- phets. In his letter to his friend Onefimus^ giving an account of his journey, and reckon- ing up the books in their order, he calls them (n) the ancient books ^ and (0) the books of the Old Tejiament. Eiifebe calls it (p) *' a cata- *' logueof the acknowledged fcriptures of the '' Old Teaament." Our Ecclefiaftical Hif- torian elfewhere (q) fpeaks of the fcriptures of the New Tef^ameut. I (hall remind my readers of but one inftance more. Cyril of yerufalemy introducing his catalogue of fcrip- tures received by the Chriftian Church, fays : There (r) things we are taught by the di- vinely infpired fcriptures of the Old and '^ New Tedament." Many other like ex- amples occur in the preceding volumes of this work. hflrumem. V. jnftead oftepament Latin writers fome- times ufe the word injirument^ denoting wri- ting,
(n) "£Ti cTI ;^ //flt-9-Sw Tj;u T&jf' 'jxXailov ^iC\icjy s^bAhOks <?>cp)b««tv. y.' A. ^p. Eufeb. I. 4. c. 27. p. 148. D. . (0) . . Koii anfiCui ij.x^uv T« THJ xaAct/as S'ix^ny.y)<; ^iChiA* lb. p. 149. ^.
(p) Ibzd. f. 1 48. D. (q) See Vol. 'viii. p. 1 97,
■ (rj The favte, p. 267.
Ch. I. of f acred Booh. 15
ting, charter, record. We find it feveral times in T'erttiUiajiy reckoned the moft ancient La- tin writer of the Church now remaining. In a pafTage already (s) cited he calls the Gof- pels, or the New Teftament in general, the " Evangelic Inftrument. And fays : " How (t) large chafms Marcion has made in the epiftle to the Ro?nmis, by leaving out what he pleafes, may appear from our entire Inftrument :" or our unaltered copies of the New Teilament, particularly of that epiflle. Speaking of the Shepherd of Hermas, he fays, it (u) was not reckoned a part of the Divine Inftrument : ^ thereby meaning, as it feems, the New Tef- tament. Which pafTage was quoted by us (x) formerly. Recalls (y) iht Law and the Prophets the Jev/ifli Inflruments : that is, writings, or fcriptures. He fpeaks
of
(s) See Vol. U. p. 577.
(t) Quantas autem foveas in ifta vel maxime epiiTola [ad Romanes] Marcion fecerit, auferendo quae voluit, de noftri Inftrumenti integritate patebit. Adv. Marcion. I. 5. cap, 13. p. 601.
(u) Sed cederem tibi, fi fcriptura Partoris — divino inftru- raento meruiffet incidi. . . De Pudicit. cap. 10. p. 727. A.
(x) See Vol. a. p. 638.
(y) Aut nunquid non jufti Judaei, & quibus poenitentia non opus elFet, habentes gubernacula difciplinae, & timoris inflrumenta, Legem & Prophetas. De Pudicitia. cap 7. p. 722. B.
1 6 General Denominations Ch. I.
of the antiquity (z) of the Jevvidi Inftru- ments, or Scriptures. He (a) feems in one place to ufe the word tnftriunent, as equiva- lent to fcriptures, containing the doctrine of revelation, or the revealed will of God. ■^'^^- ' VI. Digeft is another word ufed by Ter- tullian in fpeakingof the fcriptures. ** Luke's (b) Digeft, he fays, is often afcribed to Taiiiy He calls (c) the Gofpels, or the whole New Teftament, our Digefi^ in allu- fion, as it feems, to fome colledion of the Roman Laws digefted into order. Thofe two pafTages were cited in the chapter of TertuUian. I now tranfcribe the later be- low (d) more at large^ it having alfo the
word
{^) Primam inftrumentis iftis audloritatem fumma antiqui- tas vindicat. Jpol.cap. \().p. ig. B,
Sed quoniamedidimus, antiquilTimisJiidacorum in&umen- tis feclam iftam efle fuftu'tam. j4po/. cap. 21 . itii p, 20.
(a) Sed quo plenius et impreffius tarn ipfum, quam dilpo- fitiones ejus et voluntatL;s adiremus, inilruinentum adjecit H- teraturae, fi quis velit de Deo inqulrere. Jpol. cap, 1 8. p, 18. C.
(h) See Vol. a. p. ^Si. cr ^yc).
(c) The fame. p. 629. or 630.
(a) Si vero ApoHoli quidam integrum evangelium contu. lerunt, de fola convidus inaequalitate reprehenfi, Pfeudapof- tolj autem veritatem eorum interpolarunt, et inde funt noilra dipefta : quod erit ger:nanum illud Apoftolorum inftrumen- tum, quod adulteros pafTum eft ? Aihsr, Marc, I, 4. (ap, 3. p. 504. B. ^
ell. r. of fdcred Booh. 17
word infti-ument, as equivalent to the Ne\\^ Teftament. He like wife calls the JewiHi Scriptures (e) Sacred Digefts. lie fcems to ufe the word digeft (f) elfew'nere, as equi- valent to writing, or work, in general.
I Hiall not take notice of any other general denominations of the facrsd fcriptures.
Vlf. My chief concern is with the New Gofpel, Tellament, wiiicii, as is well known, confifts of Gofpels, the A6s, and Epiftles. The on- ly word, that needs explanation is the firfl.
Gofpel is a tranilation of the Greek word IvayytXioVi the Latin v/ord, e'vangelium^ which fignifies any good melTage or tidings. In the New Teflament the word denotes the doctrine of falvation, taught by Jefus Chriil-, and his Apodles. Which indeed is gofpel by way of eminence, as it is the bed tidings that ever were pubiiOied in this world. Says T^keodoret upon Rom. i. i. ''He (g)
"calls
(e) Sed homines glorias, ut dijiimus, et eloquentiae follas libidinofi, fi quid in fandis offenderunt digeftis, exinde regef- tum pro inftituto curiofitatis ad propria verterunt. JpoL cap. 47./^. 41.5.
(/) Elegi ad compendium Varronis opera, qui rerum divi- narum ex omnibus retro digeftis commcntatus, idcneum fe nobis fcopum expofuit. Al Nation: L 2. ca*). i. p. 64. C.
(g) 'Evxyyi\iov J'i To yJjpvyuoi "Trcoffi^yopivimi, af tto'KI.Zv nyA^U'V CiiTic^riyvw '}iefny\a.v> "E\i(xyyih\l%T0(4 5 «p TUi ts
Vol. I, * C '^««
$ General Deno?ninatk't7s Ch. I.
" calls it gojpeli as it contains aiTaraRce of *' many good things. For it proclalais peace' " with God, the overthrow of Satan, the " remiffion of fins, the aboliiliing of death, " the refurrev!tion of the dead, eternal life, *' and the kingdom of heaven."
Says St. Matthew h. 23. A}id '^efus 'went about ail Galilee ^ teaching in their fynagogiies, and preaching the go/pel of the kingdom. Koc\ x,'/igvs-(Tcjv TO iuccyylXiOv T',:g (2oi(riXetocg' Mark xiii. 10. jS?2d the gofpel [to IvayyiXiov] miijl jirji be preached to all nations. Ch. xvi. 15. Go ye into all the ivorld, and preach the gof- pel to every creature. Kri^v^are ro &'jocyy&Xiov. It is called the word of truth, the gofpel of cur fdlvation. Eph. i. 13. And in like man- ner, in other places.
But by gofpel, v/hen ufed by us concerning the writings of the Evangelifts, we mean the hifiorie of Chrili's preaching, and miracles. The word feems alfo to be fo ufed by St. Mark i. i. Toe begining of the gofpel of Je- fus Chriji, Which may be underfiood, and
para-
.Ji« KStlaXhxy&i, THV Tb S'lixCiXiS v.aldXvffi^, 7«v «/!/rtpT«//rt-
saffiv, rnv ^(:>iiv Tiiv atuviov, t«c ^9i7iK^-»v 7M «fctv«v. /« ej>. cdRom.T.i.p, lO.B.
Cb. f. of facred Books. 19
paraphrafed thus : " Here (a) begins the ** Hiftorie of the life and dodrinc of Jefus '' Chrifl:, the Son of God, aiid Saviour of *' mankind."
St. Luke^ referring to the book of his Gof- pel, fays : Ads i. i. 2. 'The former treatife have I made, 0 TtecpbUuSy of all that Jefus began to do and teach, until the day in the which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghcfl had given commandments unto, the Apojlles, ivhcm he had cbofen. But St. Luke, as it feems, there puts the prindoal part for the whole. For he has therein writ alfo the hiRorie of our Lord'3 miraculous birth, and divers extraordinarie events at* tending it : and likewife the hidorie of the birth oifohn the Baptiilj and divers circum- francesof it, and his preaching and death.
In this fenfe the word Gofpel is frequent- ly underflood by us. A Gofpel is the hifto-
C 2 rie
(a) That is Dr. darkis Paraphrafe, But I am fenfible, it will not be allowed by all. Oecumenius fays, that by gofpel Mark dots not intend his own writing, but Chrift's preach- ing. l:lx^y.<^, ^?'/J, ?wcr], tb ivayyiXmha-Z yj^^^* ^^^ « ii\v lat/T« <7vyy^!x.(phv xahe. kueayyiAtov, ahfj to tk pcp/rs y.()fvyixa. Oecum. in Jtl. Ap. rIe proceeds to fay, that the faithful afterwards called the writings of the Evan'^-elifts Go/pels, as truly containing the gofpel, that is, th^ dodrine of Chrift. Seg Vol. xi. /• 413,
20 Generd Denominat'iDJiSi &c. Ch. I.
rse of Jefus Chrift, bis do6lrine, miracles, re- furredtion, and afcenfion : not excluding the hiilorie of his fore-runner, who (b) alfo is faid to have preached the gojpcl, th.at is, the dodlrine of the gofpel, or the kingdom of God.
The Gofpel according to Matthew ^ Mark^ Luke, Johny is the hiftorie of Jefus Chrift, as writ by thofe feveral Evangehds.
(b) Matt. iii. I. 2. In thofe days came John the Baptijly freachmg in the 'wildemejje of Judea, and faying : Repent , for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Compare Mark i. 4. Luke iii. i. 2. And fays St. Luke iJi. 18. And many other things ifi his exhortation preached he unto the people. YloK'Aa (J.iv %v )tj iJioci 'TtocPAKochccv, 'ivi]yyzh!i(i'vo TQV kotov- Which may be litterally rendred thus : Jnd exhorting tnany other lih things, he evangelized [or preached the gofpel /o] the people.
CHAP.
21
"iCt^ (net (Dc^ (nct\ (net, ** ,«c^ (TiCt fnct^ jDct pc
'-ditf' rabuj-' niikP rai)f> lii "lip <-Jjm> cstilar' •pVdJ' «-c8dff> '
CHAP. II.
General Ohferniatlom upon the Canon of the. New Teflament.
I. rM}^M"5«^ H E canonical books of the
Q rp S New Teftament, received by
'^ "^ Chriftians in this part of the
hj^^^jd world, are the Four Gofpels,
the Ads of the Apoftles, Fourteen Epiftles
of St. Pauly Seven Catholic Epiftles, and the
Revelation.
II. There may be different canons of the New Teftament among Chriftians.
Indeed, there have been in former tlm«8, and ftill are, different fentiments among Chriftians, concerning the number of books to be received as canonical. The (a) canon of the Syrian churches is not the fame as ours. Jerome tells us, that (b) in his time fome of the Latins rejeded the epiftle to the
C 3 He-
(a) See Vol. ix. p. 221 . Vol. xi. p. 270, , . 275.
(b) Vol. x,p. \zz. 123.
22 General Ohfcrvatiom Ch. II.
Hebrews, and fome of the Greeks the book of the Revelation. FromCbryfo/iom's works we perceive, that (c) he did not receive the fecond epiflle of St. Peter, ncr the fecond and third of St. John, nor the epiule of St. yude, nor the Revelation. And there is reafon to think, that (d) T^heodoref?, canon, likewife was much the fame with Chryfojlom's, and that of the churches in Syria. Neverthe- lefs, we have obferved in the courfe of this work, that about the fame time the Egyp- tiajis, and the ChrlAians in divers other Darts of the world, had the fame number of ca- nonical books, that wc have.
But to come nearer our own time. Cal- vm (e) Grotius (f) Le Clerc (g) Philip Limborch (h) and fome other learned mo- derns, have not admitted the epillle to the
He-
(c) The fame. p. 341. (d) Vol. xl. p. 88. 89. 91.
(e) Ego lit Paulum' agnofcam audorem, adduci nequeo. Cal-vin. argum, in ep. ad Hebr,
(f) Facillima refutatu eft poftrema haec opinio, ideo quod Paulinae epii^olae inter fe fint germanae, pari charadtcre ac dicendi modo : haec vero manifelle ab ils difcrepet, felec- tiores habens voces Graecas, leniufque fluens, non autein fraiTta brevibus incifis, ac falebrofa. .... Grot. Prooem.in ep» ad Hear.
(g) Hiji. Ec. Ann. 69. />. 455. . . 461. (h) Prclegom, in ep. ad Heir.
Ch. II. tipon the Canon cf the N. T. 23
Hebreivs to have been writ by St. Paul: though (i) they were willing to allow it to he the work of an apoftolical man, and a valuable part of facred fcripture. But I cannot fay, that they were in the right in fo doing. For it appears to me to have been a maxim of the ancient Chriftians, not to re- ceive any dodrinal or preceptive writing, as of authority, unlefs it were known to be the work of an Apodle. Confequently, the epif- tle to the Hebrews y if writ by an apoftolical man only, fliould not be efteemed canonical. Grotius (k) likewife fuppofed the fecond
C 4 epiille
(t) Hifce argumentis utrinque attente expenfis dicendum videtur, Paulum epiftolae hujus fcriptorem non videri .... . . Quis vero illius fcriptor fit, inceri:um eft. Alii earn Lu- cae, alii Barnabae, alii Clementi adfcribunt. . . Interim di- vinam hujus epiftolae autoritatem agnofcimus, multifque a- liis, quas ab Apoftolis efTe fcriptas, conftat, ob argument! quod tradlat praeftantiam praeferendam judigamus. Liinb. ibid. Fid. et Calvin, uhi fiipra.
(k) Jam olim veterum muki credidere, non cffe apolloli Petri, argumcnto turn difiionis ab epiflola priore raultum diverfae, quod agnofcunt Eufcblus & Hieronj'mus, turn quod multae dim ecclefiae hanc non receperint. . Scriptorem autcm hujus epillolae arbitror efle Simeonem five Simonem, epifco- pum poft Jacobi mortem Piierofolymis, ejufdemque Jacob!,
cujus epifiolam habemus, fuccefTorem & imitatorem
Unde etiam conilat, vixi/fe hunc port cxcidium Hierofolymi- tanum ad Trajani tempore, & tunc pro nomine Chrifti cru- cifix um. Aimot. in E^, Petri fecund.
24 General Ohf creations Cli. II.
epiille afcribed to Feter^ nc^ to have been writ by the Aportle Simon Feter, but by Simeon y chofen BilliOp- cf Jcrufalem after the death o^ James the JuO, whole epiftie we have. Vvhich Simeon hved to the time of l^rajan^ when he v/as crucified for the name of ChriH:. Upon which I only obferve at prefent, that if this Simeon be the writer of this epifile, it fliould liot be a part of ca- nonical fcripture.
The fame learned man fuppofeth (I) the fecond and third epidles, called St. Johns, not to have been writ by John the Apoftle, but by another John^ an El.-er or Preibyter, who lived about the fame time, and after him, at Ephtfus.
And the epifile called St. JudeSy he thought fmj to have been written by one of
tiiat
(!) Hanc epiflolam, & earn quae feqiil'tur, non ciTe Jo- hannis Apolloli, veterum multi jam olim c'rediderunt, a qui- bus. non diiTentiunt Eufebius & Hieronymus. Et magna * Jimt in id argumenta. Nam duos fuifTe Johannes Ephefi, -Apoftolum, ac Prefbyterum, ejus diicipuliim, femper con- llitit ex fepulchris, alio hujus, alioillius : quae fepulchravidit Hieronymus. Grof. Annot. in ep. Joan, fecund.
(m) Quare omnino adducor, ut credam efie hanc epifto- 1am Judae Epifcopi Hieiofolymitanij qui fuit Adrian! tem- poribus, pauUo ante Barchochebam. Id. in Annot. ad cp. jfudae.
^
Ch, II. vpon the Camn of the N. T. 25
thatname, who was BKhopoi J emfohn in the time cf the Emperour ^^a/^?;, and not till af- ter there had been feveral other Bi&ops of that diurch, fince the death of the forementioncd Simeo?2. If fo, I believe, all men may be of opinion, that this epiftle ought not to be placed in the canon of the New Teftament. It may not be thought right, if I Ihould here entirely omit Mr. Wbiflon; vvhofe canon confifted of the (n) ApoftolicalConftitutions, and divers other books, as facred, belide thofe generally received : and (0) the Confti-
tutions
(n) " The facred books of the New Teftament fiill ex- tant, both thofe in the 85. canon, and thcfe written after- wards, are the fame, which we now receive : together with the eight books of Aj)oftolical Confutations, and their epi- tome, the Dodrine of the Apoftles : the two epiltles of Cle- fnent, the epiiUe o^ Bar?iabasy the Shepherd of Hei/xas : and perhaps the fecond book of apocryphal E/Jras, with the epiftles of Igfc.tius and Polycarp.''^ EJJhy on the Apojlolical Con^ ftitutious. ch. I. p. 70. 71.
(0) " If any one has a mind to fort the feveral books of the New Teftament, he may in the firft place fet the Apolloiical Conftitutions, with it's extraft, or t)oclrine of the ApoAles, as derived from the body, or College of the Apofdcs, met in Councils. In the next place he may put the four Gofpcls, with their appendix, the Adts of the Apoftles. The Apo- calypfe of John alfo cannot be reckoned at all inferior to them, though it be quite of another nature from them. In the third rank may ftand the EpiRIes of the Apoftles, PW, Pe- ter and John, In the fourth rank may ftand the Epiilles of the
bretlu-en
26 General Obfcr'vations Ch. II.
tutlons, in particular, as the mofl facred of all the canonical books of the New Tcfta- ment.
Concerning which I beg leave to cbferve, Jirft, that the receiving theConftitutionsas a facred book, and part of the rule of faith, would make a great alteration in the Chriftian fcheme. Some might be induced to think it no great bleffing to mankind, and fcarcely defevving an apologle. Secondly^ Mr. Whif^ ton^ canon is not the canon of the Chriftian churches in former times : as is manifeft from the large colieclions, made by us in the preceding volum-es, from eccleiiaftical wri- ters of every age, to the begining of the tweU^'th centurie. ^hirdh\ Mr, V/hifton^ not- withfl:anding all his labours, made few con- verts to this opinion. Which I impute to the knowledge and learning of our times. And as the Chridian P^eligion is built upon fads, the ftudie of Ecclefiaftical Antiquity
will
brethren of our Lord, James and Jude. In the fifth and laft rank may {land the epilHes and writings of the companions and attendants of the Apo?lles, Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, hnatius, Polycarp. All which, with the addition perhaps of apocryphal hfdra:, and of the Apocalyife of Peter, and the Ails of Paul, were they now exftant, I look upon, though in dlfl^rent degrees, as the facred books of tlie Ne\^ Teilament." Ibict.p, 72. 73-
Ch. II. upon the CanOji of the N, T. 27
will be always needful, and may be of ufe, to defeat various attempts of ingenious, but miOaken and prejudiced men.
Iff. A fliort canon of Scripture is mofl ejiQ;ible.
Religion i^ the concern cf all men. A few fiiort hiftories and epiftles are better fit- ted for general ufe, than numerous and pro- lix writings. Befides, if any writings are to be received as the rule of faith and manners, it is of the utmoft importance, that they be juftly entitled to that di(lind;ion. Odierwife men may be led into errours cf very bad con- fequencs. If any books pretend to deliver the dodrine of infallible, and divinely infpir- ed teachers, fuch as Jefus Chrift and his A- poflles are efteemed by Chridians : great care fliould be taken to be well fatisfied, that their accounts are authentic, and that they are the genuine writings of the men, y.^hofe names they bear. The pretenfions of writings, placed in high authority, to which great credit is given, ought to be well at- tefted.
Dr. yorthij fpeaking of the work, called Apodolical Conftitutions, fays : " The (pj
au-
(pj Dr. 'jortms Rmvh on Ecclejiajlkal Uijloty. FoL i. p. 229.
28 General Qbfervaiions Ch. II.
*« authors of them are, it is pretended, the *' twelve Apoilles and St. Paul gathered to- *' gether, with Clement their amanuenfis.
" If their authority (hould appear only ** ambiguous, it would be our duty to reje(5t *' them, left we fliouki adopt as divine doc- ** rines the commandments' of men. For " iince each Gofpcl contains the main " parts of ChriPiianity, and might be fuffi- *' cientto make men wife to falvation ; there «' is lefs danger in diminifliing, than in en- " kreinp" the number of canonical books : " and lefs evil would have enfued from the ** lofs of one of the four Gofpels, than from ** the addition of a fifth and fpurious one.'* In my opinion, that is a very iine and va- luable obfenation.
And I fliall tranfcribe again an obfervation of Augiijiin, formerly (q) taken notice of. *' Our canonical books of fcripture, which ** are of the higheft Authority with us, have " been fettled with great care. They ought <* to be few, leaft their value fliould be di- " miniOied. And yet they are fo many, that *« their agreement throughout is wonder-
" ful."
IV. I
(q) SceVcl. x.p, 289.
Ch. 11. upon the Canon of the N. T. 29
IV". I have been fometimes apt to think, that the bcfl: canon of the New Teftamcnt would be that, which may be colledcd from (r) Eufebe of Caefurea, and feems to have been the canon of ibme in his time.
The canon fliould conlift of two clafTes. In the firft fliould be thofe books, which he affures us v^ere then tiniverfally acknowledged^ and had been ail along received by all ca- tholic Chriftians. Thefe are the four Gof- pels, the Ads of the Apoftles, thirteen epiftles of St. FauU one epiftle of St. Teter^ and one epiftle of St. 'John, Thefe only Ihould be of the higheft authority, from which doc- trines of religion may be proved.
In the other clafTe fhonld be placed thofe books, of which 'Eufebe fpeaks, as contra- dicted in his time, though well known : con- cerning which there were doubts, whether they were writ by the perfons, whofe names they bear, or whether the writers were Apof- tles of Chrift. Thefe are the epiPde to the Hebrews^ the epiftle of James^ the fecond of Peter^ the fecond and third of yohn^ the epiftle of Jude, and the Revelation. Thefe fhould be reckoned doubtful, and contra- didled : though many might be of opinion,
that
(r) Vol. 'viii.p. 90. . . 105.
20 General Obfervat 10725 Ch. II.
that there is a good deal of reafon to believe them p;enuine. And thev Ihculd be allow- ed to be publicly read in ChrKlian affemblies, for the edification of the people : but not be alleged, as aB'ording, alone, fufficient proof of any dodrine.
That I may not be mifijnderdood, I mud add, that there fhould be no third claffe of facred books : forafmuch as there appears not any reafon from Chridian antiquity to allow of that character and denomination to any Chriftian writings, bende thofe above-men- tioned.
In this canon the preceding rule is regard- ed. It is a (hort canon. And it feems to have been thought of by feme (a) about the
time of the Reformation.
V. Ne-
(a) Vv'e learn from Paul Sarpi\}riVloxit of the Council of Trent, that one of the doftrinal articles concerning facred fcripture, extraiSied, or pretended to be extrai'ted out of Za- thei-^ works, was this : " that no books Cioald be reckoned ** a part of the Old Teilanient, befide thofe received by the " jews : and that out of the New Teltament fhould be " excluded the epiftle to the Hcbre'ws, the epiftle of "James, *' the iecond of Peter, the fecond and third of John, the «' epiftle of Jude, and the Revelation." And there were fome Eiihops in tliat Council, " who would have had the books •' of the New Teftament divided into t;vo clafTes : in one of *' which fltould be put thofe books only, which had been al-
«« ways
Ch. II. upon the Camn of the N. T. 31
V. Neverthelefs that, which is now. gene- rally received, is a good canon.
For it contains only thofe books, which were acknowledged by all in the time of Eu- jebe^ and from the begining, and feven other, which were then well known, and v/ere next in efteem to thofe before mentioned, as uni- verfally acknovv'ledged i and were more ge- nerally received as of authority, than any other controverted writings. Nor is there in them any thing inconfiftent with the fads, or principles, delivered in the univerfally ac- knowledged books. And moreover, there may be a great deal of reafon to think, that they are the genuine writings of thofe, to whom they are afcribed, and that the writers v/ere apoflles. This evidence will be care- fully examined, and dirtindly confidered, as- we proceed.
In this canon likewifetheabove-mentioned rule is regarded. It is a fiiort canon. For out of it are excluded many books, which
might
" ways received without contradiction : and in the other " thofe, which had been rejeded by feme, or about which " at left there had been doubts." And Dr. Ciurayer, in his notes, feems to favor tliis propofal. See his French tranjla- tion if the Hifior'ie of the CowidlofTvent. Li'V. 2, ch, 43. 7om. i. p. 235. andch. 47./'. 240. and note i.
32 General Oh fervatlom Ch. II,
might feem to make a claim to be ranked a- niong f.^cred and canonical fcriptures. -
VI. There are not any books, beiide thofe now generally received by us, that ought to be efteemed canonical, or books of autho- rity.
I fuppofe this to be evident to all, who have carefully attended to the hifcorie in the feveral volumes of this work : and that there is no reafon to receive, as a part of facred fcripture, the epiftle of Barnabas^ the epiftk of demerit^ the Shepherd of Her mas ^ the Re- ccgnltiom^ the Clementin Homilies., the Doc- trine of the Jpoftles, the Apofiolical Confti' tiitions^ the Gofpel of Peter ^ or Matthias^ or ThomaSy the 'Preaching of Peter ^ the A5ls of Peter and PaiiJ, of Andrew and fohn and other Apojlksy the Revelation of Peter ^ and Paul, their Travels or Circuits. That thefe books were not received, as facred fcrip- ture, or a part of the rule of faith, by Chrif- tians in former times, has been {liewn. Nor can they therefore be reafonably received by us as fuch.
The onJy writing of all thefe, that feems to make a fair claim to be a part of facred fcripture, is the epiftle of St. Barnabas^ if
genuine.
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N. T. 33
genuine, as I (s) have fuppofcd it to be. Neverthelefs, I think, it ought not to be re- ceived as facred fcripture, or admitted into the canon, for thefe reafons.
I. It was not reckoned a book of autho- rity, or a part of the rule of faith, by thofe ancient chriftians, who have quoted it, and taken the greateil notice of it.
Clement of Alexandria has (t) quoted this epiftle feveral times, but not as deciiive, and by way of full proof, as we fhewed. Nor is it fo quoted by (u) Origen. Nor is the epif- tle of Barnabas in any of (x) Origen s cata- logues of the books of Scripture, v/hich we flill find in his works, or are taken notice of by Eiifebe, By that Ecckiiaftical Hiftcrlan, in one place it is reckoned (y) among fpii- rioiis writings, that is, fuch as were generally rejected and fuppofed not to be a part of the New Teflament. At other times it is called by him (z) a co?itradi5led book, that is, not received by all.
Nor is this epiflle placed among facred
(s) See Ch. i. Vol. z. /i. 23. ... 30.
(t) See Vol. it. />. 521 .... 523.
(u) See Vol. Hi. p. 305, 306.
(x)7hefame p. 234. . . . 243.
(y) Vol. -via. p. 97. 167. r^j^' 9^- 97*
Vol. I.. * D fcrip^
34 General Obfervations Ch.ll.
fcriptures by following writers, who have given catalogues of the books of the New Teftament. It is wanting, particularly, in the Feftal Epiftle (a) of Atkanafius^ in (b) the catalogue of Cyril of Jenifalem, of (c) the Council of Lacdicea^ of (d) Epiphanius, (e) Gregu-rie Naziafize?j, (f) Amphilochiiis^ and (g) Jero?ne, (h) Rufin^ (i) the Council of Carihage, and (k) Aiigujiin. Nor has it been reckoned a part of canonical fcripture by later writers.
2. Barnabas was not an Apoflle.
For he was not one of the twelve Apof- tles of Chrift. Nor was he chofen in th« room of Judas. Nor is there in the Ads any account of his being chofen into the number of Apoftles, or appointed to be an Apoftle by Chrid:, as Paul was. What St. Luke fays of Barnabas is, that he was a good many and full of the Holy Ghojl, and of faith. Ads xi. 24. And in ch. xiii. 1. he is men- tioned among Prophets and Teachers in the church of Anticch. But St. Luke fpeaks in the like manner of Stephen^ of whom he fays,
he
(a) Vol. lili. p. Z2-J. , . . 229. (i>J P. 269. 270.
, fcj P. 291. . . 293. (^J P. 303. 304-
(e) Vol. ix. />. 133. (f)P''^M' H8.
(g) Vol. X. p. 76. jy. (h) P. 377. 178.
(ij P'l9i'i9^» (k) P. 210. 211.
Ch. It. upon the Canon oftbeN.T. 35
he was n man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghojl, vi. 5. full of faith and power, v. 8. full of the Holy Ghoji. vii. k^^. And all the feven were full of the Holy Ghofl^ and wif dom. vi. 3,
That Barnabas was not an Apoflle, I think, may be concluded from Gal. ii. 9. where Paul fays : And ivhen fames, and Ce^ phaSj and John, who feemed to be pillars.^ perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of Fellowfiip. By grace I fuppofe St. Paul to mean the favour of the apofiletliip. So Rom. i. 5. By whom we have received grace and apojilefiipy that is, the favour of the apofllelliip. Ch. xii. 3. For I fay, through the grace given to me, meaning the efpecial favour of the apofllefliip. And fee ch. xv. 15. I Cor. XV. 10. Eph, iv. 7. compared with ver. 11.
If Barnabas had been an Apoflle, in the fulleft fenfe of the word, St. Paul would not have faid in the above cited place from the fecond to the Galatians, when they per^ ceived the grace given to me, but, when they perceived the grace given to me, and' Barnabas, And in the preceding part of the context, particularly, in ver. 7. 8. he twice
D 2 fays
^5 General Obfervations Ch. II.
fays jjie^ where he would have fald us^ if Barnabas had been an Apoflle. For he- had been mentioned before, in ver. i.
Indeed, in the A6ls, where Paid and Bar^ nahas are mentioned together, Barnabas is fometimes firft named, as Ads xi. 30. xii. 25. xiii. I. 2. and 7. xiv. 14, xv. 12. 25. Which, I think, not at all ftrange, among perfons, who were not intent upon prece- dence : when too Barnabas was the elder in years and difciplefhip. Bat in feveral other places Paul is firil named, as in Ads xiii. 43. 46. XV. 2. 22. 35. of which no other feafon can be well affigned, befide that of Paul's apoftlefliip.
Moreover, wherever they travelled toge- ther, if there was an opportunity for dif- courfing, Paul fpake. So at Paphos, in the iiland of (5'/>rz/j. Ads xiii. 6. . . 12. And at Antloch'mPiJidia, ch. xiii. 15. 16. ' Seealfo ch.xiv. 12.
And that Paul was the principal perfon,
appears from that early account, after they
had been inCypriis. ch. xiii. 13. Now when
Paul and his companie loofed from Paphos,
they came to Perga, in Pa?7?phyUa.
However, there are fome texts, which mufl
be confidered by us, as feeming to afford ob-
jedions.
Ads
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N. T. 37
Ads xiv. 4. But the mtdtittide of the city wns divided. Part held with the fews, and part with the Apoftles : that is, Paul and Bar- nahas^ who were then at Iconiiim. And af- terwards, at Lyftra. ver. 14. Which when the Apojiles^ Barnabas and Paul, heard, . • . • Here Barnabas is ftiled an Apofilcy as well as Paul,
To which I z\^(wtv,firjl. Both being now together, and meeting with the like treat- ment, might be called Apoftles : though only one of them was, properly, fo. Secondly, it is not unlikely, that Bar?2abas and Paul are here ftiled by St. Luke Apoftles, in regard to what had been done at Antioch, as related by him. ch. xij. i. .-. 4. when by an exprefs order from heaven, they were fent forth from the church at Antioch, upon a fpecial commiilion, in which .they were ftill em- ployed. That defignation, however folemn, did not make either of them Apoftles of Chrift in the highefh fenfe. It was not the apoftolical, which is a general commiflion. But it was a particular commiilion, as appears from that whole hiftorie, and from what is faid at the conclufion of the journey, which they had taken. Ads xiv. 26. And thence they failed to Antioch, from whence they had
D 3 been
2 8 General Qbfervations Ch. 11.
been recommended to the grace of God, for the workj which they bad fulfilled. Neverthe- kfs, they are not unfitly called Apofiles up- on account of it. So 2 Cor. viii. 13. Whe- ther any do inquire of Titu^^ he is my part ^ ner^ and follow-helper concerning you : or our brethren be enquired oj\ they (I) are the wejfengers of the churches ^ literally, apoQles of the churches, and the ghrie of ChriJL If thofe brethren, which had been appoints ed by the churches to go to Jerufalem, v/ith the contributions, which had been made for the relief of the poor faints in Judeay might be called Apoftles ; there can be no doubt, but Paul and Barnabas might be called A- poftles in regard to the work, to which they had been folemnly appointed by the church at Antioch.
Again i Cor. ix. 5. 6. Have we not power to lead about a fifter, a wije^ as well as other Apofiles y and as the brethren of the Lord^ and Cephas f Or I only^ and Barnabas^ have not we power to forbear working F
Some may think, that Barnabas is here fuppofed to be an Apoflle. I anfwer, that though Barnabas vv^as not an Apoflle pro- perly.
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N. T. 39
perly, or equally with himfelf, yet P^u/, out of an afiedtionate refped: to his friend, com- panion, and fellow-laborer, might be difpofed to mention him, upon this occafion, in the manner he has done. This is faid, fuppofing all before-mentioned to have been Apoftles of Chrift, in the higheft fenfe. But, fecond- ly, it is not certain, that all, before-mention- ed, were flridly Apoftles. It feems to me more likely, that by the brethren of the Lord fome are intended, who were not Apoftles. If fo, Faiil might reafonably, and without ofFenfe, gratify his friendly difpofttion : and infert here the name of Barnabas^ who had fhared with him many fatigues and difficul- ties in the fervice of the gofpel, though he was not an Apoftle.
I do not therefore difcern any good reafon from the New Teftament, why Barnabas (liould be reckoned an Apoftle. But quite otherwife.
The fenfe of the primitive Chriftlans is agreeable hereto. Few or none of them have thought Barnabas an Apoftle.
Clement of Alexandria has quoted Barna- bas (?n) five or fix times. Twice he calls
D 4 him
(m) VqL a, p. 521. , • 523.
4o . General Ohfervations Ch. II.
him Apoftk. In another place he calls him the apojhlic Barnabas^ who was one of the feventjj and fellow-laborer of Paul, Thefe are the highefl: charaders, which he intend- ed to give to Barnabas, and v/hat he means, when he calls him Apojlle^ as is fully (hewn in the place juft referred to.
By T^ertidlian, as cited by us (n) formerly, Barnabas is plainly reckoned no mere, than (o) a companion of Apoftles.
Eiifcbe^ in a chapter concerning thofe who were difciples of Chrift, fays : " The *' (P) names of our Saviour's Apoftles are " well known from the Gofpels. But there **= is no Vvhere exftant a catalogue of the " feventy difciples. However, it is faid, that " Barnabas was one of them, who is exprefg- " ly mentioned in the Adts, and in Paul's " epiitle to the GalatiansT That learned Wi'itcT therefore did not know, that Barna^
bas
(n) . . . p. 606 608.'
(0) Vo!o tamen ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis A- poftolorum tefcimonium fuperducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo i lire difciplinam Magiftrorum. Exftat enim Zc Bar- nabas titulas ad Hebraeos. TertuIL de Pud'icit. cap. 20. p. 741 .
(p) . . . T&y cTe iCJ^oy.movla, [jiOi^-ATa^ n.uldhoy'^ f/eu k-
fi. E. /, I . caj-. xii.
Ch. jr. upon the Canoji of the N. T. 41
3as was an Apoflle. In fq) another place of the fame work, his Ecclefiailical Hillorie, he quotes a paiTage from the feventh book of Clement's Inftitutionsor Hypotopofes, where Barnabas is ftiled one of the feventy. In his Commentarie upon Ifaiah (r) Eufebe com- putes fourteen Apoftles, meaning the twelve, and Patd^ added to them, and equal to them, and James the Lord's brother, Bifhop of Je- riifalemi whom Eufebe did not think to be one of the twelve. Nor does he here fay, that (s) he was equal to them, or Paul. However, from all thefe places we can be fully afiured, that our learned Ecclefiaftical Hiftorian did not fo much as fufped Barna^ has to have been an Apoftle, in the higheft fenfe of the word.
jerofne, in the article of Barnabas, in his book of Ecclefiaftical Writers, fays, he (t) was ordained with Paul an apoftle of the Gen^ tils. But authors, .who write in hafte, as Jerome often did, do not always exprefs themfelvcs exadly and properly. Jerome did not think, that Barnabas was equally an
Apoftle
(q) L. 2. cap. i. p. 38. D. (r) Comm. in Ef. />. 422. (s) See Vol, (viii. p. 1 54. 1 5 j, (t) See f^ot, X. p. 1/^2, 143.
421 General Obfervations Ch. IT.
Apoftle with Paul. This may be conckided , from what there follows : He wrote an.epif- tle jor the edification of the Churchy which is read among the apocryphal fcriptures.- If Barnabas had been an Apollle, ftridly fpeak- ing, Jerome would not have faid, he wrote an epiftle for the edification of the Church. Which any man might do. Nor would his epiftle have been reckoned apocryphal, as Jerome here, and elfewhere (u) calls it. When Jerome fays, that Barnabas was or- dained with Paul an Apoftle of the Gentils j it is likely, he refers to the hiftorie in Ads xiii, '
1 4. of which I have already faid all
that is needful.
^heodoretj as formerly quoted, fays : " The <« (x) all-wife Deity committed the culture *' of a barren world to a few men, and thofe ** nfhermen, and publicans, and one tent- <* maker." And to the like purpofe often. Which (hews, that he did not reckon Bar' nabas an Apoftle in the fulleft meaning of the word. If he had, he muft have added, and one Levite. The fame obfervation may be applied to Chryfofionit who (y) in his ma- ny
(zi) See agai):, as before, Vol, x, p. 143. (xj Vol xi. p. 96. See alfo p. 97. 99. 103. (y) See Vol. x. p» ^66. . . . 370.
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N» 7*. 43
ny paflages fliewing the wonderful progrefle of the gofpel, often mentions the Apoftles Peter, a fifherman, and Paul a tent-maker, but never Barnabas a Levite.
If then Barnabas was not an Apoftle, an epiftle writ by him cannot be received as canonical, or a part of the rule of faith : for- afmuch as no men, befide Apoflles, have the privilege of writing epiftles, or other works, preceptive, and doctrinal, that fliall be received by the churches, in that quality. This has been faid feveral times in the courfe of this (z) work. And I Aill think it right.
Mark (a) and Luke, apoftollcal men, may- write hiftories of our Lord's and his Apoftles preaching, and dodrine, and miracles, which fliall be received as facred, and of authority. But no epiftles, or other writings, delivering dodrines and precepts, (except only in the way of hiftorical narration,) can be of autho- rity, but thofe writ by Apoftles.
Says Jerome of St. John : «* He fbj was " at once Apoftle, Evangclift, and Prophet :
*' Apof-
(z) See Apoflles in the alphabetical Table of principal Matters.
(a) See Vol //. /)i 525. '
(i>) Vol. x.p. 101.
^4 General Ohfervatiom Ch. II.
** Apoflle, in that he wrote letters to the " churches as a mafter : Evangelift, as he " wrote a book of the Gofpel, which no o- ** ther of the twelve Apoilles did, except *' Matthew : Prophet, as he faw the Reve- ** lation in the ifland Patmos, where he was " banished by DomitianJ'
Frederic Spanheim^ in his DifTertation con- cerning the twelve Apoftles, readily acknow- ledgcth this to be one prerogative of Apof- tles : " That (c) they may write epiftles, " which fliall be received as canonical, and ** be of univerfal and perpetual authority in
«* the Church."
2. Barnabas docs not take upon himfelf
the charader of an Apoflle, or a man of au- thority.
Near the begining of the epiftle he fays :
" I (dj therefore, not as a teacher, but as one
*' of you, iliall lay before you a few things,
*' that you may be joyful."
And
(c) Decimus nobis character apofiolicae Cyrs^^oyji^ eft po- teftas fcribendi ad ecclefias plures, vel ad onmes, to7? kh- ■^qXh 'ZfiToli, hujufmodi epiftolas, quae in canonem referri mererentur, id eft, quae forent canonicae, univerfalis et per- petuae in Ecclefia auftoritatis. . Dl/T- prima de Apcjlot. Ouod, num. xu 0pp. T. 2. />. 310.
(d) Ego autem non tanquam dodor, fed unus ex vobis, de*. monftrabo pauca, per quae in plurimis lactiores fitis. Barn. (p. cap. i.
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N, T. 45
And fomewhat lower : ''Again, (e) I en- " treat you, as one of yoa."
He writes as a man, who had gifts of the Spirit, but not that full meafure, which was a prerogative of Apoftles. *' He (f) who *' put the engrafFed gift of his dod:nne in us, " knows, that no man has received for learn- *' ed] from me a truer word. But I know, " that you are vi^orthie."
1 fliall add a few more very modefi: expref- flons, not fuitable to an Apofile.
" Thus (g) as much as in me lies, I have *' writ to you with great plainnefTe. And I *' hope, that according to my ability, I have '* omitted nothing conducive to your falva- " tion in the prefent circumftance."
In the lall chapter : *' I (h) befeech you : *' 1 aflc it as a favour of you, vvhilfl: you are " in this beautiful veffel of the body, be " v;^anting in none of thefe things."
And
(e) Adhuc Sc hoc rogo vos, tamquam unus ex vobls. lb. cap. ^
Old a, oTi tf^io/ grs Vf/.bi^. Lap. 9.
(g) '£(?' otrov fiv \v iS'mxTa ly uttXotut: J*ti\K(T<xi y//7v sA-
7UV avi)Kii]eov Ciulv ei<; (Tcmjpjav, hirarav. Cap. IJ.
46 General Ohfern^atlom^ ^c. Ch. II.
And ftill nearer the conclufion. " Where- ** fore I have endeavoured to write to you, *' according to my ability, that you might *' rejoice."
Upon the whole, this epiflle well anfwers the charader given oi Barnabas in the Ads, particularly, ch. xi. 24. He was full of the Holy Ghoft, The writer of this epKile had the gift of the Spirit, though not that mea- fure, which was peculiar to Apoflles. He was full of faiths The writer of this epiflle had an earneft zeal for the truth and fimpli- city of the gofpel. He was alfo a good man. In this epiflle we obferve the mildnefie and gentleneffe, by which Barnabas feems to have been difiingui filed. But we do not difcern here the dignity and authority of an Apoftle.
Confequently, this epiftle may afford edi- fication, and may be read with that view. But it ought not to be efleemed by us, as it was not by the ancients, a part of the rule of faith.
(i) A;o iMifKKo]) IffTriJ^acce. ypU'^Oii, «(^' ay wJ^t/v^-S-jjv, «if To tvafcipon vij.o(i. Uid,
CHAP.
47
CHAP. III.
Of the Methody in which the Canon of the New Tejiament has been formed^
r^^)^M"^ H E canon of the New Tefta-
'*ir' 'iff
Q 'P w ment is a colledlion of books, )iC )i writ by feveral perfons, in feve-
^<->.m^»sJK( i-^i places, and at different times. It is therefore reafonable to think, that it was formed gradually. At the rife of the Chrif- tian Religion there were no written fyftertis or records of it. It was firft taught and confirmed by Chrift himfelf in his moft glo- rious miniftrie : and was flill farther con- firmed by his willing death, and his refurrec- tion from the dead, and afcenfion to heaven. AfterwaVds it was taught by word of mouth, and propagated by the preaching of his Apof- tles and their companions. Nor was it fit, that any ^books fliould be writ about it, till
there
■48 The Method Ch, III.
there were converts to receive and keep them, and deliver them to others.
If St. FauT^ two epiilles to the T^hejjaloniam • were the firil written books of the Nev/ Tef- tament, and not writ till the year ci. or 52. about twenty years after our Saviour's afcen- lion, they would be for a while the only fa- cred books of the new difpenfation.
As the Chriftians at TheJ/alom'ca had receiv- ed the dodrine taught by Paul, not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God. I Theff. ii. 13. they would receive his epiftles, as the written word of God. And himfelf taught them fo to do, requiring, that they fliould be folemnly read unto all the holy brethren, i Theff. v. 27. He gives a like diredion, but more exteniive, at the end of his epiiile to the Colojians. iv. 16. requir- ing them, after they had read it amongfl them- JelveSj to caiife it to be read alfo in the church of the Laodiceans : and that they likewife read the epiftle, that would come to them from Laodicea.
AH the Apoille Paid'^ epldles, whether to churches or particular perfons, vt'ould be re- ceived with the like refpedt by thofe to whom they were fent, even as the written word of
. - God,
Ch. III. of forming the Canon of the N. T. 49
God, or facred fcriptures. And in like man- ner the writings of all the Apoftles and E- vangelifts.
They who firft received them would, as there were opportunities, convey them to o- thers. They who received them, were fully aflured of their genuinnefle by thofe who de- livered them. And before the end of the firft centurie, yea not very long after the midle of it, it is likely, there were colledi- ons made of the four Gofpels, and mod of the other books of the New Teftament, which were in the hands of a good number of churches and perfons.
From the quotations of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria^ TertuUian, and other writers of the fecond centurie, of Origen in the third, and of Eufebius in the fourth centurie, it appears, that the greateft part of the books, which are now received by us, and are cal- led canonical, were univerfally acknowledg- ed in their tim.es, and had been fo acknow- ledged by the elders and churches of former times. And the reil, now received by us, though they were then doubted of, or con- troverted by fome, were (a) well known,
(a) See Eufebius Vol. 'viii. p. 96. 97.
Vol. I. * E and
50 The Method . Ch. III.
and approved by many. And AthanafiiiSy who lived not long after Etifebius^ (having iiouriQied from the year 326. and afterwards) received all the fame book?, which are now received by us, and no other. Which has alfo been the prevailing fentiment ever fince.
This canon was not determined by the authority of Councils. Bat the books, of which it conlifts, were known to be the ge- nuine writings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts, in the fame way and manner that we know the works of Cefat-, Cicero, Virgil^ Horace, Tacitus, to be theirs. And the canon has been formed upon the ground of an unani- mous, or generally concurring tedinionie and tradition.
In the courfe of this long work we have- had frequent occalion to obferve, that the canon oi the New Teftament had not been fettled by any authority univerfally acknow- ledged, particularly, not in the time of (b) Eujebius, nor of (c) Augujiin, nor of (d) Cajjiodorius : but t^at neverthelefs there was a general agreement among Chriftians upon
this head.
That
(h) Vol. nJiii. p. 105. (c) Vol. x, 307. . .211*
(d) Vol. xi. 279.
Ch. III. of forming the Canon of the N. T. 5 1
That the number of books to be received as facred and canonical had not been deter- mined by the authority of any Council, or Council', univerfally acknowledged, is ap- parent from the different judgements among Chriftians, in feveral parts of the world, con-* cerning divers books, particularly, the epifllc to the HebreivSj and the Revelation : which were received by fome, rejeded, or doubted of by others. Not now to mention any of the Catholic Epiftles. There was no cata- logue of the books of fcripture in any canoa of tlie Council of Nice, Auguflin (e) giv- ing dired:ions to inquiative perfons, how they might determine, what books are canonical, and what not, refers not to thedecifionsof any Councils. Caffodorhis^ in the fixth centurie, has (f) three catalogues, one called Jerome's^ another AngufiirJ%^ another that of the an- cient verlion. But he refers not to the de- cree of any Council, as decifive. And it feems to me, that in all times Chriflian peo- ple and churches have had a liberty to judge for themfelves, according to evidence. And the evidence of the genuinnefle of moft of , the books of the New Teflament has been
E 2 io
(e) Vol. X. p. 207. (f) Vol, xi.p. 303. . . 306,
52 1'he Method Ch. III.
fo clear and manifeft, that they have been univerfally received.
The genuinnefTe of thefe books, as before faid, is known in the fame way with others, by teftimonie or tradition. The firft teftimo- nie is that of thofe who were contemporarie with the writers of them. Which teftimo- nie has been handed down to Others.
That in this way the primitive Chriftians formed their judgement concerning the books propofed to be received as facred fcrip- tures, appears from their remaining works. Says Clement of Alexandria : " This (g) we " have not in the four Gofpels, which have *' been delivered to us, but in that according *' to the Egyptians.'* TeriiilliaJi may be feen largely to this purpofe. Vol. ii. 576. . . 581. I pafs on to Grigenj who fays : ** As ** fbj I have learned by tradition concerning '* the four Gofpels, which alone are received •' without difpute by the whole Church of •' God under heaven." So Eufebe^ in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie, often obferves, what books of the New Teftament had been quo- ted by the ancients, and what not. And having rehearfed a catalogue of books uni- verfally
ts) ^''^' "' P' 496' <^»^ 529. (h) Vol, /«./. 235.
Ch. III. of forming the Ca?2on of the N. T. 53
verfally received, and of others controverted, he fays : " It (ij was needful to put down ** thefe alfo : diftinguifhing the fcriptures, '• which according to ecclefiaftical tradition " are true, genuine, and univerfally acknow- '* ledged, from thofe which are controverted, " and yet appear to have been known to *' many : that by this means we may know ** them from fuch as have been publifhed ** by heretics, under the names of Apoftles. ** Which books none of the ecclefiaftical *' writers in the fucceflion from the times of " the Apoftles have vouchfafed to mention ** in their writings." I may not tranfcribe, but only refer to (k) Athanafius in his Feftal Epiftle, to (I) Cyril of Jeriifalem, (m) Ril- friy and (n) Auguflin,
However, befide obferving the teftimonie of writers in former times, they criticifed the books, which were propofed to them : ex- amining their ftile and contents, and com- paring them with thofe books, which had been already received as genuine upon the ground of an unanimous teftimonie, and un- doubted tradition. Says honeft SerapJO?i^
E 3 Eiftiop
(i) Vol. <viii. p. 97. 9S. See like^ife p, 99. . . . 102. Ck) Vol. viii. p.2zs. (I) P. 268.
(m) Vol. AT. ^, 1 93. , (n) P. 207. 208.
54
The Method Ch. IIL
Birtiop of Antiocbt in an epiftle to fome, who had too much refpedl for a writing, entitled t^x Gofpel of Peter : " We (o) bre- *' thren, receive Peter, and the other Apof- *' ties, as Chrift: but as fkilful men, we re- ** jecflthofe writings, which are falily afcribed " to them : well knowing, that we have re- " ceived no fuch." And he adds, that upon perufing that work, he had found the main part of it agreeable to the right dodrine of our Saviour : but there were fome other things of a different kind. And Eufebe adds in the^ place tranfcribed above : *' The (p) '' flile alfo of thefe books is entirely diffe- *' rent from that of the Apoftles. JVloreover *' the fentiments and doctrine of thefe wri- '' tings differ from the true orthodox Chrif- *' tianity. All which things plainly (liew, " that they are the forgeries of heretics."
It has been fometimes faid, that the Council of Laodicea iirfl: fettled the canon of the New Teftament. But it may be juftly faid to have been fettled before. At icfl there had been long before a general agree- ment among Chriftians, what books were
cano-
(o) Vol. a. p. 558.
(pj Fo/.i/iii.p.^S.
Ch. Iir. of forming the Canon of the N. T, rr
canonical, and what not : what were the genuine writings of Apoflles and Evangelifts, and what not. From the decree of the Council itfelf it appears, that there were writings already known by the title of cano- nical. That Council does nothing in their laft canon, but declare, " That (q) private *' pfalms ought not to be read in the church, " nor any books not canonical, but only *' the canonical books of the Old and New " Teftament." After which follows a cata- logue or enumeration of fuch books. The fame may be faid of the third Council of Carthage, whofe 47. canon is to this pur- pofe : " Moreover (r) it is ordained, that ** nothing befide the Canonical Scriptures " be read in the church, under the name of *' Divine Scriptures."
I fhall now tranfcribe below a long and fine pafTage of Mr. Le Clerc^ wherein he fays : *' We (s) no where read of a Council of the
E 4 <« Apoftles,
(q) Vol. <vui. p. 291 . 292. (r) Vol. X, p. 193.
(sj Nufquam quidem legimus, Collegium Apoftolicum, aut coetum ullum R.e£lorum Ecckriarum Chrifiianari;m co- aftum efle, qui pro audoritate definierint hunc iiumerum Evangeliorum efl'e admittendum, nou majorem, nee mino- j
rem. Sed nee opus fuit, cum omnibus conflarct, ex telti- monio et confcnrw aequalium, quatuor haec Evangelia
eorum
56 The Method Ch. III.
" Apoftles, or of any affemblie of the Gover- " nours of Chriflian churches, convened, to *' determine by their authority, that fuch a ** number of Gofpels, neither more nor few- " er, (liould be received. Nor was there any ** need of it, fince it is well known to all ** from the concurring tefiimonie of contem- poraries, that thefe four Gofpels are the ge- nuine writings of thofe whofe names they " bear : and fince it is alfo manifeft, that '* there is in them nothing unworthie of thofe, ** to whom they are afcribed, nor any thing *• at all contrarie to the revelation of the Old
*' Tefta-
coram vere fui/Te, quorum nomina praeferunt : cumque ni- hil in iis legatur quod fcriptoribus dignum non fit, vel re- velationi Veteris Teftamenti, reftaeve rationi, vel minimum adverfetur : aut quod inferius aevum, recentiorumque manus ullo modo refipiat. Non opus fuit fynodo Grammaticorum, qui, pro imperio, pronuhciarent ea fcripta, verbi cauffa, Ci- ceronis et Virgilii, quae eorum efTe non dubitamus, re vera tantorum ingeniorum foetus fuifTe, et pofteritati ea in re confulerent. Omnium confenius, non quaefitus, non ro- gatus, fed fponte fignificatus, prout occafio tulit, refque ipfae omnibus, qui pollea vixere, dubitationem omnem anteverte- runt. , . Sic et Evangeliorum audoritas merito conftituta eft, et invaluit, perpetuo confenfu, fine ullo Redorum Eccle« fiae decreto.
Idem dixerimus de Epiftolis Apoftolicis, quae nullius ec* clefiaftici conventus judicio, fed conftanti omnium chriftia- norum teftimonio, rebufque ipfis, quas compleftuntur, auc- toritatem omnem fuam debent. Cleric. H, E. arm, lOO, »»». i«. iv. Vid. et ann, 29. num. xcu*
Ch. III. of forming the Canon of the N.. T. ^y
** Teftament, nor to right reafon. There «' was no need of a fynod of Grammarians, " to declare magifterially what are the works " of Cicero, or Virgil. . . In Hke manner the " authority of the Gofpels has been eftabHfli- " ed by general and perpetual confent, with- *' cut any decree of the Governours of the ** Church. We may fay the fame of the " Apoftoiical Epiftles, which owe all their *' authority, not to the decifions of any eccle- ** fiaftical affemblie, but to the concurring *' teftimonie of all Chriftians, and the things " themfelves, which are contained in them." Mr. 'James Bafnage (t) has feveral chap- ters, fliewing how the canon of the New Teftament was formed, without the authori- tative decilions of Councils. I likewife refer to (u) Mr. Jones upon this fubjed. I muft alfo remind my readers o^ (x) Augu)iin\ ex- cellent obfervations, in his arguments with the ManicheanSy concerning the genuinnefle and integrity of the books of the New Tefta- ment. I (hall tranfcribe from him here a few lines only, which are very much to the prefent purpofe. *' We (y) know the wri-
" tings
(t) WJi. ie r Eglife. I 8. ch. v. vi, vl't.
(u) Neiv and/u// Method. Part. i. ch, v. vi. vit.
(x) See Vol. a-/. />. 375. . . 381. (y) P. 379.
58 The Method, &c. Ch. IH.
" tings of the Apoftles, fays he, as we know " the works oi Plato, Ariftotle, Cicero ^Varro, <•' and others. And as we know the writ- «* ings of divers ecclefiaftical authors : foraf- «^ much as thev have the teftimonie of con- *' temporaries, and of thofe who have lived •' in iucceding ages."
Upon the vv^hole, the writings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts are received, as the works of other eminent men of antiquity are, upon the ground of general confent and tefli- monie. Nor does the canon of the fcrip- tures of the New Teftament owe it's eftablifh- nient to the decifions of Councils : but it is the judgement of Chriftian people in general. And fo far as we are able to perceive, after a long and careful examination, it is a right and reafonable judgement. And it may in- ' duce us to believe, that if men were encou- raged to think freely, in other matters alio, and to judge for themfelves, according to evidence, and proper affiftances were afford- ed them, it would not be at all detrimental to the interefts either of truth or virtue.
C H A P.
59
CHAP. IV.
Of the T^me of writing the Gofpels, efpecially^ ■ the firji three,
S E C T. I.
T^hat the Gofpeh are not mentioned^ nor refer^ red to J in the Epiflles of the New Tejiameiif,
WmiW^USEBE intimates, that (a) g ^ S many before him luppofed, that ^ ^ when Pmil in his epiftle fpeaks
^M^^J^ of his own gofpel, he intended the Gofpel according to Luke, We will therefore confider thofe texts, and fome o- ther of a hke kind.
I. St. Paul fays Rom. ii. i6. . . in the day, when God fiall judge the fecrets of men^ ac- cording to my gofpeL The fame phrafe oc- curs again ch. xvi. 25. and 2 Tim. ii. 8. Re- member^ that Jefus Chrift^ of the feed of Da-
%ndy
(a) taffi cTs, ui a^cx, Tb zar avrov IvxyythiM ixi'nfj.ovivC'^ o vravKtii bM^tv, oTTWr/.A cyj TTff/ ]J^i<i t/vo; kvayyiKia yp^Aipav iXiyc, nctra TO ivityyi?4ov lAi. Etif. H. E. /. ^,c, ^. p. 73. D,
6q *The Time of writing Ch. IV.
vidy was raifedfrom the deady accordijig to ?ny
In all which places, I apprehend, it mud be reafonable to underftand, not any written Gofpel, or hiftorle of Jefus Chrift : but the doflrine of the gofpel of Jefus Chrift, which had been preached by Paul. Which is alfo the opinion of learned modern interpreters in general.
II. 2 Cor. viii. .18. Aiidwe have Jent with him the brother, whofe praife is in the gofpel^ throughout all the churches.
Many have been of opinion, that St. Luke js the brother y here intended, and that*St. Taul refers to Luke's, written Gofpel. This (b) isfaid to be Origefi% interpretation. But I do not clearly perceive it. Origen (c) fpeak- ing of the four Gofpels, fays : *< The (d) third is that according to Luke, the Gofpel, commended by Paul." I fay, I do not per- ceive it to be clear, that Origen had an eye
to
(I) " Who this brother was, is much contelled. Antiquity " has carried it for St. Luke^ ^worthy of praife in all the churches *' for the Gofpel, nvhich he worote. The authority of this af- *' fertion feems to reft upon the words of Origen, the interpo- *' lated Ignatius, and St. Jero^neJ''' So Whitby upon the Place.
(c) Kai Tfiiov TO AXTA Xaxav, to Ctto "TravXti iTTXlviixiV^ ivocyyiXiav. Ap. Euf. l. 6. cap, 25. ^. 226. C.
(d) See Vol, Hi. /. 235.
Ch. IV. the firjl three Gofpeh. 6 1
to 2 Cor. viii. 18. He might intend Rom. ii. 16. or xvi, 25. or 2 Tim. ii. 8. How- ever, whether it be Origens interpretation of that text, or not, it is Jerome's : who wri- ting the hiftorie of St. Luke in his book of Illuftrious Men, fays : " He (e) wrote a Gofpel, of which Paul makes mention, fay- ing : J^nd we have fe fit with him the brother^ ivhofe praife is in the Gofpel!' To the fame purpofe (f) alfo in the prologue to his Com- mentarie upon St. Matthew : and likewife in (g) his Commentarie upon the epiftle to Philemon,
Chryfojiom upon the place fpeaks after this manner. " And (h) who is this brother ? " Some fay, Luke : and think, that the A- ** poftle refers to the hiftorie, writ by him. " Others fay, Barnabas. For by gofpel he « intends unwritten preaching." Theophy^ la5l (i) fpeaks to the hke purpofe. Theo-
doret
(e) See Vol. x. p. 94. (/) The '/am, /. 83 .
(g) De quo [Luca] et in alio loco : Miji, jnquit, cum ilia fratrem, cujus laiis eji in e'vangelio per omnes ecclejias. . . &c. In Phi tern. T. 4. P. ?. p. 454.
(h) Kai tU kto; Ir/v 0 ciS'tX(po( ; ripif fj>tv rov XHxav. Krtt <pa.at, J'ta Tiju Uopiav WTiif typx'^t. T/»5! S'i tcV ^»fvajiocv. Ka« yup To aypx(pov utifvy^uoi ivoiryyihm r,<t,h^. In z. ep. ad Corinth, horn. 18. Tom. Xm
(i) In kc.p. 389.
5 2 ^^^ Time of writing Ch. IV.
doret (k) by the brother underftood B^rjia-
bas. And therefore could not think of any
written Gofpel, no fiich work having been
afcribed to him by the ancients. Oecume-
nius\ note is to this purpofe. " Many (I)
" fay, this brother is Lake^ mentioned upon
" account of the Gofpel compofed by him.
*' Many others fuppofe him to be Barnabas.
*' For, as they fay, unwritten preaching is
*' here called gofpel. Which is the more
" hkely. For what follows is more fuitabls
" to Barnabas : ivhofe prafe is in the gofpel,
" As much as to fay : he not only preaches,
' ** but commendably." And afterwards.
** The meaning is, he not only evangelizeth,
*' and preacheth the gofpel admirably, and
. ** commendably, but he has been chofen to
" travel with us, with this grace aifo." Such
are the fentiments of the ancients upon this
text.
Let us now obferve the interpretations of
fome judicious moderns.
Grotius fays: *' he (tn) does not diillke
the
Thod in loc. 1. 3. p. 243.
^l) Oecum, in loc. Tom. i. ^.663.
(m) Mihi nou diipHcet fententia illorum, qui hic Lucam defignari putant : ita tamcn ut per evangelium non intelli- gatur liber, qui tunc editus nondum erat, fed ipfum munus
evangeliltae.
Ch. IV. the Jirjl three Gofpeh. 63
the opinion of thofe, who think Luke to be here intended. But he does not think, that St. Paul refers to his book of the Gofpel, which was not then pubhfhed : but to the office of an Evangehll:, which Luke had dif- charged in feveral places, or to his preachino- - the gofpel. And he fays, that i?i the gofpel may be the fame as by the gofpel. So in ch. X. 14. of the fame epillle."
Efius like wife fays, that (n) by gofpel Is to be underftood preaching : not St. Luke^ Gofpel, which we are net certain was then publiflied.
Le Clerc, in his French Teftament, tranf- lates in this manner : one of our brethren; who is praifed on account of the gofpel in all the churches. And in his notes fays, " that ee- " nerally St. Luke is here fuppofed to be in- " tended : though St. Faul refers rather to " his preaching the gofpel, than to the book " of his Gofpel."
Beaufobre
evangeliftae, quod Lucas Pauli vice multis in locis fideliter obierat, five ipfa evangelii praedicatio, ut infra x, 14. h in pro i'la. per. Grot, ad 2> G?r„ inii. 18.
(n) Neque enim Paulas de Evangelic fcripto loquitur, kdi quo niodo paffim alibi, de evangelic praedicato. Deinde, nee fatis conllat, Evangelium Lucae turn editum fuiffe, quaii- do Paulus hanc epiilolarn fcripfit. EJ}. in loc.
64 STZt T^me of writing Ch. IV*.
Beaufobre tranflates after this manner : one of the brethren^ who has made himfelffa' mous in all the churches by [preaching] the gofpel. And fays in his notes : *' that though " feme of the ancients have hereby under- *' flood St. Luke, and his Gofpel ; he thinks, *' that by the gofpel is here intended the ** preaching of the gofpel. Beiides, there is ** no proof, that St. Luke had as yet writ his *' Gofpel. It is rather reafonable to think, « he had not."
Upon the whole, though we cannot cer- tainly fay, who is the brother^ whofe praife was in the gofpel: whether foj Luke, or Bar- nabas y or Silas y or Apollos : I prefume we are fufEciently warranted to fay, that by gofpel is here intended neither the gofpel accord- ing to Lukcy nor any other written Gofpel whatever.
III. I Tim. vi. 20. O Timothiey keep that which is committed to thy triijl.
Hereby fome have been difpofed to under- fland a written Gofpel. But they are not fa- vored by the beft interpreters. Grotius fays, that (p) this depofit, or thing committed to
Timotbie's
(o) Vid. EJ}. in 2, Cor. 'vtii. iS. ei Beaiifohr. in ver. 1 8.
et 23. (p) Vocat autem depofitum facram dodrinam evangelii.
Cl3.I\^. the firji three Gofpets, 65
^Tomothie's truft, is the facred dodrine of tbd gofpel. EJiius (q) fays the fame. I place below likewife (r) a part of Bcza's note up- on this text, Le Clerc in his notes explains it thus : '' the dodlrine of the gofpel, which " was a facred depofit, committed by the *' Apoftles to their difciples." And Beaiifobre thus: *' the dodtrine, which had been com- mitted to, or entrufted with Timothies See alfo, fiys he, i. Tim. i. 18. and 2. Tim. ii* 2. I fay no more to this text.
IV. 2. Tim. i. 13. 14. Hold fajl the fornt of found words, which thou haft heard of fne» . . . 'That good thing, which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Ghoft, which dweU leth in us.
Hereby fome may underfland a written Gofpel, or hiftorie of Jefus Chrifl. Never- thelefs, I think, I need not add much here to what has been already faid of the pre-
qula et res eft alterius, nempe Chrilli, et paft.orlbus fida ejus cultodia incumbit. Grot, ad i. Tim. "vi. 20.
(q) Iterum ferioet graviter admonet, ut acceptam fidel doc- trlaam confervet, ne locum relinquat ulli peregrino dogmati. Nomine depofiti metaphorice fignificatur doftrina fucceflbri crcdita, ac per manus tradita. Eft. in loc.
(r) Depofitum proculdubio vocat fanam evangelii doflrinam, et dona quaecunque ad Ecclefiae aediiicationem, veluti depo- ficuni, Deus commiferat Timotheo. Bcz. in loc.
Vol. I. * F ceding
56 ^^^ ^i^^^ ^J 'Writing Ch. IV,
ceding text, it being nearly parallel. The meaning of both is much the fame. ^Timo- ihie is here again exhorted, and required, to retain with all fidelity thofe found words^ that pure dodrine of the gofpel, which he had been taught by the Apoftle, and had of- ten heard from him.
It does not appear, then, that there are in -, the apoftolical epiftles of the New Tefta- ment any references to written Gofpels, or hiftories of Jefus Chrift. I do not fay, this is a proof, that no fuch hiflories were then written. Neverthelefs, I have thought it not improper to (hew, that there is no notice taken of any fuch hiftories in thefe epiftles : and therefore they cannot afford any evi- dence of their being then writ and publifhed. I think likewife, that it was not amifs to em- brace this occafion to flievv the true meaning of fome texts, which have been often mifm- terpreted.
SECT.
Ch. IV. the firji three Gofpch. 67
SECT. IL
Obfervatiojis of ancteiit Chrijiian Writers^ leading to the true time^ when the Gofpels were writ.
I. O AYS Irenaem^ as formerly (s) quoted, k3 ** For (t) we have not received the *' knowledge of the way of our falvation *' from any others, than thofe, by whom the *' gofpel has been brought to us. Which <' gofpel they firft preached, and afterwards *' by the will of God committed to writing, ** that for time to come it might be the <* foundation and pillar of our faith. Nor " ** may any fay, that they preached, before
F 2 *' they
(s) SeeFol.i. f. 353.
(t) Non enim per alios difpofitlonem falutis noftrae cog- novimus, quam per eos, per quos evangeliiim pervenk ad nos : quod quidem tunc praeconaverunt, pofieavero per Dei vcluntatem in fcripturis nobis tradidemnt, fundamentum & coluihnam fidei nollrae futurum. Nee enim fas eft dicere, quoniam ante praedicaverunt, quam perfedam haberent ag- nitionem, ficut quidam audent dicere, ^loriantes, emenda- tores fe effe Apoflolorum. Poftea enim quam fiirrexit Dcmi- nus nollcr a mortuis, & induti funt fupervenientis Spiritus Sanfti virtutcm ex alto, de omnibus adimpleti funt, & ha- buerant perfe<5lam agnitionem, exierunt in fines terrae, ea quae a Deo nobis bona funt evangeiizantes, & coeleftem pa* cem hominibus annunciantes : qui quidem & omnet; pariter & fmguli eorum habentes evangelium Dei, Iren, ath\ Haer. I. 3. tap. I,
58 ^h^ Time of writiitg Ch. IV.
** they had a compleat knowledge of the " doctrine of the gofpel. For after 'that «' our Lord rofe from the dead, and they *^ [the Apoftles] were endowed from above " with the power of the Holy Ghod coming '* down upon them, they received a perfect " knowledge of all things. They then went " forth to all the ends of the earth, declar- *< ing to men the bleiTing of heavenly peace, " having all of them, and every one alike, ** the gofpel of God."
He then proceeds to fpeak of the Gofpels of the four Evangelifts feverally, and the times and occafions of writing them. All which will be taken down by us hereafter in proper places. Here is fufficient to induce us to think, that the written Gofpels, or hif- tories of Jefus Chrift, were not publifhed, till fome good while after our Lord's afcen- fion. For the Apofiles firfl preached, he fays, before they wrote.
2. Says Eufebe in a long palTage formerly quoted : *' Thofe (u) admirable and truly
.*"■■ divine men, the Apoftles of Chrift,-
" neither knew, nor attempted, to deliver the .** dodrine of their mafter with the artifice " and eloquence of words . . . Nor were they
" greatly
(uj Vol, "jiii.p. 90. . , 92.
Ch. IV. the firft three Gofpeh, 69
" greatly concerned about the writing of . *' books, being engaged in a more excellent " miniftrie, which is above all human power. ** Infomuch that Faiil^ the moft able of all " in the furniture both of words and thoughts, *' has left nothing in writing, befide a few " epiftles .... Nor were the reft of our Sa- " viour's followers unacquainted with thefe " things, as the feventy difciples, and many ** others, beiide the twelve Apoftles, Ne- " verthelefs of. all the difciples of our Lord, " Matthew and '^ohn only have left us any " memoirs : who too, as we have been in- " formed, were compelled to write by a " kind of neceffity." And what follows.
3. This palTage fliould be compared with another of (x) Origen. And they who pleafe may alfo confult our remarks (*) upon what has been now tranfcribed from Eufebe. Which may be of ufe to caution us, not to be too precipitate in giving a very early date to the Gofpels, as if they were writ imme- diatly after our Lord's afcenfion : when there is reafon to think, they were not writ, till af- ter numerous converts had been made, who expreficd their delires to have written hifto-
F 3 ries
(x) See Vol. Hi. p. 236. {*) Vol. liU. />. 1 24, . . 137.
JO ' I'he Time of writing Ch. IV.
ri^s of what they had heard, for refrefliing their memories.
4, Says Theodore^ Bidiop of Mopfneffia, in the later part of the fourth centurie, about the year 394. ** After (y) the Lord's af- *' cenfion to heaven the difclples flaid a good " while at ferufalem, vifiting the cities in it's ** neighborhood, preaching chiefly to the " Jews : until the great Faid, called by the ** divine grace, was appointed to preach the *' gofpel to Gentils openly. And in procefle *' of time Divine Providence, not allowing " them to be confined to any one part of the " earth, made way for conducing them to re- *' mote countreys. Feter went to Rome^ the " others elfewhere. 'John^ in particular, took *' up his abode at Ephejus, vifiting however
*' at feafons the feveral parts of ^fia
' " About this time the other Evangelifts,
" Matthew, Marky and Luke, publiQied their " Gofpels, which were foon fpread all over *' the world, and were received by all the *' faithful in general with great regard." .... He proceeds to fay, ** that neverthelefs, " the Chrifiians in Afiay having brought " thofe Gofpels to him, earneftly entreated *' him to write a farther account of fuch
*' things,
(y) ^ee Vol. ix. p. 403 . 4P4.
Ch. IV. the firfl three Gofpeh, ji
" things, as were needful to be known, and " had been omitted by the refl. With ** which requeft he complied."
This remarkable paffage, upon which di- vers oblervations were made, when it was firft quoted, may difpofe us to think, that all the four Gofpels were writ about the fame time, and that none of them were publilned till after, or about the (ixtieth year of our Lord's Nativity.
5. By divers ancient Chriflian writers it is faid, that (z) Marky the difciple and inter- preter oi Peter, at the defire of the brethren of Rome, wrote a fhort Gofpel, according to what he had heard related by Peter. So Je^ nome (a) befide others, as before quoted, in his book of Illuftrious Men.
St. Peter, I reckon, did not come to Pome before the reign of Nero^ probably, not till the fecond time that Paul was in that city, in the year 6^, or 64. And yet, at this time, the Chriftians at Rome defired Mark to give them in writing an account of Peter s preaching, for refrefhing their memories concerning what the Apoftle had fald of Chrift, and his dodlrine. The confequence
F 4 is
(%) See Vol. i.p, 247, . . 249. U. 472. . 489. -viii. 305." . . 306. xi. p' II. (a) Fol.x.p. 92.
•JZ ^he lime of 'writing Ch. IV.
is manifeft. They had not then any written Gofpel in their hands. Nor did they know, that there was one. " The truth is, fays ^' Mr. 'fones (b), if St. Mark^ or any one elfe, ** had had St. Matthew's Gofpel, at Rome, *' there would have been no need of St, ** Mark's writing."
Thefe are general obfervations in the an-^ cients, or deduced from them, which may be of no fmall ufe to lead us to the true time pf writing the firft three Gofpels.
SECT. III.
^hat the Jirji three Gofpels were pubVified be-
■ fore the deflruSiioji of feriifaletn^ which
happened in the year of the Chriftian epoch
Oncerning this I tranfcribe below (c) a very good argument of Le Clerc from liis Differtation upon the four Evangelifts.
The
#
(h) Vindication of the former •part of St. Mattheius Gofpel f, 54. chap. 'vi.
(c) Quinetiam, fi ex Veterum nonnullorum teRimoniis an- tea adduJlis, de re judicemus, affirmabimus, Matthaeum, Marcum, et Lucam, ante ultima Neronis tempora, quibus occifi funt Petrus et Paulus, Evangelia fcripftfTe. Quod non kvi argumento confirmari poteft, dudto ex Matth. cap. xxiv.
Marc,
Ch. IV. the firjl three Gofpeh, 73
The Jewifh war began, according (d) to JojephuSy in the Month of May, in the 66. year of the Chriftian epoch, and ended in September, in the year 70. in the defolation of the city of Jemjalem and the temple. And I think, it may be (liewn to be very probable, that the firfl three Gofpels were writ before the year 66. when the final trou- bles and calamities of the Jewiili People were
coming on.
This mufl: appear to have a great deal of probability from the predidions tFferein re- corded concerning the deflrudion of the temple, the overthrow of the city of Jcmfa' km, the ruin of the Jewifh State and People in Jiideay together with divers circumftances
of
Marc. xiii. Luc. xxi. ubi narratur Jerofolyipr^e excidii prae-r diftio, quafi rei etiamnum futurae, eo tempore, qCio Evangelia ab iis fcribcbantur. Si enim earn pracdicationem poll even- turn fcripfiflent Evangeiiilae memoiati, verbulo faltem mo- nuiiTent, praedidionem fuifle eventu confirmatam. Quod tan- turn abell ut faciant, ut Matthaeus et Marcus hac adnionitione, 0 AVAytVK<TKccv voevTK, qui legity intelligat, quam fubjlciunt prae- lagiis Jerofolymitanae cladis, admonere videantur Chriftianos in Judaea viventcs, ut diligenter futura ilia praefagia atten- dant, quo poflint vitae fuae confulere. Vide Matth. xxiv. 15. Marc. xiii. 1 4, et ad ea loca interpretcs. Clerk. D>£'. Hi, de qtiatuG-r Ei'angelus, num. I'ii. p. 5fl.
fdj Fid. Jcfeph. Ar.tiq, Jud. I. 2q, cap, xi. n. c. ^Sc. B. I. /, 0. cap, X,
24 ^f^^ ^^f^^^ rf ivfitirig Ch. IV.
of thefe events, and many troubles and cala- mities preceding them. Thefc predidions are recorded in the hiftories of our Saviour's miniftrie, which v/e call Gofpels, without any the left hint, either exprefs and defigned, or accidentally dropping from the writers, that thofe predictions had been fulfilled and verified, or that the things fpoken of had - happened. Thofe prophecies are recorded in Matth. xxiii. 34. . . 39. and xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. St. Luke has alfo elfwhere recorded the affedionate concern, which our Lord exprefTed in the view and profpedl of thofe impending evils, ch. xiii. 34. 35. and xix. 41. . . 44. Thefe things are alfo re- ferred to, and fpoken of, in divers other dif- courfes, fome plain, fome parabolical, or otherwife figurative: as Matth. xxi. 33. . . 46. xxii. I. . . 7. Mark xii. i. . . 12. Luke xiii. I. , . 9. XX. 9. . . 20. xxi. 5. . . 13, In none of all which places does there ap- pear any intimation, that the things fpoken of were come to pafs. And in recording the prefages of this final and total overthrow of the Jewifli nation the hiflorians have in- ferred v/arnings and admonitions, proper to excite the attention of readers, and induce thofe who hved in Judea^ to take care of their
own
Ch. IV. the fir ji three Gofpeh. j^
own fafety, without delay. Matt. xxiv. 15. ... 18. When ye therefore fiall fee the abomi- nation of defolation, fpoken of by Daniel the Prophet, [land in the holy place^ (ii'hofo read- eth, let him underfiand :) then let them which be in Judeafiee into the mountains. Let him which is on the houfe-top not come down to take any thing out of his houfe. Neither let him ivhich is in the fields return back to take his cloths. And what follows. And to the like purpofe in Mark xiii. 14. . . 16. When thefe difcourfes were recorded, the things fpoken of had not yet come to pafs. There were men living, to whom thefe admonitions might be ufeful for fecuring their fafety.
Moreover, though thefe predidions mud have been recorded, before they were accom- plidied ; I think, the fulfilment was then near at hand, and not far off. This feems to be implied in that expreffion : Let him that readeth^ underfiand. And indeed it muft have been difficult and hazardous to publifh fuch things in writing. How oifenfive thefe fayings muft have been to the Jewifii People, and perhaps to fome others likewife, is eafie to conceive from the nature of the thines fpoken of. And it may be confirmed by divers inftances. When our Lord had fpoken
the
76 The Time of UTiting Ch. IV,
the parable of the vineyard, let out to huf- bandmen, recorded in Luke xx. 9. . . 18. it is added by the Evangelift. ver. 19. 20. Aiid the Chief Priefts, and the Scribes, the fame hour fought to lay hands on him. But they feared the people. For they perceived, that he bad fpoken this parable againfi them. And they watched him, andfent forth fpies^ which - fhoidd feign themfehes juji men, that they might take hold of his words, that fo they might deliver him unto the power a^td autho- rity of the Governcur. And among the odious charges brought againft our Saviour by falfe witnelTes, this was one, that he faid : I am able to defiroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Matth. xxvi. 61 . With this he was reproached likewife, when hanging on the crofs. xxvii. 40. The like ofienfive charges were brought againfi Stephen, Ads. vi. 14. IVe have heard him fay, that this fepus of Nazareth fiall dejlroy this place, md fiall change the cuftoms, which Mofes de- livered to us. And, poflibly, he did fayfome- what not very different. So likewife St. Matthew, and the other Apoflles, might re- peat in the hearing of many what Chriil had faid to them, and in part, to others alfo, concerning the overthrow. of the temple, and
the
Ch. IV. the firfi three Go/pels, yy
the Jewifli (late. Yea, very probably, they had often repeated thefe things to attentive hearers. But fpeaking and writing are dif- ferent. And I apprehend, it could not have been fafe, nor prudent, to record thefe pre- didtions, (many of which are very plain, and all intelligible,) foon after our Lord's afcen- fion.
Thefe prophecies therefore of our Lord, as recorded in the firft three Gofpels, afford at once an argument, that they were written and published before the deltrudlion of T^- rufalem : and that they were not publillied many years before it, or however, not many years before the commencement of the war at the time above-mentioned.
S E C T. IV.
u4?i Argiime?2t, fiewtng the true Time of meriting the Gofpels^ taken from the A5ls^ and the begining of St. Luke's GofpeL
NONE can fuppofe, that the book of the Ads of the Apofties wascompo- fed before the year 62. or 63. as the hiflorie is there brought down to the period of St. PWs two years imprifonn^ent at Rome.
And,
yg 7he T!ime of writing Ch. IV.
And, very probably, the Gofpel, to which St. Luke refers at the begining of that book, had not been writ long before. This I fuppofe to be now the common opinion of learned men. And for giving the greatefl: fatisfadion to all my readers, I fhall tranf- cribe below at large the fentiments of feve- ral to this piirpofe, fuch as that of the late (e) Mr "fones, and (j) Ejiius, (g) Mill,
(*) Bod'
(e) " Hence we fee near to what time this hiftorie of the A6ls was written: viz. either in the year 62. or not long after : it being altogether probable, that St. Luhe would not defer writing long after his departure from St. PauL Which feems to have been now, when the ApolUe was fet at liberty from his confinement at Ro77ie„ . . That he wrote both the » Gofpel and the AQs in the fame year, feems very probable :
as it is certain, that one of them is only to be looked upon as the fecond part, or continuation of the other." Jones Neiv and Full Method, l^c. Part. 4. ch. x-vi. Vol. ^.p. 158, See hi7K alfo ch. xi. p. 115.
f/J Deinde, nee fatis conflat, Evangelium Lucae jam turn editum fuiffe, quando Paulus hanc epillolam fcripfit. Nam A£la quidem Apoflolica fcripfiffe videtur ilatim poft Evange- lium, tanquam ejufdem voluminis libros primum et fecun- dum. Scripfit autem Afta poft biennium Fauli Romae com- morantis, id efi, multis annis poft hanc epiftolam. Quare cir- ca idem tempus Evangelium ab co fcriptum fuiffe, credibile eft. E^. ad 2. Cor. 'viii. 18,
(g) Voluminis hujus D. Lucae partem pofteriorem, feu hoyoTi S'ivripov quod attinet, librum dico Aftuum Apoftolo- rum, haud dubium eft. ... quin is fcriptus fit ftatim poft hoya]^ i^pwTov, five Evangelium, Mill, Pro/, num, 121.
Ch. IV. the three frft Go/pels. 79.
(*) Dodwellj and (b) Bafnage : though the thing appears to me very obvious. And if fo, we have gained very nearly the date of one of the four Gofpels.
Grotius fuppofethj that (i) v^^hen Paul left Home^ he went into Spaiit : and that at the fame time Luke went into Greece, and there wrote both his Gofpel and the Adls. Jerome fuppofeth, that (k) the book of the A<fls was writ at Rome. But that makes no dif- ference in point of time : fince he allows, that it reaches to the end of St. Pauh two years imprifonment at Rome,
This
(*) Sunt enim Ada J^ivTipog ejufdem operis Xoyo^, cujus TpeoTov X'oyov ipfe fuum agnofcit Evangeiium. Aft, i. i. Dodtv. Diff. hen. i. num. xxxix.
(h) Non multum vero interjeftum fui/Te ternporis inter Aciorum Apoftolicorum et Evangelii confeftionem, conjec- tura ex praefatione ad Theophiium duci poteft. Prhnum qui- dem Ubrum covfeci,- . . Aftuum ergo liber continatio eft, feri- efque Evangelii, . . . Multum vero abiifle. ternporis antequani a priore libro omnibus numcris expleto ad pofteriorem tranfi- ret Lucas, nulla ratione cogimur ad credendum. Scz.Bafnag. Ann. 60. nu7ii. xx'viii.
(i) Librum autem et hunc, et qui de Aftibus Apoflolo- rum, fcriptum atbitror, non multo poftquam Paulus Roma abiit in Hifpaniam. Nam in id tempus deflnit Aftuum liber, qui fi ferius fcriptus efTet, in ulteriora etiam tempera narra- tionem protenderet. Puto autem, Roma iifle Lucam in A- chaiam, atque ibi ab eo confcriptos quos habemus libros. Grot. Pr. in E'vang, Lucae.
(k) See Vol. ft. p. 94. 95,
So 7he Time of writing Ch. IV.
This one conlideratlon, fo far as I am able to judge, overthrows the opinion, that St. Lukes Gofpel was writ about fifteen years after our Lord's afcenfion. Yea, it evident* ly fhewSj that it was not writ till the year 60. or afterwards.
And the begining of St. iz^;^fc''s Gofpel af- fords an argument, that the other two Gof- pels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, were not \\r^^ writ fooner. For this Evangelift knew no- JtS^J thing of them. Confequently, they were V , ' not then writ, and pubHlhed : or, but lately.
Every word of his introduction (hews this.
V^\ Let us obferve it.
S^
Forafr/iiich as mansi hane take?! in hand to
Lfet forth in order a declaration of thcfe things^ which are mojl furely believed among us, . . , It feemed good unto me alfo, having had per- JeB underjlanding of all things from the very fir ft, to write unto thee in order ^ mojl excel- lent Tbeophilus : that thou migkteji know the certai?2ty ofthofe things^ wherein thou haft been iiijlruEled.
When St. Luke fays, that rnany had un- dertaken to write hiftoriesof our Saviour, he cannot 'mean Matthew alone, nor Matthew and Mark only. For they are not many. He mufl intend them, and others, or fome
different
if
0
Ch . I V. the firjl three Gofpels. 8 1
different from them. Which lad will ap- pear mod likely, if we conlider what there follows.
Of thofe }?7a7iy he fays, they had taken in hand, undertaken, or attempted. St. Luke would not have fpoken thus oi Matthew, or Mark, Indeed, we may fuppofe, that (I) thofe narrations, to which St. Luke refers, were not falfe and fabulous, nor heretical-. But they were defedive. j^
Grctius fays, the (m) word is of a midle meaning. And that it does not neceiTarily imply, that the writers, here intended, had failed to perform what they undertook. y^*
Neverthelefs the ancient Chriftians, to fe- veral of whom the Greek language was na- tural, 'jnderdood the word differently. And their judgements mufl be of value in this
(I) Quod iftos ait Lucas, non fatis commode praeftitiiTe : minime tamen, opinor, fabulofas, immo c tiam impias nar- rationes intelligens, tandem Ecclefiae, fub Nicodcmi, .... Thomae, Aegyptiorum nominibus impudeiitiflime obtrufas. Nee tamen hie refte colligunt, Lucam poll Matlhaeum et Marcum hanc fuam hiftoriam edidilfe. Bez. in Luc. cap. i. i<er. I.
(m) 'E'Tiiyjii^Mea. pgZ'^'^IF y«'^'' Bene notavit vir erudi- tiffimus, vocem effe mediam : ncque enim ex ea colligi pof- fe, non praeftitum ab illis icriptoribus quod aggrelli funt. Grot, in-loct
Vol. I. ' ^ G eafe.
Si The Time of writing Ch. IV.
cafe. Ongc?is obfervations upon St. Luke's introdudion may be feen. vol. iii. p.. 316. . . 319. where he fays, " St. £7.'/(ys expref- *' lion, taken in hand, implies a tacit ac- " cufation of thofe^ who without the gift " of the Holy Ghofl took upon them to " write Gofpels. For Matthew^ and Mark^ *' and hiike, and "John, did not take in hajid *• to write : but being full of the Holy Ghoft " wrote Gofpels." In which words, and afterwards, continually, he diftinguifheth the four Evangelifts from the writers, referred to by St. Luke. To the like purpofe {n) Ambrofe^ who either copied, or clofely imi- tated Or i gen. And fays Enfebe : " Luke (0) ** at the begining affigns the reafon of his ** writing, declaring, that whereas many *' others had rafhly undertaken to compofe ** relations of the things, which were mofl: " firmly believed, he therefore thought him- *' felf obliged, in order to divert us from the ** uncertain relations of others, to deliver in ** his Gofpel a certain account of thofs things, " of which he was fully allured." Which
palTage
(n) See Vol. Jx. p. 245.
S'zvxQjcoi- a'ii'iynjiy 'Tror.y^a.trbcr.t ay ivjof -arfTAHpoyopwro Acj-ft*, /.. A. EuJcL /. 3. f, -24. f. 96. C.
C/j . IV. the firjl three Gojpels, g j
pafTage was tranfcribed by us [p) formerly. And EpipbaninSi whom {q) 1 now place below, plainly affixed a difadvantageous meaning to this word.
Bcaufobre readily allows, that {r) we ought to follow the ancients in their interpretation of this word, and to fuppofe, that St. Luke here fpeaks of fome attempts, and efiays, that had not been well executed.
This may be fufficient to fatisfy us, that St. Luke does not fpeak of any of our Evan- gelifts. Mr. (*) DoJwell wzs of the fame opinion.
But we may have yet farther afTurance of it by obferving what St. Luke fays of himfelf,
G 2 and
^p) V<1. <viii.p. 95.
Taf 05AAK?. H. 51. f!Uf/i. avV, p. 428.
(rj Ce mot Grec, i'srs'xc'.;.ma.v, eft certainement tres equivoque, et peut fort bien figniiier tfes tentatlues iiialheureu- fes, dcs efforts qui ont mal ri:-JJi. St. Epiphane ne I'a pas en- tendu autrement. Origene de meme, darxs fa preface fur S, Luc. etaprcs lui la pluparc des Interpretes Grecs. Quand il s'agit de la fignification des termes Grecs, et que les au- teurs Grecs, qui les expliquent, n'ont aucun interet a leur donner des fens forces, ces derniers fembkntdignes de ere- ance. Beauf. Rcmarques fur Luc. ch. i. p. lOO.
(*) Ut plane alios fuiffe neccfTc fit evangelicae hiftoriae fcriptores a Luca vifos, a noflris, quos habemus Evangcliftis* Dijf, Inn, i, mm, x.wxix.
§4 ^^ 7/>^f of writing Ch. IV.
and his own defign. Which is to this pur- pofe : '* That it had feemed good to. him, '* to fend to Theophiliis in writing a difiindl " and particular hiflorie of Jefus Chrift : " that he might better know, and be more ** fully confirmed in the truth of thofe things, " in which he had been inftrudted by word *' of mouth."
i-
In my opinion, this implies a fuppoiition, that Theophilus had not yet in his hands any good written hidorie of the words and works of Jefus Chrift.
Confequently St. Liike^t the year 62. and poflibly fomewhat later, did not know of St. Mattheivs and St. Mark's Gofpels. And therefore we mud fuppofe, that they v/ere not yet writ and publifhed, or however, but lately. For if they had been publifhed feve- ral years, St. Luke, who had accompanied Paid ill Greece, J^fia, Paleftifie, and Rome, could not have been unacquainted with them.
This argument appears to me valid. At left I cannot difcern, where it fails. It has long feemed to me a clear and obvious ar- gument, that the Gofpels of St. Mvtthew and St. Mark were not writ till the year
60,
Ch. IV. thefrji three Gofpeh, g^
60. or afterwards. For if they had been writ fooner, they would by this time have been in the hands of St. Luke, and TheopbiluSi and all the faithful in gene- ral.' And St. Luke could not have ex- pre/Ted himfelf, as he does in this intro- dudion : nor indeed would he have writ any Gofpel at all,
k M jh(
G 3 CHAP.
86
€ H A p. V.
St. Matthew,
Apoftle, and Evangelift.
I. His Hiflorie, II. Tcjllmonics of ancient Writers to his Gojpel. III. Remarks upon them, for difici-ning the Time of this Go f- fel. IV. Characters of Time in the Gcfpel itj'elf. V. The Language^ in injhich it was writ,
I. WKMy\Atthew (a) called alfo (e) Le- g ^^ g -j/, fon of (c) Alpheiis, was a llMMj^ Publican, or (d) Toll-gatherer
under the Romans. He was, undoubtedly,
a native
•
(a) The hifiorie of our Lord's calling this difcij.le is in Matth. ix. Q. . . 13. Mark ii. 13, . . 16. Luke v. 27. . . 32,
(b) This Evangelift, in his account of his being called by Chrift. r.ames himfelf Mattke-uu, ch. ix. 9. But St. Mark ^nd St. Luke in their accounts of it call him Le'vi. Mark
Ch.V. St. Matthew. Sj
a native of Galilee, as the reft of Chrift's
Apoftles
ii. 14. Luhe v. 27. & 29. This has induced Gro//«; to ar- gue, that Matthenv and Le--vi are different perfons : though he cannot deny, that the circumilances of the hiftorie lead us to think, one and the fame perfon to be intended. Video omnes hodie ita exiltiinare, hunc eundem effe, quem Marcus & Lucas Levi nominant. Et fane congruunt circumftan- tiae. GroL ad Mat. ix. 9. It is obfervable, that Heracleoriy the Vakntinian, as cited by Clement of J. Str. /. 4. p. 502. reckons among Apoftles, who had not fufFered martyrdom, Matikezv, Philip, Thomas, awA Le-vi. By ifw, probably, Ti/if- racleon meant Lebheus, otherwife called Thaddeus, Vid. Fair, Bib. Gr. /, 4. cap. ^, T. ^. p. 126. Coteler. Annot. in Con- fiitut. I. 8. cap, 22. Dodnv. Dijf. Iren. i. n. 24. It is cer- tain, that Eufebe and Jerome thought MaZ/i'^w za.^Le'vi to be only two names of one and the fame perfon. See in this work, vol. viii. p. 83. Vol. x. p. 83. and 89. More- over, in the catalogues of the Apofiles, which are in Mark iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. Afts i. 13. is the nameMa/Z^^iy, It is likely, that Le-Tji was the name, by which the Apoftle was called in the former part of his life : and Mntthcvj the name, ty which he was beft known afterwards.
(c) That is faid by St. Mark only ch. ii. 14. But we do not perceive, who Alpheus was. Tilkmont obferves to this purpofe. " St. Mark gives him the furname of Alpheus : t3u " T» c«A9«/B. Which may have been the name of his father. " This has given occafion to fome of the ancients, and to all *' the modern Greeks, to fay, that ye?mes th^ (on of Jlpheus " was his brother : though it be entirely deftitutc of all pro- ** bability. Quoiqu'il iln'yaiten cela aucune apparence." Tillem. S. Matt. init. Mem. 7. i.
Dr. Do^^W^ji?, Family Expofitor. Set^.44. Vol. i. p. z8o. fays roundly, " that Mattheiv, otherwife called Zf<i;/, was the " {onofAlpheui, and the brother of y«w*;, Comp. Mark iii.
G 4 " iS.
g8 Sf. MattJxw. Ch. V.
Apoflles were : but of what city in that coun- tixy, or which tribe of the people oLI/raely is not known.
As he fat at the Receipt of Cuflcm, by the Jca Jide, in the city of Capernaum, or near it, Jefiis [did unto him : Follow me. And he aroje, and followed him. Which needs not to be underflood to imply, that Matthew did not make up his accounts with thofc, by whom he had been employed, and en- trufled.
After-
<= 18. Luke vi. 15. A6ls i, 13.'" But I do not think, thofe texts can afford fufficient proof, that Matthen.v, and James the fon of Jlpheus, had the fame father, and were brothars. If that had been the cafe, their relation to each other would I have been hinted, or plainly declared in the Gofpels.
1 do not love bold conjedures in others, and would not indulgemy-felf in them. But J fufpcd, that thefe words in Mark ii. 14. fon of Alpheus, rh Te ff/is«/B, are an interpo- lation, fonie how or other, undcfgnedly, and accidentally inferted in that place. What is truly faid of James, has been ^\{o a-pplisd to MaiiLeav, The curious may do well to con- fider, whether this conjecture be not countenanced by the fingularity of the thing, faid no where elfe, and by the va- rious readings of that text, which may be feen in Beza, Mi//, and Wetfein.
(d) " His office feems more particularly to have confifted in
'V gathering the cuftoms of commodities, that came by the fea
*' of Galilee, and the tribute, which pafTengers were to pay,
^' that went by water." Cavers Lhes of the Jpojlks, ^.
V.h
Ch. V. Sl Matthew, 89
Afterwards (e) he made an entertainment, at his houfe, where Jefus v/as prefent, and likewife divers of his difciples. And there fat at table v</ith them many PubHcans, and others, of no very reputable charader in the eye of the Pharlft-es, who were ftrid: in external purifications, and other like obfer- vances. Matthew^ it is likely, was v^iiling to take leave of his former acquaintance in a civil manner. He was likewife delirous, that they (hould converfe with Jefus, hop- ing, that they might be taken with his dif- courfe. And Jefus, with a view of doing good, and to fliew, that he did not dif- daln any man, made no exceptions to this defign of his new difciple. Nor is it un- likely, that the ends aimed at were obtained, in part at left. Matthew'^ former friends did, probably, dlfcern fomewhat extraordinarie in
Jefus,
(e) That this entertainment was not made by Matthew (jn the very day that Chrifl called him to attend on him, is argued by Mr. Jo7ies in his Vindication of the former part of St.Matthe-jj's Gofpel, p.' 129. . . 137. and by Dr, Doddridge. Kamily Expofitor, Vol. i. fed. LXXI. note (a), who fays ; " It is certain, the feaft was after the day of his calling, pcr- " haps, feme months after : when he had made up his ac- " compts, and regularly paffed his bufmefs into other hands : '? which, tobefure, from a principle ofjufdce, as well as *' prudence, he would take care to do."
go St. Matthew: Ch. V.
Jefus, (o far as to induce them to think, it was not unreafonable in him to leave his former employment, for the fake of the companie of Jefus, and the advantages, which in time he might receive from him. The Pharifees made reflections. But our Lord vindicated himfelf. And all the three Evangelifts have recorded this inflance of our Lord's amiable familiarity and condefcenfion, v/hich is one of the diftindions of his fhin- ino^ character. And it is a proof, that at the time of their vtrriting, feverally, their Gof- pels, they v;ere molded into the temper and principles of him, v/hofe hiilorie they wrote. .
Jefus now called Matthew to be with him, to be a witneffe of his words and works, and he put him into the number of his Apoftles. Thenceforward he continued with the Lord Jefus. And after his afcenfion, he was at 'Jerufalem^ and partook of the gift -of the Holy Ghod, with the other Apoflles. Tcp^ether with them he bore teftimonie to the refurredlion of Jefus : and, as may be fuppofed, preached for fome while at ^eru- fdkt?jy and in the feveral parts of Judeay confiiming his dodrine v»'ith miracles, which
God
Ch. V. St. Matthew. 9 1
God enabled hiin to perform in the name of Jefus.
In his own catalogue of the twelve Apo- ftles, ch. X. he is the eighth in order. In St. Mark'^ch.^ii. and St. Lukes ch. vi. he is the feventh. He is alfo named in the eighth place, A(5ls i. 13. Nor is there any parti- cular account in the Gofpels of the call of any .of the Apoftles, except his, and four other, Ajjdrew and Peter, and the two fons of "Lebedee, who were called before (f).
Clejnent of Alexandria fays, that (a) the Apoftle Matthew ufed a very fparing diet, eating no flefli, but only vegetables. But, perhaps, this is faid upon the ground only of fome uncertain tradition, not well at- tefled.
SocrafeSi in the fifth centurie, fays, that (b) when the Apoftles went abroad to
preach
(f) St. yohn fays ch. i. 43. The day folloiutng, Jefus nuouM go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and faith unto him: Follotv me. If Philip was then called by our Lord to be an Apoftle, he ought to be added to the others above named.
(a) MaT'd-a,7i^ iJ.h bi/ 0 aVorcA.^ a'mt^iJ.a.rtov, )y «V,po(/*pt/- (01), J^ ^ocyidveoVy uviu KfiZv y.Z.7iKa[ASoiViV. Clem. Paed. I. 2. p. \\^.D.
(b) 'Uvi/.a. ot a'm'o^o'Koi KhiifKo tmv Ik Ta l-^vn ';ro^e{Ocv
^Btt^ J'i M^ioi!ia.v, v,.}\» Socr, H, E./.i, c. 19.
92 Sf. Mattheiv. Ch. V.
preach to the Gentils, Thomas took Parthia for his lot, Matthew Ethiopia, and Bartho' lomew India. And it is now a common opi- nion, that Matthew i^c) died a Martyr in Ethiopia, in a city called Nadabbar, or Nad- daver : but by what kind of death, is altoge- ther uncertain. However, fome others fpeak of his preaching, and dying in Par- thia, ox Perfia. And the diverfity of thofe accounts feems to fhew, that they all are ' without good foundation.
I think, it may be of ufe to take here at length a paffage of Eufebe, at the begining of the third book of his Ecclefiaftical hifto- rie, after having ■ in the preceding book fpoken of the many calamities in yudea, when the war was juft breaking out. " This, *' fays he, was the llate of things with the " Jews. But the holy Apoilles and difciples *' of our Saviour being difperfed abroad, ** preached in the whole world. Tho- *' mas, as we learn by tradition, had Par- *' thia for his lot, Andrew Scythia^ John *' yf/ia. Who having lived there a long " time died at Ephefiis. Pete7\ as it feems, i " preached to the difperfed Jews in Pon-
« tliS
(c) See Cai'e^s Lives of the ApJtkSi ^^ndhis Hiji. Lit,
Ch.V. Sf. Matthew.
** fus, and Galatia^ Bithyiiia^ Cappadocia^ " and Afia. At length coming to RomCy he *' was crucified, with his head downward, " as he had defired. What need I to fpeak " of FauU who fully preached the gofpel of ** Chrift from 'Jeriifalem to Illyricumt and ** at lafl: died a Martyr at Rome^ in the time " of Nero F So fays Origen exprefsly in the *' third tome of his Expofitions of the book *' of Genefis."
Thus writes our Ecclefiaftical Hiflorian. But, as Valefius obferves, it (d) is not eafie to determine exadly, where the quotation from Origen begins.
However, from this paflage, as it feems, we may conclude, that at the begining of the fourth centurie, there were not any cer- tain and well attefted accounts of the places, out oijudea^ in which many of the Apoftles of Chrifl preached. For if there had, Eiifebe muft have been acquainted with them. In particular we may hence infer, as I appre- hend, that there was no certain account, whi- ther Matthew went, when he left Jiidea. For
there
(d) Cum Eufeblus hie dicat, fuperiora ex libro tertio Ex- planationum Origenis.in Genefim effe defumta, dubitari me- rito poteft, unde incipiaut Origenis verba, &c. Vale/. Annot. 3. cap. I.
91
^4 ^^* Matthew. Cb. V.
'there is no notice taken of him in this pal?age. Nor does "Jerome in his article of St. Matthew y in his book of llluftrious Men, formerly [e) tranfcribed at large, take any notice of the countreys, in which he preach- ed. Nor do I recolle(5l, that in any other of his genuine works he has faid any thing of the travels of this Apoflle.
Heracleon^ a learned 'Falentinian^ in the fecond centurie, as cited by Clement oi Alex- andria, reckons (f) Matthew among thofe Apoftles, who did not dye by martyrdom. Nor does Clement con trad id: him.
It is alfo obfervable, that {g) Chrjfofiom has a commendation of Matthew, conlifting of divers ai tides : his humility, merciful- nelTe or liberality, piety, general benevolence, "writing aGofpel, finally, fortitude, inafmuch as he came from the pre fence of the Ccimcil re- joyc'ivg : referring, I fuppofe, to A6ls v. 41. But fays nothing of his martyrdom. Which may induce us to think, that there was not
any
[e) Vol. X. p.Sg. 90.
[f) Ov yap TuMTii ot ffK?Jiij.zwt co[j.oXiyilffAV tw J^iu t«? (^mni ouoXoyioiV, iy k^tiXGoV e^ eov //.ctTGosToj, (pjAc^-TO?, 0«^/Sf, ^ivii, J^ c?AAo/ 'TToKMi. Clem. Str. I. 4, p, 502, B.
[g) In Matth, hum. 48. al, 49. T. J.f. 491.
Ch. v. ^ 5'/. Matthew. 95
,any tradition about it among Chriftians at that time, or that it was not much regarded.
II. Having thus given the hif^orie of this Tejiimonks Apoftle, I proceed to the confideration of w/^^ his Gofpel, one of the univerfally acknow- ledged books of the New Teflament. Two things principally are to be the fubjeds of our inquirie, the time of writing it, and the language in which it was writ. And I pro- pofe to recite here briefly all, or moft of the authors, that have been largely quoted in the former volum.es, fo far as relates to thofe two particulars.
Papias, Bp of Hierapolh^ about A. D. 116. by fome fuppofed to have been ac- quainted with ^ohn the Apofile, by others with 'John the Elder only, in his five books, entitled Explications of the Oracles of the Lord, which feem to have been colledUons of ancient ftories and traditions, makes (h) exprefs mention of Matthews Gofpel, and fays, that he wrote the Divine Oracles in the Hebrew tongue.
Irenaeus, Bifhop of Lyons, about the year 178, who was born in Afia^ and in his youth was acquainted with Polycarp, difciple of
St.
{h) Seeo/thii fwork. Vol. i.p, z\z. the fecond edition.
96 Sl Matthew. , Ch. V*
St. joJm, fays : " Matthew (i) then among *' the Jev/s wrote a Gofpel in their own " language, while Peter and P^?^/ were " preaching the gofpel at Rome^ and found- " ing [or eilabiifhiDg] the church there. *' And after their exit, [that is, death, or de- *' parture,] Mark alfo the difciple and inter- ** prefer of Peter ^ delivered to us in writing, " the things that had been preached by " Peter. And Ltikcy the companion of *' Paul^ put down in a book the gofpel *' preached by him. Afterwards John^ the *' difciple of the Lord, who leaned upon " his bread:, likewife publilhed a Gofpel, ** v/hilft he dv/elt at Ephefus^ in AfiaJ' In another place he fays, *' the [k) Gofpel ac- " cording to Matthew was delivered to the «' Jews."
Origen^ about 230. fays, " that (/) ac- " cordino; to the tradition received bv him/ ** the firll Gofpel was written by Matthe-ui}^
*' once
Haer. 1. 3. cap, i. Etap. Eujeb. /. 5. c, 8. ^««/ //; this ivork Vol. i. p. 3S3-
(/f) See Vol. i. p. 356.
(/) Vgl. Hi. /. 235.
Ch. V. St. Matthew, 97
" once a Publican, afterwards a Difciple of ** Jefus Chrift : who delivered it to the Jew- '' ifli believers, compofed in the Hebrew ** language." And in another place he fays, ** that (m) Matthew wrote for the Hebrews,'' Says Eufebe, about 315, " Matthew (n) " having firfl: preached to the Hebrews^ '* when he was about to go to other people, " delivered to them in their own language ** the Gofpel according to him, by that " writing fupplying the want of his pre- *' fence with thofe whom he was leavino;." Athanajiusy in his Feftal Epiftle (0) does not fay, where, or in what language, Mat- thew wrote. But in the Synopfis, afcribed to him, it is faid, " that (p) Matthew wrote '* his Gofpel in Hebrew^ and publifhed it at ** yeriifalem.'*
Cyril of Jerujalefn fays, " that (q) Mat^ thew wrote in Hebrew."
Epiphaniits likewife fays, ** that (r) Mat- thew wrote in Hebrew,'' And afterwards.
(m) P. 278. (k) Vol. viii.p. gz. See a/Jh p. 177.
(0) Vol, "jiii. p. 227, . (p) r. 2j^g. (q) P. 271. (r) P. 304. and 2)0^,
Vol. I. * H *« Matth
(Jew
^8 Sf. Matthew. Ch. V.
*< Matthew (s) wrote firft, and Mark foon " after him, being a follower of Peier, at " Rome'' If iWi7r;^ did not write till after Peter came to i^ow^, and Matthew but a little before him ; it follows, that Matthews Gofpel was not writ fo foon, as many later writers have fuppofed.
Gregorie Nazianzen, in his catalogue, fays,
" that (t) Matthew w^ott for the Hebrews,'"
And Ebedjefuy "that (u) Matthew, the
firfi: Evangelift, publiilied his Gofpel in Pa-
lejltne, writ in Hebrew."
Theodore of Mopfuejlia fays, " that (x) for " a good while the Apoftles preached chiefly to 'Jews in Jiidea, Afterwards Providence made way for conducting them to remote countreys. Peter went to Rome^ the reft *^ elfev/here, Johriy in particular, took up his " abode at Ephefus. , . . About this time " the other Evangel ifts, Matthew, Mark, *« and Luke, publiihed their Gofpels, which " were foon fpread all over the world." This fuppofeth a late date of the Gofpels, as was argued vol. ix. p. 405, that is, after the
begining
(s) V.vQvi cTs (j.era tov fJLa.7^ctiov otKoXii^oi ^•£Vo//«V3s o //ap- KOi 70) ayieo ■yrirfu kv p;i//«. Citat. ib. p. 305 • (t) Vol. ix. p. 133. Comp. />. I 34. (uj P.. Zl6s (x)P.^O^,
a tt cc
Ch.V. Sl Mciithew.
begining of Nerds, rfign, when Peter went to Rome, and not long before the war in Jiidea, which broke out in 66. about which time Jofm left that countrey, and fettled at Ephefus.
Says Jerome in the prologue to his Com- mentarie upon St. Matthew : ** The (y) firfl: *' Evangelift is Mattheisj, the Publican, fur- *' named Le'vi, who wrote his Gofpel in " Judedy in the Hebrew langu;^ge3 chiefly ** for the fake of the jews that believed in *' Jefus, and did not joyn the fliadow of " the law with the truth of the gofpel.'* To the like purpofe in the article of St. Matthew^ in his book of EcclefiaRical Wri- ters : " Matthew (z) called alfo Levi, of a *' Publican made an Apoftle, firft of all wrote " a Gofpel in Judea in the Hebrew language, *' for the f.-ke of thofe of the circumclfion, " who believed. Who afterwards tranilaced *' it into Greeks is uncertain.
Chryfojlom in the introdudion to his ho- milies upon this Gofpel : " Matthew (a) is " faid to have writ his Gofpel at the requeft: " of the Jewifh believers, who delired him *' to put down in writing what he had
H 2 "taught
(y) Vol x.p. 83.
99
100 ^^' Matthew. Ch. V.
" taught them by word of mouth. And " he is faid to have writ in Hebrew.'^ He fpeaks with hefitation, and is not pofitive about the occalion of writing this Gofpel, or the language, in which it was writ. Afterwards he fays : " In (b) what place ** each one of the Evangelifts wrote, cannot '^ be faid with certainty."
CofmaSf of Alexandria, about the year 53 5> %'^ • " Matthew (c) is the firft Evan- " gelift, that wrote a Gofpel. There being <* a perfecution, when Stephen was ftoned, ** and he alfo being about to go from that ** place, the believers entreated him to leave " with them a written infirudion, with " which requeft he complied." And what follows.
The Author of the Imperfed Work upon St. MattheWy in the fixth centurie, about the year 560, obferves to this purpofe : ** The " (d) occafion of Matthew's writing is faid *' to be this. There being a great Perfecu- " tion in Falejline, fo that there was danger, ** lead: all the faithful fliould be difperfed : ^ " that they might not be without teaching.
*' though
(h) P. 3 1 6. (c) Vol XI. p, 266.
('*/;?. 327. 328.
Ch. V. Sh Matthew. loi
*' though they (hould have no teachers,
" they requefted Matthew to write for them
*« a hiftorie of all Chrift's words and works,
" that wherever they fliould be, they might
*' have with them the ground of their faith."
This writer does not fay, that this was the
perfecution, that arofe about* the time of
the death of Stephefi. He feems to fpeak
of a later, and more general perfecution and
difperfion, fuch as may be well fuppofed
to have been in Jtidea, near the war, in 66.
When moft, or all the Apoftles, and many
of the Jewifh believers, removed, and were
difperfed into other countreys.
In the Pafchal Chronicle, a work com- pofed in the feventh centurie, as formerly cited, it is intimated, that (e) St. Matthew publifhed his Gofpel in Pakjliney about fifteen Years after our Lord's afcenfion, and foon after the Council at Jerufalemj of which an account is given A(fts xv.
And, to draw to a conclufion of this lift of writers. TheophylaSf, in the eleventh cen- turie, fays : *' Matthew then (f) iirft wrote a
H 3 V Gofpel
(e) See Vol. vtii, p. 178.
(f) Vol, xi.p, 419. 420.
102 Si, Matthew. Ch. V,
'' Gofpel in the Hebrew language, for the " fake of the Hehrew believers, eight years " after our Saviour's afcenfion."
Euthvmius in the beginins: of the tv/elfth ' ccnturie : " That (g) Matthew'^ Gofpel was " the firil, and writ in Judea^ in Hebrew^ *' for the Jewifli believers, eight years after .*' our Lord's afcenHon."
Nicephoriis Cdllilti^ in the fourteenth cen- turie, fays : " Matthew (h) having preached • ** the faving word to the Jews, when he *' was about to go abroad tp the Gentils, " thought it befl: to write in his native lan- *' g^^g^ ^^^ account of his preaching, to fup- " ply the want of his prefence. Which he ** did at about fifteen years after our Saviour's " afcenfion." jlemarh. ^^^' Who HOW of all thcfe wrltcrs de- ferves the greateft regard ? Irenaeiis^ I think, as being the moft ancient, i^nd with him gorree Etiphanius, Jhecdore of MopfuejViay and the Author of the Imperfedl Work, as it feems. Nor is he contradided by Enfebhis cf Cefarea, fo far as I can (i) perceive. He
fays,
(g) P- 435. W P- 442.
'(i) See Vol. 'viii. />. 177. . . 179.
Ch. V. Sf. Matthew. 103
fays, " that when Matthew was about to *' go to other people, he deHvered his Gof- *' pel to the Hebrews in their own language." But he does not fay in his Ecclefiaftical Hif- torie, nor any where eife, when this Apoflle left Judea, Some (k) may have underflood him to mean about eight years after our Saviour's afcenfion, and others about fifteen years after it, as Nicephorus^ and perhaps the Pafchal Chronicle. But himfelf has not expreffly mentioned the time. And he may have been undetermined in his mind about the time, when Matthew left Judea. More- over, he has inferted (I) in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie the pafTage of Ireimem above quo- ted, upon which we infift. And a late date of the Gofpels is agreeable to his own, and others obfervations, before taken notice of, that the Apoflles of Chrifl did not write many books, and were not very forward to write, but as they v/ere compelled by a kind of necefllty.
There are divers learned moderns of good judgment in thefe matters, who pay a great regard to this teftimonie of Ircnaeus^ parti- al 4 cularly,
(k) $te Vol via. p. lyS.'&c. (I) L. 5. cap. S.p. 172.C.
104 Sl Matthew. Ch. V,
culady, (m) FahriciuSy (n) Mi'llj (o) S. Baf- nage^ and before them (p) Martin Cbemni' tius, \r Mill fuppofed it \o be highly probable, that (q) Irejiaeiis had this account from Fa- pias, Le Clerc (r) likewife feems to have thought, that Irenaeus found this in the five books of Fapias. But that is only conjedlure. Fitfebe quoting Fapias obferves, that he faid, Matthew vvro'e in Hebrew. But he does not fay, that Fapias mentioned the time of vitI- ting his Gofpel. However, it was the opi- nion of Irenaeus, And it may be reckoned not improbable, that he had a tradition to that purpofe, which he relied upon as right. For he fpeaks of it without hefitation. It
might
(rn) De tempore, quando fcripferit, cui potius fidem ha- beamus, qiiam S. Irenaeo, temporibus illjs proximo, qui tradit eum edidifle Evangeiiuni,- 7» Trirfa jy rZ 'rdv\H iv pa/j.^ ivayyzXi(cy.ivei>v K) ^tiuhmrcov tw iKKAmloiV. Bit;, Gr, I. 4. c. 5. T. 3. p. 126.
(n ) Prolegom. num. 61. (0) A, 64. n. xii.
(p ) Ex amen Concil TrM. p. l6.
(q) Tamen Irenaeus 1. 3. c. i. exprefle dicit, ex aii6ioritate Papiae, nullus dubito, qui rrocpiJ'offiV hanc a Joanne Prefby- tero, Apoflolorum familiari, acceperat, Matthaeum Evan- gelium fuum edidifle, cum Petrus et Paulus e'vangelizarent Rs^ rnae, et fuvdarent ecckfiam. Pro/eg. num. 6l.
(r) Vid. DlJ'. de i'V, E'vang.fub init.
Ch. V. Sf, Matthew, 105
mij^ht be derived from feveral, one of whom was Paptas.
Ircfiaeiis fays, that " Matthew publifhed his Gofpel, when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome : " that is, fays (s) Mill, in the year 61. " For, adds he, I underftand " him of the firft time, that Paul was at " *' Rome" But if Irenaeus fays right, it muft have been at the fecond time that Paul was at Rome. For we have no reafon to beheve, that Peter was at all in that city, when Paul was fent thither by Fejlus. But, very pro- bably, Peter and Paul were there together afterwards, and fufFcred martyrdom there, about the fame time. That is the feafon, to which we fhould be led for fixins: the writing of St. Matthew's Gofpel, if Ireiiaem may be relied upon. Accordingly Bajnage (t) in his Annals fpeaks of St. Matthew'^
Gofpel
(s) Atque hoc ipfo quidem anno lxi, prodiifle videtur Evangelium Matthaei. . . Ego quidem de priori adventu in- telligendum Irenaeum omnino arbitror, lb. mtm, 6i. 6z.
(t) Quo tempore Petrus Paulufque Romae operam dabant evangelio, Matthaeus, fi creditur Jrcnaeo, Evangelium ex- aravit fuum. . . Annum tamcn pcrindc atque locum, ubi a Matthaeo conditum eft, in incerto efle, facile patimur. . . Nos nonnifi Nerone rerum domino editum fuifle, perfuafum habemus, etfi de anno locove divinare non pofTumus. Nulla
tamen
io6 St. Matthew. Ch. V.
Gofpel at the year 64. And though, as he fays, he does not know the year, nor the place, where St. Matthew's Golpel was pub- lidied, yet he expreffeth himfelf, as if he w.. s inclined to think, it was not writ, till Nero's reign was fomewhat advanced, in the year C4. or 65. the time of that Emperour's perfecution of the Chriftians.
Other learned men are for an earlier date. V/hofe opinions alfo, undoubtedly, ought to be taken notice of, and confidered by us.
Cave thought, that (nj St. Matthew's Gof- pel was writ about the fifteenth year after our Saviour's afcenfion, in the year 48. a fliort time before the council of Jeriijalem,
or foon after it.
Baronius
tamen fe magis veri fpecie commendat chronologia, quam ilia Irenaei : quod nempe Paulo et Petro Romanes inftituentibus, fcribendo Matchaeus operam dederit : ut Ecdefiae aliquid monumenti efiet, quo ob ortum ex perfecutione Neronis do- lorem leniret, fan£lorumque Apoftolornm eo flut!lu oppreflb- rum faciem in Evangelio videre fibi videretur Ecclcfia. Baf/t. Ann. 64. n. x'li.
(u) ScripfuTe Evangelium fuum viii. a Chrifti refurredVione anno vulgo dicitur. Quod tamen ad annum a Chrilli affum- *tione 15. referunt auftor Chr. A. et Nicephorus. Et fane eum ante annum a paffione ChriiH 12. Apoftolis Judaeae finibus egredi non licuit, vix ante ann. i 5. chr. 48. finita fy- riodo Hierofolymitana, ad fuam quifque fortem abierunt, adeo ut paullo ante Matthaeus Evangcliunn fuum condidiff^ videtur. H. L. in Matthaio, p. 13.
Ch. V. St. Matthew.
Baronius vv'as of opinion, tbat (x) this Gofpel was publilhed in the year 41. foon after that Peter, had begun to preach to Gentils at the houfe of Cornelim in Cejarea,
Grot ins (y) and G. /. Vojfius (zj were hke- wife of opinion, that St. Matthew's Gofpel was writ about eight years after Chrift's af- cenfion.
^illemont argues, " That (a) St. Matthew wrote his Gofpel about three years after the crucifixion of Chrift. For it mud have been writ before the Apoflles left 'Jzidea. The time of their going abroad, as he owns, is uncertain. But it mufi: have been about the year 36. forafmuch as it appears, that in the year 37. when Paul came to "Jcrufalem^ there were no other Apofiles there, befide
Peter^
(x) Baron. Ann. 41. ?inm, ix, xvi,
(y) Grot. Pr. ad Matth.
(x.) Si quidem Matthaeus in Paleftina feribebat, idque in- tra proximum a pafTione Chrifti odennium. FoJ'. de Gen. J . C. cap. 4. §. zV. '
(a) II femble mefme nece/Taire de dire, que S. Matthieu a ecrit trois ans {"eulement apres la mort de J. C. . . Le temps de cette divifion des Apotres eft incertain. II femble nean- moins, que 9'a ete vers Tan 36. puifqu'il paroill, qu'il n'y avoit aucun Apoftre a Jerufalem, lorfque S. Paul vint en 37. hors §. Pierre, et S. Jacque le mineur. S. Matthieu. Mem. 7, i.
107
io8 St. Matthew. Ch. V.
Peter^ and James the Lefs." But that ar- gument is of no value. For the Apoftles might be all at Jernfalem, or in it's neigh- borhood, though Paul favv none, befide the two juft mentioned.
Mr. Jones earneftly contends, that (b) this Gofpel was writ about eight years after our Lord's afcenficn, in the year 41. But I do not think it needful to take any farther notice of his arguments, than has been done (c) already.
Mr. Wetjiein has lately declared in favour of the fame opinion. " And (d) hence, fays he^ " we difcern the reafon, why this Evange- " lift has inferted fo many difcourfes about
*' the
(b) h!en.ij and full Method, bfc. Vol. Hi. ch.ni.p. 59. . . 64.
(c) See Vol. 'vin. p. 176. . . 1 79.
(d) Magno confenfu perhibent Patres, Matthaeum in gratiam credentium ex Judaeis in Palaeftina Evangelium fuum eAfcripfifle, et quidem, ut multi addunt, Hierofolymis, oc- tavo poft afcenfionem Chrifti anno, qui Claudii Imperatoris primus fuit. Cur illorum teftimonium in dubium vocetur, caufam non video : quin ilia hypothefi admiffa, plurima non infeliciter exiflimo explicari poffe, quorum aliter ratio vix in- venitur. Hinc enim intelligimus, cur Matthaeus primum in ordine Evangeliftarum occupet locum, quia nimirum primus omnium fcripfit : cur item tarn mukas de Judaeorum fuperlli- tionibus referat difputationes, quibus apud alias nationes, vel templo jam everfo, vel paulo poll evertendo, locus vix fuiffet, Wetji. N. T. Tom. i. p. zz^.
Ch.V. St. Mcittheiv. 109
*« the Jewldi fuperflitlons : which could be ** of little or no ufe to other people, and " among other nations, when $he temple " was once deftroyed, or was near being def- " troyed." But I am not able to difcern any force in that way of reafoning, becaufe I perceive not any fuperfluities in this, or any of the Evangelids. Our Lord's reproofs of Jewifh fuperftitions, his declarations of the fuperiority of moral virtue, or righteoufnefie and true holinefle, above the righteoufnefTe of the Scribes and Pharifees, his cenfures of the pride and covetoufnefie, falfe maxims, and hypocritical condud of the fame men, will be ufeful to all people, fo long as the world ftands. As our Lord was a Jew, and his miniftrie was employed among thofe people mjudea; it is no wonder, that in his dif- courfes, recorded by St. Matthew, whenever he wrote, there fhould be frequent allufions to their laws, cuftoms, and worfhip. The like (e) are in the other two firft Evangeliils.
And
(e) When Mr. JVetfdn fpeaks of the many dlfcourfes about ye^vijh fuperjlitions, which are in St. Mattheiv^s Gofpel : I imagine, he may particularly refer to Matt, xxiii. i. . . 30. Neverthelefs divers of thofe things occur alfo in the Gof- pels of St. Mark and St. Luke. See Majk jdu 38. . . 40.
Luke
no Sl Matthew. Cb. V;
And in St. Johfis Gofpel, the lad of the four, are as long difcourfes with the cavilling Jews, as in any of the reft.
I therefore readily aiTent to thofe, who think, that this Gofpel was writ in the time of the Emperour NerOy not till about thirty years after our Saviour's afcenfion. I am not able to aflign the year, in which it was writ. But I am fomewhat inclined to the year 63. 64. or 65. of the vulgar epoch. This is agreeable not only to the teflimonie of IrenaeiiSy and fome other ancients, but to the circumflances of things. At the year 64. or thereabout, the gofpel had been propagated in many Gentil countreys, the times were troublefome in Judeay and the war Vt/as coming on : feveral of the Apoftles were dead, others of them, who furvived, were gone, or going abroad, and many of the Jewiili believers were about to feck ihelter elfewhere. Now was a proper time, to write a hiftorie of Chrifl, and his mi- racles. Moreover in this Gofpel are re- corded
Luke xl. 42. ; . 52. and xx. 46. 47. And both Mark viii. 1 4, . . zi . and Luke xii. 1.2. have recorded our Lord's injunc- tions, to beivare of the lea^jen of the Pharifees, and SacUitcees, or Herodians, as well as Mutthe-iv xvi. 6. . . I z. Not now to mention any other like things,
Ch. V. Sl Matthew. tii
corded divers plain predifllons of the ml- feries and defolations of 'Jeriifalem^ and the overthrow of the temple, and the Jevvifh flate, beiide many other figurative intima- tions of the fame things in many of our Lord's difcourfes and parables. Which could not be vi^ell publiihed to all the world in writing, till about this time. The fuita- bleneffe of St. Mattbew\ Gofpel to the flate of the Chriftian Religion, and of the Jewifh People, about the year 64. or 6^. leads to that time. And however unwillingly, from private apprehenfions and prejudices, we may admit the thought of protracting fo long the writing the hiftorie of our Lord's minidrie; the circumftances of things will conftrain us to acquiefce in this feafon, as the mod li|<ely.
IV. This leads me now to obferve fome Marks of charaders of time in the Gofpel itfelf. MsQqM.
It is well known, and allowed bv all, that (f) for a while cur Lord's difciples labored under Jewifli prejudices : and that they did not fully underfland all his dif- courfes,
(f) There are man/ proofs of this in the Gofpels. See particularly John xvi. 7. . . 14. and likewife the hiilorie in the Ads. ch. x.
J 12 St. Matthew, Ch. V.
courfes, at the time when they werefpoken. They did not, they could not, clearly dif- ■ cern the comprehenfive defign of the evan- gelical difpenfation, till after Peter had been at the houfe of Cornelius^ and there received into the Church Gentil converts, without circumcifion : nor till after the gofpel had been preached abroad in foreign countreys by Paul, and other Apoftles, and minifters. Let us therefore now obferve the book itfelf of St. Matthew, and fee what knowledge he appears to have had of the fcheme of the gofpel.
1. His account of the commifTion, which our Lord gave to the twelve Apoftles is in ch. xxviii. 19. Go ye therejore into all the 'world, and teach all nations. Matthew did not then think, that the Apoftles of Jefus were to teach Jews only, but that they were re- quired to teach all people, and all nations in general.
2. I fuppofe, that he fully underflood our Lord's dodrine, when he recorded that fum- marie account of it, which is in the fifth, iixth, and feventh chapters of his Gofpel. The beatitudes, at the begining, are a proof of it. And at the conclufion, they who heard and did thofe fayings, are compared
to
Ch. V. St. Matthew, 113
to t? man that built his houfe upon a rock: though there had been nothing faid to en- force the rituals of the Mofaic laVv.
3. And that he well underPcood the fpiri- tuality, and the freedom of the gofpel, ap- pears from what he has recorded ch. 3^ v. 10. . . 20.
4. His clear difcernment of the defign of the gofpel-difpenfation appears even in his account of our Saviour's nativity, particularly, in what he fays ch. i. 21. of the melTage of the angel to Jofeph, And thoufialt call his name Jefus, For hefiallfave his people J rom their fins. ^
5. If he had not known, that our Saviour was defigned to be, or was already become a bleffing to GentilSj he would fcarcely have thought of Infertlng the hiftorie of the Ma- glans coming from the Eaft to Jeriifalem, to inquire after the birth of the King of the Jews. Chap. ii.
6. It isalfo very likely, that he underflood thofe words of John the Baptlfl:, recorded by him ch. iii. 9. God is able of thefe fiones to raife up children to Ah rah am.
7. St. Matthews knowledge of the calling of the Gentils, and the rejedlion of the Jews, may be concluded from many things re-
VoL. I. ^ I corded
3 14 St, Matthew. Ch. V.
corded by him. In the hlftorle of our Lord's healing the Centurion's fervant at Capernaum he inferts our Lord's commen- dation of his faith, and that declaration :
Many jhall come from the Eaji and the Wejly aiid Jit dow?i ivith Abraham^ and IfaaCj and yacob, in the kingdom oj heaven : but the chil- dren of the kingdem fiall be cajl out. ch. viii.
ID . . 12.
8. The admiffion of the Gentils to equal privileges with the Jews muft be intimated in the parable of the laborers hired into the vineyard at feveral hours of the day. ch. xx. I . .*i6.
9. The calling and acceptance of the Gentils, and the rejedion of the Jewifh People, and even their overthrow, are plain- ly declared in the parable of the vineyard, let out to hufbandmen, and the difcourfe, which foUov/s. xxi. 33 . . 46. The fame things are intimated in the parable of the King that made a wedding-feafl: for his fon, which is at the begining of the next chapter, xxii. I . . 14.
10. I might llkewife take notice of the hiilorie of our Lord's curing the daughter of the woman oi Canaan, ch. xv. 21 . . 28.
11. It is alfo very likely, that St, Mat-
1 thew
Ch.V. ^t. Matthew. iij
theiv had fome good knowledge, and a dif- tind apprehenfion of the extent of our Lord's kingdom, and the progrelTe of his dodrine, when he recorded thofe parables in the thir- teenth chapter of his Gofpel : where our Lord has compared the kingdom of heaven^ or the preaching his gofpel, to a grain of muftard-feed, the left of all feeds, but be- comes a tree : to leaven, by which a large lump is leavened : to a net, that was caft into the fea, and gathered of every kind. And, explaining the parable of the tares, our Lord fays, ver. 37, 38. He thut fowetb the good feed is the Son of Man. The field is the world. And what follows. ,
12. It is probable, that this Evangeliit had fome knowledge of the gofpel having been preached out of Judea, when he put down that declaration of our Lord concern- ing the woman, that poured the rich oint- ment upon his head : Wherefoevcr the gofpel fhall be preached in the whole worlds there fioall this alfoy that this woman has done, be told for a memorial of her. ch. xxvi. i^*
13. In his account of the inftitution of the eucharift. ch. xxvi. 28. our Lord fays : This is my blood of the New Teftament^ which is fl^edfor many^ that is, for all men, for the
I 2 remifjion
n6 St. Matthew. Ch. V.
remijjion of their fins. And in ch. xx. 28. our Lord fays : lihe fon of man came , . .to give his life a ranfom for many.
14. There is alfo an expreffion ufed by him once or twice, intimating, that it was fome conliderable fpace, fince the time of the event and his writing about it. ch. xxviii. 8. Where- fore that field was called the fcld of hloiid to this day. Having related the aftair of the foldiers, and the directions given to them by the JevviOi Council to fay, that his difciples came by nighty and f ok him away^ he adds : A^id this faying is commodity reported among the Jews iintill this day. ver. 15. Such an ex- preffion does not denote any certain period. But one would think, that, in this cafe, there- by muft be intended a conliderable fpace of time, more than eight, or ten, or fifteeea years.
15. I formerly (g) fliewcd divers advan- tages of the late publication of the Gofpels. The life of Jefus could not be forgotten in thirty, or forty years. His life and death were very public, as well as very extraordi- narie. His refurredion and afcenfion were mofi: publicly attefled by his Apoftles, and others, as we know from the book of the , Ads.
{g) See Vol, viii. p, 1 24. . . j 37.
Ch. V. Si. Matthezv. 117
Ads. And from that time forward there were many, who were continually fpeaking of the things faid and done by him, and of the evidences of his refurredtion and exalta- tion. They were foon known to multitudes of people, fmall and great, and men of all ranks and charaders. As St. Paul fays to Feftus, in a very great affemblie. Ads xxvi. 2,6.. For the King knoweth of thefe things, be- fore whont alfo IJpeakJreely. For I am per- fuaded^ that 7ione of thefe things are hidden from him. For this thing was not done in a corner. And was it not the cry at ^hejaloni- ca f Ads xvii. 6. Thefe that have turned the world upfide down^ are come hither alfo. The account of St.PWs mannerof living atRome, about the years 6 1. and 62. is, that he dwelled two whole years in his own hired houfe^ and received all that came in unto him, , . . teach' ing thofe things, which concer7i the Lordfefus 'Chriji. Ads xxviii. 30. 31. Whilft there were men, who at the hazard of their lives taught, and others that embraced, the things concerning the Lord Jefus, they could not be forgotten. And if about thirty years after our Lord's afcenfion, his hiftorie was writ by eye-witneffes, or their companions, it was foon enough. Yea, it was the fitted time of
I 3 all.
II 8 St. Matthew. Ch. V.
all. At the year fixty, of our Lord's nati- vity, according to the vulgar aera, and later, there certainly were enough fuch perfons, as thofe juft mentioned, ftill living, to record his words and works, and more, who were willing, and defirous to read written hiftories of him, than before : and alfo more to tran- fcribe and copy out thofe hiftories for their own ufe, and for theufe and benefit of others, than in any preceding time.
Jfsorighal V. It remains, that we conlider, in what language this Gofpel was writ: becaufe many of the ancients, whofe teftimonies have been lately recited, though they allow the other Gofpels to have been writ in Greeks have de- livered it as their opinion, that this Gofpel was writ in Hebrew,
Of this I have already fpoken feveral times, particularly, in the chapter of (h) Papias, and in the chapter of (i) Origen, and (k) of Eiifebius of Cefarea : where alfo the opini- ons of divers learned moderns were alleged, who think, it was writ in Greek, To them I now add (I) Le CkrCy who has an argument upon this head, proper to be confulted by
' thofe
(hj Vol. i. p. 243. 244. (i) Vol. Hi. p. 403. . . 408.
(IcJ Vol. 'viii, p. 1 84. ..189. (I) ly'Jf. tit. De iv, Evargeliis,
Ch . V. St, Matthew, r 1 9
thofe who have leifure, but too long to be In- ferted here : and his learned fucceflbr Mr. Wetjlein^ who fays : " Here (m) vjc are of *' opinion, that the Fathers do not fo properly ** bear teftimonie, as deliver their own con- " jedure : which needs not to be admitted, ** if it be not fupported by good reafons, or " may be refuted by probable arguments. " Suppofing, and taking it for granted, that " Matthew wrote for the Jews in Judea, " they concluded, that he wrote in Hebrew. " But there is no weight in that reafon. The *' Greek language was at that time much ufed *' throughout the whole Roman Empire, '* and particularly in Jtidea. Papias^ who firfl
I 4 '' ad-
(m) Neque tarn facile aflentimur fententiae eorundem Pa- trum ftatuentium, Matthaeum fcripfifie Hebraice, hoc eft, Syriace, five Chaldaice, qua lingua tunc temporis Judaei in Palaeftina utebantur. . . Exiftimnmus enim Patres hie jam non teftimonium dicere, fed conjedluram fuam in me- dium proferre, non admittendam, fi aut idoneis rationibus non fit fulta, aut verofimilibus argumentis refutari poflit. Quod enim putant necelfe fuifle ut Hebraeis fcribens He- braice fcriberet, verum non eft : cum conftet eo tempore linguam Graecam per totum Imperium Romanum, et in Judaea praefertim, in ufu fuifle. . . Videntur ergo vetutiflimi Patres, et inter eos Papias, homo fimplex et credulu?, re non explorata, inani Nazaraeorum jadlantiae fidem habuifl'e. . . Nullum fane in noftro Matthaeo reperitur indicium, unde colligi poffit, ex alia in aliam linguam fuiffe converfau). Pluriiaa vero aliud fua^ent. Wetjlen. N. T. Tom. i. p. 224,
•J20 St, Matthew, Ch. V.
*• advanced this opinion, was a weak and cre- " dulous man. Nor are there in our Greek *' Gofpel any marks of it's being a tranflation S' from another language."
Mr. Jones (n) has a long argument, well deferving to be read, fl^ewing, that this Gof- pel was originally writ in Greek.
Mr. Bajnage (o) is of the fame fide, and has argued exceeding well for it. I ihould tranfcribe him, if I had room. As I have not, I refer to him.
Says (*') Dr. Jortin : ** In the time of Chrid and his Apoftles the Greek was really the univerfal language. The New Teftament is a proof of it, if proof were wanting. And this is one rtafon amongft many others, why St. Matthew probably wrote his Gofpel in Greek, See JVetfteiti's N. T. p. 224. St. Matthew ch. v. 47. 48. fays : "On rO^ocva-t 'ovru 'ttoiho-iv, ' Earecr^i iv . vf^sT^ TeXsioi . . that- js^ be not rzXuvxij but TiXsioi. Videtur autem Matthaeus vocem TBXssoi hie adhibuiffe, ut reXuvcag opponeret.
Wetftein.
^n) See his Vindication of the former fart of St. Matthe-Mi Go/pel ch. 17. . . ig. p. iSo. . , i86.
(0) Ann. 64. n. xiii.
(*) See his Difcourfes concerning the Chrijiian ^ligion. p. 1 76. tiote (0) the third, edition.
Ch. V. Sf. Matthew, I2i
Wetftein. Add to this, that rsXc^uvjg and reXeiog are both derived froai the fame word, rsXog, So again, ch. vi. i6. we find an an- tithefis in the words, oi<pot,vi^ii(n to, TrpoVwTra, 'oTTug (pdvua-i. Eleganter dicitnr : Tegunt JacietUy ut apparea?2t, &c. Wetftein.
And many others of the fame fentiment might be mentioned, who are men of great learning and good judgement.
I fiiall now propofe fome obfervations re- lating to this point.
I. If St. Matthew did not write till about thirty years after our Lord's afcenfion, we muft be led to think, he would life the Greek language. That he did not write fooner, I fuppofe to have been fliewn to be very probable. If indeed there were good reafons to think, his Gofpel was writ within the fpace of eight years after Chrift's afcen- fion, we might well conclude, that he wrote in Hebrew, But, to me it feems, that we •may be fully fatisfied, that Matthew did not write within that fpace, nor fo foon as fifteen years after our Lord's afcenfion, nor till fome good while afterwards. St. "James, refiding at yerufalem^ writes an epifile about the year of Chrift 60. as is fuppofed. It is addrefi^ed to the twelve tribes fcattered abroad.
And
122 St. Matthew. Ch. V.
And he writes in Greek, as is allowed. Why, then, fliould not St. Matthew ufe the fame language ?
2. There was very early a Greek Gofpel of St. Matthew. It is quoted, or referred to by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Juf- tin Martyr^ not now to mention any others : none of whom intimate, that they made ufe of a tranflation.
.3. Though many of the ancients fay, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew^ they feem not to have fully believed it. For they have fliewn very little regard to the Hebrew edition of ii. This has been parti- cularly fliewn in the chapters oi (p) Origen, (q) Eufebius of Cefarea, and (r) Jerome, the moll: likely of any of the ancients to make ufe of that edition, if they had been per- fuaded, that it was authentic and original.
4. There are not in our Greek Gofpel of St. Matthew any marks of a tranflation. So faid Mr! Wetjiein in the paffage juft tran- fcribed. And this obfervation was before made by us in the chapter of (s) Papias.
5. There
(p) Vol. Hi. f. 403. . . 408. (q) Vol. mii.p. 185. . . 189. (r)Voi. x.p. 170. . . 172. (s) Vol. i. p. 244.
Ch. V. SL Matthew. 1 23
5. There is no where any probable ac- count, who tranllated this Gofpel inioGreek, No particular tranflator was mentioned by Papias, as may be concluded from the ac- counts given of his books by Enfebe. Nor is any tranflator of this Gofpel named by Irenaeus, Eufebe, or any of the writers of the firft three centuries, that are come down to us. Nor is there any reafon to think, that he was named in any other : forafmuch as no notice is taken of him by Eufebe^ or "Jerome, who faw many writings of ancients now loft, both catholics and heretics. 'Je- rome having faid, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, prefently adds : " Who (t) after- wards tranflated him into Greek, is uncer- tain.'* And all the accounts of a tranflator, fince given, are too late to be credited, and are likewife very improbable. In the Sy- ' nopfis afcribed to Athanafms, but not writ till long after his time, it is faid, ** That (u) Matthew's Gofpel was tranflated into Greek by James, the firft Biftiop of Jerufa* lem." Which is very improbable. It would be more reafonable to imagine, that he tranflated it out of Greek into Hebrew^ But
as
(t) Vol. X. p. 8g. (uj Vol, <viH.f. 249,
124 '^^' Matthew. Ch. V.
as that is not faid by the ancients, fo neither have Vv'e reafon to fay it. Moreover, the fame reafons, as one may think, which would induce James to make a Greek tranf- iation, fhould have, induced Matthew to write in Greek. Neverthelefs Dr. Mill (x) has pitched upon that perfon for the tranf- iator, and formed an argument thereupon. Which only ferves to fliew, that there is nothing, for which fomething may not be faid by thofc, who indulge themfelves in fuppofitions, without ground. 'Theophyladi informs us, that (y) in his time it was faid, that John tranflated this Gofpel into Greek. But it was only a common report. And indeed it could be no more. However, out
of a regard to fuch reports and tefiimonies,
Mr.
(x) Quis in Graecum transfuderit, incertum eft. Papias de hoc nihil ab Ariftione aut Jeanne prefbytero accepit, aut tradidit. Auftor Synopfeos S. Scripturae Jacobo fratri Do- mini diferte adicribit hanc verfionem. 'I heophyladlus, ex fama duntaxat, Joanni Evangeliftae. Ego ad priorem illam fentendam, feu magis verifimikm, accedo. Satis enim pro- babile eft, Evangelium in Hebraeorum ufum lingua jpfdrum patria primum exaratum, ab ipforum Epii'copo primario Ja- cobo, Epifcopo Hierofolymitano, in fermonem Graecum, per provincias, in quas difperfi erant ex gente ifta plurimi, Judaeis pariter ac aliis in ufu familiaii, tranflatum fuiffe, &c. Prokg. num. 66.
tii 7i)v gAMv/sTcc, Ki Kiywh Thecf^h, Pr, in Maitb. />. 2. D.
Ch.V. Sf. Matthew. ~ ii^
Mr. Lampe (z) has very properly reckoned a tranflatlon of this Gofpel among the works falfly afcribed to St. John.
6. Once more, I apprehend, we may dif- cern the origin of this opinion, that St. Mat' thews Gofpel was writ in Hebrew. There was foon made a tranflation of his Greek Gofpel into Hebrew. We have feen proofs, " ••-. that (a) in very early days of Chri{l:ianity there was a Hebrew Gofpel. And many, not examining it particularlyj nor indeed being able to do it, for want of underftand- . ing the language, imagined, that it was firfl writ in Hebrew. Jerome expreilly tells us, that (b) by many in his time the Gofpel according to the Hebrews was reckoned the true and authentic Gofpel of Matthew.
To
(z) Matthael Evangelium Graece a Joanne Evangelifta verfum efle, refert Eutychius Tom. i. Annalinm p. 328. et Nicetas praefatione ad Catenam in Matthaeum. Lampe Pro- Icgom. in "Joan. I. i. cap, 7. tium. 31.
(a) See ch. xi-v. Vol. i. p. 320. 321.
(b) In Evangello, quo utunturNazareni et Ebionltae, quod nuper in Giaecum de Hebraeo fermone tranftulimus, etquod vocatur a plerifque Matthaei authenticum. Hier. in Matth. cap. xii. T. 4. P. i. p. 47.
In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos . . . quo utuntur ufque hodie. Nazareni, fecundum'ApoHolos, five ut plerique juxta Mat- thaeum. Mv. PcJag, /. 3.y«^ in T. 4. p. 533,
226 Sl Matthew, Ch. V.
To this Hebrew tranflation of St.Matthe%v^ Gofpel, poffibly, are owing divers 'things faid by the ancients : as that Matthew pub- lished his Gofpel at Jerufaleniy or in Judea^ for the Jewifli believers, and at their re- queft, before he went abroad to other people. I fay, I do fufpedt the truth of thefe, and fome other like things, faid of St. Matthew, and his Gofpel. All which may have had their rife from the Hebrew edition of his Gofpel, which they imagined to be the original. For I think, that St. Matthew'^, and all the other Gofpels were writ, and intended, for believers of all na- tions. His Gofpel was writ for the Jews, but not for them only, but for Gentils alfo : as manifeftly appears from the Gofpel itfelf, or the things contained in it.
I am alfo ready to fay, with (c) Mr. Bafriage, that I do not know where it was publiihed, whether in Judea, or fome where elfe. But as I think, the Nazaren Gofpel to be St. Matthew's Gofpel tranflated from Greek, with (dj the addition of fome other
things,
(c) Annum tamen perinde ntque locum, ubi a Matthaeo conditum eft, in incerto effe, faciles patimur. Jm. 64. finm. xii.
(d) Dillinguendum enim inter hoc Evangelium, quale
initio
Ch. V. St. Matthew,
things, taken from the other Gofpels, and from tradition : So I reckon, that the Gofpel of MattheWy writ in Greeks was the Gofpel, which firfl came into their hands, and which they gladly received, and made ufe of. I fay again, the notion of St. Matthew's writing in HebreWy probably, had it's rife from the Hebrew edition of his Gofpel. For allow- ing that date of his Gofpel, which to me appears mod probable, I cannot conceive the reafon, why Matthew fliould v/rite in Hebrew any more than any of the other Evangelifts. For it may be reckoned highly probable, or even certain, that he under- ftood Greek, before he was called by Chrifl: to be an Apoftle. Whilft a Publican, he would have frequent occafions both to write and fpeak Greek, And could not difcharge his office, without underftanding that lan- guage.
This Hebrew Gofpel may likewife have been the caufe, why fo many ancient Chrif- tian writers fay, that Matthew wrote firll:.
This
127
initio fuit, et illud, quale p^lfatim fiebat, Nazaraeis varia addentibus. . . Primitus nihil habuit, nifi quod in Graeco nunc legimus. . . Porro I^azafaei plufcula fuis locis inter- feruerunt, quae ab Apoftolis, vel Apoftolicis viris, fando ac- cepilTcnt. G. J. Vof, De Gencal, J. C. cap, ii, mm, i.
128 ^t' Matthew. Ch. V.
This may be true. But I do not think, it was faid upon the giound of any certain knowledge, or good information. I appre- hend it not to be eafie to fay, which Gof- pel was firft writ. For all the firil: three Gofpels were writ about the fame time. And St. Luke's^ for any thing that I know, may have been writ firfl. Which (e) was the opinion of Mr. Baf/iage.
(e) Ann, 6o. num. 31.
F ^ -n
C H A P.
129
C H A P. VI.
Of the Time, when the Apojiles left fudea, to go and preach the Gofpel in other Coun- treys,
/^)§(^^S many ancient Chrlftian writers. Q A g whom we have lately quoted, fay, k-MMjn^ that St. Matthew, having preach- ed fome while in Judea, was deiired by the believers there, to leave with them in wri- ting, before he went away, a hiftorie of what he had taught by word of mouth : this may not be an improper place to in- quire, how long it was after the afcenfion of Jefus, before Matthew, and the other Apoftles, left fudea, to go abroad into fo- reign countreys.
Andfrfi of all, we will obferve fome re- markable pafTages of ancient writers, relat- ing to this matter. And then, fecondly, we Vol. I. * K will
J JO Of the Time, Ch. VI.
will confider what light the book of the Adls may afford upon this fubjed;.
Clement of Alexandria^ about 194. quotes from a work, entided the Preaching oi Peter ^ this pafifage : ** Therefore (a) Peter fays, " that the Lord faid to the Apoftles : If any " Ifraelite will repent, and believe In God " through my name, his fins fliall be for- " given. After twelve years go ye out Into *' the world, that none may fay : We have <* not heard." ^ The next paiTage is that of ApollonluSy
undoubtedly, in part contemporarle with Clement^ and placed by Cave at the year 192. by me at 211. as near the time of his v/riting againft the Montanifis. " Moreover, " fays [h') Etifebe^ he relates as from tradition, " that our Saviour commanded his Apoflles, *' not to depart from yerufalem for the fpace " of twelve years." V/hich pafTage has been already cited in this {c) work.
By
(a) Ala Ta7o (piKTtv o Terpo?, lifUK'iyai rov x.vp.ov To7$ tfToroAoif 'Eo'J'/uev«c rh ^ihmn tb itrpaiiA //srauoJIij-a/ [forte lJ.ira.vomot.i] <^ia T» ovoiAcLToi [JM TTi^iveiV £»j TOD ^lov, a^£%- eoVTOii dura a.i[j.ap7icti. Mst^ S'uHko. Itm \^iK^i7i eM y.'o<ruov, u.yi rii h'TTt)' 'Ovk tn^a-eoiMV. Clem. Sir, I. 6. p. 636, Conf, Cav. H. L. T. i. . 5. et Grabe Spic. 7", i, p. 67.
(h) H. E. I. 5. cap. 18. p. 136.
C^J Ch, xxxi. Vol, in. />. 16.
Ch. VI. when the Apojlks left Judea. 13 1
By thefe two paflages Cave was induced to think, that (d) for twelve years after Chrift's afcenfion the Apoflles did not de- part from the neighborhood of Jerufalem, Suppoling our Saviour to have been cruci^ fied, and to have afcended to heaven in the year 29. of the vulgar aera, which was a common opinion of the ancients, thefe twelve years ended in the year 41. Sup- pofing thofe great events to have happened in the year 33. which is a common opinion of learned moderns, thofe twelve years would reach to the year 45.
Befide thofe two palTages alleged by Cave, and other learned men, I (hall take notice of fome others alfo.
Origen fays in general, *' That {e) when the Jews did not receive the word, the Apoftles went to the Gentils.
Chryfojiom in a homilie upon Ads xl. 19. and what follows, fpeaks to this purpofe. " They heard, that Samaria had received " the word, and they fent Peter and Jolm. ** They heard what had happened at Aiiti-
K 2 « ocl\
(d) Hijl. lit. T. i.p. ^. et 1^.
(e) . . fxn 'aa.^a.S'i^dt.iJiivav hJ^diav tov hoyov, a-riXuXv^i- sa,v iic ji I9vn. /« Matth. T. i. />. 225. E. Huet.
3 32 Of the Time, Ch. VI.
<* ocJjj and they fent Barnabas. For (^^^ that *' was at a great diftance. And it was not '* fit, that the Apoftles fliould go fo far as " yet, lead they fhould have been efteemed " deferters, and thought to have fled from ** their own people. But it then became ne- " ceflarie for them to feparate, [or go froni " thence] when the Jews fhewed themfeh'es " to be incurable."
In the Pafchal Chronicle are thefe expref- fions, fpeaking of Paul, " Afterwards {g) ** he coming to 'Jeriifalem with Barnabas^ " and finding there Peters and the reft of the ** Apoftles, with James the Lord's brother, *' the Apoftles fend an epiftle to Antioch in " Syria^ eftabliftiing their church. And Paul ** and Barnabas carry the epiftle to Antioch^
"as
(f) HoKv yaf to .T/scrw/xaj ^ iic iJ^ei t«j aToroA«j jiuf ')(apiarSrivat iKeihv, ha. pi voimic^mtiv eivxi (pvyaS'zu i^ rii dvTcuv 7ri(p£uyivxi' rois avayKaiui "xafii^ovTOiit on hoi'jov avictTO. V/eiV iJ^'oKei tu kat' dvTt?' In A£l. horn, 25. Tom, 9. />. 202. 203.
(g) MiTiTretTx iXQcov hi UpocoXvux fjura ^ufVaCa, }y
TB Kv^U, ypioQvaiv eTiroAnv ot a^no^'ohQi Uf uvTio'/ei"-'^ '^'Wf evpia^j 0e//.eA/BfT«f t«c avTwv \y.KKm't»Vi J^ S'lAKovufft tuv ftcTifoAi/v £/s uvTiox^av dvToi •^a.vhoi Kj ^ctpvaCxi, ecg i^i)X^atv dl ^pafeif. F.^ tktb J^&ixvvTa.l, on ^ rdi yaQo^iKeiT avTccv ot aTt'oioXot Ton ypdifisffiv, Tifo 7xii d'io.ff'uopai a.vr'av. Chr. Pafch. f.Zll. B.C,
Ch. VI. when the Apoflles left Judea, 133
*' as the Ads fliew. By this it appears, that " the Apoftles then wrote their catholic epi- " ftles, before their difperfion."
Such are the palTages of ancient writers, which muft be reckoned to be of fome weight.
Let us now obferve the hiftorie in the Ads. And it feems to me, there is reafoa to conclude, that the Apoftles ftald injudeay till after the Council at yerufalem, of which an account is given in the xv. chapter of that book. For St. Luke does continually fpeak of the Apoftles, as being at rferujalem^ or near it. Ads viii. i . And at that time, there was a great perfecution againji the church, which was at yerufalem. And they were all fcattered abroad throughout the regions of yu^ dea and Samaria y except the Apoflles. One of thofe perfons, who then left yerufalejriy was Philipy the Deacon and Evangelift: who went to Samaria, and preached Chrift unto them, and with good effed. Whereupoa at ver. 14. Now when the Apoftles, which were at yerufalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they fent unto them ^ Peter a?id yohn. This needs no Comment. Here is proof, that when the reft of the dif- ciples were fcattered abroad, Peter and yohn,
K 3 and
134 Of the Time, Ch. VI.
and the other Apoftles, were ft ill at Je- rufiilem.
In Ads ix. 26. . . 30. is St. Lukes account
. oi Paul's coming to yertifalem, after his con- verlion. Where he fa3'S, that the difiiples were afraid of him. .... But Barnabas took , him, and brought him to ' the Apojiles, St. Taiil rpeaking of the fame journey, GaL i. 18. 19. fays; 'Then after three years I went tip to ferufalem, to fee Peter, and abode ixith him fifteen da'^s. But other of the Jpofles faw J ?wne,fave yames the Lord's brother. Here we find, that at this time, three years after his converfion, Paul faw two Apoftles only, Peter and James. But St. Luke's words, as feems to me, imply, that all the Apodles were then at Jerufalefn, though Paul i^W
* two only, the reft for fome realons declining to fhew themfelves in perfon to him. Dr. Doddridge has this note upon ch. ix. 27. *' Paul himfelf tells us, that upon his go- ?^ ing up to yerifalem, he faw no other *' Apoilles, but Peter and fames. Gal. i. 19. ** Bcza well obferves, v/e are quite uncertain, *' on what occafion, the reft were then ab- " fent from yerufalem. Had they been ^' there, though Paid ftaid but about a «* fortnight, he would no doubt have ken
** them."
Ch. VI. whe?2 the Jpo/ileskft Judca, i^e
" them." Neverthelefs the folution of this difficulty appears to me very eafie. The Apoftles were now all at yeni/akm, or near it. But they lived privatly, becaufe it u^as a time of perfecution. The great perfecution cgainjl the churchy which began with the death of Stephejiy was not yet over. The Apoftles therefore could not appear abroad without danger. And it was fufficient, that they fpoke to PW, and received him, by Peter and James. Which I take to be the true import of St. Luke's expreffion. But Barnabas took bimy and brought him to the Apojiles,
After Peter had been at the houfe of Cor^ 72eIiuSy it is faid. Ads xi. i. And the Apojiles and brethren that were in Judea, heard, that the Gentils aljo had received the ivord. Another proof, that all the Apoflles, or moft of them, were flill at yernfalem. But I do not fuppofe, that the Apoftles, like many other of the Jewifh believers, were offended at what Peter had done. Or, if they were at firft fomewhat offended, they were foon, and eafily fatis- fied, and were very willing to teflify their approbation of Peters condudl.
From the 12. chapter of the Ads we know, that James ion of Z ebed.ee , and brother
K4 of
136 Of the rime, Ch. VI.
of JohUi and Peter, were at Jerufalem, in the year 44. or thereabout, near the end -of the reign of Herod Agrippa : the former of whom was beheaded, and the other imprifoned. And at ver, 17. is mention made of another James, fiippofed to be the Lord's brother, and always rcfident at 'Jerujakm.
From the account of the Council of 'Jeru- Jalem, and of the occafion of it, all the Apo- Ules appear to have been then in yudea, and at Jerujakm^ or in its neighborhood. Acfls xv. When therefore Paid and Barnabas had no fmall dijjenfion and difputation with them, they determined, that Pauly and Barjtabas^ and cer- tain other of them, jhcidd go up to 'Jerufalem, unto the Apojlles and "Elders about this que ft ion. ver. 4. And when they were come to yerufalem, they were received of the church, and or even
the Apoflles and Elder s. . . . ver. 6. And the Apofiles and Elders came together, that is, met in Council, ^^ to confider of this matter. . . ver. 22. T^hen pleafed it the Apofiles^ and Elders, with the whole church, to fend chofen men of their own compaJiie, to Antioch. . . ver. 23. And they wrote letters by them after this manner : The Apo/iles, and Elders, and Brethren fend greeting. . . ver. 33. And after they had tarried there afpace, that is, at An^
fiQcbi
Ch. Vr. whefi the Apoftks left Judea. 137
ttoch, they were let go in peace from the bre- thren unto the Apoftles,
In all thefe places //6^ Apoftles muft intend all the Apoftles, or the Apoftles in general. For how can the expreffion be underftood otherwife ?
If it fhould be faid, that the Apoftles might be at the Council at ferujalem^ though feveral of them had been before in other countreys : I think, that would be faid with- out ground and reafon. It does not appear, that the Apoftles were fent to, invited, or called in from abroad, to attend this Coun- cil. But the Chriftians at Antioch fuppofed, or rather knew, that the Apoftles were at Jerufalem, and therefore diredlly fent thither to them.
Indeed none of the Apoftles are exprefsly named as fpeakers in the debates of the Coun- cil, beftde Peter and James. But all the reft may have been there. So upon divers other occafions in the Gofpels, and at the .begining of the Acts, Peter only fpake, though all the reft: were prefent. In Gal. ii. 8. 9. 10. St. PW giving an account of a journey to Je- rufalem^ fuppofed to be the fame with this to the Council, fpeaks of conferences, which he had with thr^e, namely James, Cephas,
and
138 Of the Time, Ch. VI.
and John, Vihofeemed to be pillars. Here* is one more mentioned as prefent at 'Jerufa- lem^ beiide the two before taken notice of. And there muft have been others befide thefe three, who feemed to be pillars^ or were the moft eminent.
The lirfl time, that we meet with the mention of any one of the twelve, as being out of yudea^ is that in Gal. ii. 11. afcer this Council, as is geaerally allowed, when Peter was at Aniioch. It is very obfervable. Ads xi. 19. ... 22. when tidings came to the ears of the church at Jerufakm, that many Gen- tils had been converted at A/itiocb by fome of thofe who were fcattered abroad by the perfecution, they fent forth Barnabas^ that he fioidd go as far as Antioch. None of the Apoilies went, not fo much as one, to ac- company him. And afterwards ch. xiii i. . . 3. in the account of the extraordinarie mif- lion of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch to Cyprus^ and other parts, there is no mention made of any Apoftle, as prefent at Antioch, And it is plain, there was not one there.
All
* Ikeodoret has a like argument : 'E| «f pa/jflv KocTi^av. fkodr.Pr. in ep. adE^h, Tom, 3. /;. 290.
Cli.VI. whe?i the Apofdes left yiidea. 13^
All thefe confiderations induce me to think, that none of the twelve Apoftles left yudea to teach either Jews or Gentils in other Countreys, untill after this Council.
Having now, as I apprehend, {hewn this to be very probable, 1 fliall mention fome remarks. Whereby there may be an oppor- tunity for anfwering objedions, though fe- veral have been already obviated.
1 . There was a fitnefTe in it. It was very proper, and even expedient, that the Apofiles iliould flay a good while in yudea^ to affert and confirm the truth of Chrift's refurredion by teaching, and by miraculous works, and do their utmoft to bring the Jewifli People to faith in Jefus as the Chrift.
2. As this was fit, it is likely, that they had received fome command from Chrift himfelf, or fome direction from the Holy Ghofi:, to flay thus long in Judea,
3. .There were confiderations, that would
incline them to it, and induce them to do what was fit to be done, and was agreeable to the mind of Chrifl:. One was the diffi- culty of preaching the gofpel in foreign coun- treys. This would induce them to flay in Judea^ till the circumflances of things faci* litated their farther progrefTe, xtt called them
to
140 OJ the Time, Ch. VI;
to it. Another thing was their afFed:ion for the Jewifh People, their countrey-men-, efpe- cially thofe of Judea^ With whom they had been brought up, and among whom they dwelt, together with a perfuafion of the great value of the bleffing of the gofpel. This laft confideration, I apprehend, would induce them to labor in Judea, with earned delires, and fome hopes, of bringing all, or how- ever, many, to faith in Jefus. This in- fluenced Paul alfo to a great degree, and for a good while. Nor was he without hopes of perfuading his brethren and countrey-men to what appeared to himfelf very certain and evident. So he fays in his - fpeech to the people at Jerufalem. Ads xxii, 17. . . 20. He alTures them, that whilfl: he was worshiping at JeniJ'alemy in the temple, he had a tranfe or extafie : that he there
faw Chrift, who faid to him : Make hafte, and get thee quickly out of jerufalem. For
they will not receive thy tejiimonie concerning
me, Paul pleaded, that they mufl; needs pay
a regard to his teftimonie, who was well
known to have been for fome while very
zealous in oppofing his followers, and was
now convinced and perfuaded. But the
Lord faid^unto him : Depart, For I will
fend
M
Ch. VI. ivhenthe y4po/llesleft Judca, 141
fend thee far hence unto the Gentils, This tranfe, - or vifion, feems to have hap- pened in the year 44. after that Paul had preached at Antioch with great fuccefle among Gentils. Neverthelels he had an earneft delire to make one attempt more among the Jews of Judea, where was the body of that people. And if they could have been perfuaded, many abroad would follow their example. And it required an exprefs and repeated order from Jefus Chrift, in vifion, to induce him to lay afide that de- fign, and to proceed to preach to Gentils in remote parts.
It is a moft afFedionate concern, v/hich he expreffes for the Jewifh people in divers places of the epiftle to the Romans, writ fo late as the year 58.ch. ix. 1....5. x. 1.2. xi. 4. if by any meanSy fays he, I may provoke them to emidation which are my fiefi^ and might fave fome of them. Nor can it be queftioned, that the like fentiments prevail- ed in the other Apoftles. If it needs any proof, let St. Peters difcourfes at the begin- ing of the book of the Ads be confulted, particularly ch. ii. 38. . . 40. iii. 22. , . 26. not to refer to any other,
4. There
142 Of the Time, Ch. VI.
4. There were many advantages attending the ftay of the Apoftles in Judea. Many more Jews were by this means converted, than otherwife there would have been. St. Luke fays, Ads iv. 4. that the number of the men was jive thoufand. But when Faid came to yerufalem fome years afterwards, James fays to him, Thou feejl, brother, how. many thoujands oj Jews there are which be- lieve, xxi. 20. And it is very Hkely, that the Jewidi believers had better, and freer principles, than otherwife they would have had. They were, it is true, for obferving the law themfelves : ver. 20. but they agreed, that the Gentils were under no fuch obli- gations, ver. 25. Farther, by this means every ftep taken in planting the Chriftian Religion, and fpreading the gofpel in the world, had the fandion of all the Apoftles, and of the whole church of Jerufalem. " Upon occafion of the perfecution at ^^- rufalem, many v/ere fcattcred abroad^ who went every where preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Chri/i mito them. Ads viii. 45. Now when the Apojlles, which were at Jerufalem, heard, that Samaria had received the word of Gvdy they fent unto them Teter and John,
This
Ch. VI. when the Apoftles left Judea. 143
This v/as the firft ftep taken in carrying the gofpel to any, befide native Jews, and pro- felytes to their religion. And what had been done by Philip at Samaria, was ap- proved and ratified by all the Apoftles.
The next ftep was preaching to Gcntils, which work was folemnly allotted to Peter, And the Apo/lles and Elders that were in Ju' dea, heard that the Gentih alfo had recei'ved the word of God. ch. xi, i. Upon Peter'^ re- hearfmg to them the whole affair, and what had happened at the houfe of Corfielius at Cefarea, all were fatisfied. They glorified God J faying : Then hath God alfo to the Gen- tils granted repentance unto life. ver. 1 8.
Soon after this, fome of thofe who were fcattered abroad upon the perfecution, went to Antioch, and there fpake to the Greeks^ or Gentils, preaching the Lord Jefus. And a great number believed, and turned to, the Lord, Then tidings of thefe things came unto the ears of the church, which was at Jerufalem. And they fent forth Barnabas, that he fiould go as far as Antioch. ver. 19 . . . . 22. This ftep therefore was alfo approved and ratified by the whole church oiferufakm^ including the Apoftles.
And henceforward no objedions could be
made
144 ^/ ^^^ ^^*^^» Ch. VI.
made by wife men againft fjreaching to Gen- tils, and receiving them, but what arofe from the difficulty of the work, Neverthelefs fome good while after this, there was a dif- pute raifed at Afttioch hy fome bigotted Jews, who afTerted it to be neceffarie, that the Gentil believers jhoidd be circumcifed after the wanner of Mofes. This occafioned the Coun- cil of Jerufalem, Where the controverlie was fully determined by the Apoftles and Elders. Which was a great advantage. By this means the manner of receiving Gentils was fixed, and fettled beyond difpute, and beyond oppofition. Or, if any (hould be made afterwards, it could not be fuccefsful, nor very troublefome. And we may be af- fured, that all the Apofiles, and their difci- ples, would be harmonious, and preach the fame do6lrine to Jews and Gentils, wherefo- ever they went.
5. There was a neceflity of the Apoftles flaying in Judea, till about this time. Other- wife, they could not have fufficiently tefli- iied the dodrine concerning Jefus in Judea, nor have fully taught the Jewifh People, fo as to render them inexcufable, if they did not believe, and repent.
If we confider the flate of things in Judea,
we
Ch. VI. when the JpoJIles left Judea, 145
we may difcern, that in the year 44. the Apoftles had not had an opportunity to ful- fill their miniftrie in that countrey. It mud be evident to all from the hiftorie in the Ads, that for fome while, foon after our Lord's afcenfion, the Apoftles were grievoufly ha- rafTed, and hardly ufed by the Jewifh Coun- cil or Rulers. Which was the more fo, be- caufe of the weaknefTe of Pilate'^ govern- ment, for fome time before he was difmiffed from the province. And afterwards, about the time of his removal, Stephen was ftoned, and a great perfecution began. Which, as I apprehend, continued from the begining of the year 36. to the begining of the year 40. When the churches had reft. Of which reft undoubtedly the Apoftles made good ufe. St. Luke\ words are : T^hen had the churches reft throughout Judea^ and Galilee^ and Sama^ ria, and were edified^ and walking in the fear oj the Lordy and in the comfort of the Holy Ghojl^ were multiplied, ch. xi. 31. After which follows an account of Peter's pafting throughout all quarters, his going to Lydda^ and there healing Efieas, ihoaio J cppa^ where he raifed Tabitha : and from thence to Ce- fareaj and there preaching to Cornelius, and his companie : and of fome other matters, Vol. I. ' * L reaching
H6 Of the lime, Ch. VI.
reaching to cb. xi. 26. How long that reft, or peace and tranquillity continued, in all it's fullneffe, we cannot fay exadly. Perhaps it lafted a year, or more. And it is not unlike- ly, that in that fpace of time other Apoftles, befide Peter ^ travelled in yudea^ and the feve- ral parts of it, preaching the gofpel, and con- firming the difciples. But upon Herod Jgrip- pa being made King pf all Judea by Claudius in the year 41. that peace would be abated, if not interrupted. From the begining of his reign, efpecially from his arrival in Judea, and durins: the remainder of it, the difciples muft have been under many difficulties and difcouragements, Prince and People being of one mind. And toward the end of his reign he became an open and violent perfecutor, till Divine Providence fmote him, that he died. After his death Judea came to be in the hands of Roman Procurators, Cufpius Fadm, Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, Felix, Fefius : When, probably, the difciples of Jefus had for feveral years together more liberty, than they had had at any time, fince the refurrec- ticn of Jefus, excepting the interval of reil and tranquillity, before taken notice of. For , thofe Governours, or Procurators, had no 4)rders from the Roman Emperour to per-
fecute
Ch. VI. when the Apofilei left Judea. 14;
fecute or difturb any Jews. And that thofe Governours were not dlfpofed to difturb the Chriftians, may be argued from the treat- ment given to Paul by Felix ^ and Fejius, and the officers under them. Now therefore from the year 44. to the time of the Council in 49. or 50. and afterwards, the Apoftles went on fulfilling their miniftrie. All of them, as I apprehend, ftaid in Judea till the time of the Council. Soon after which fome did, probably, go abroad. However, feveral of them might ftay there a good while longer, and not remove, till a litde before the com-» mencement of the Jewilli war in 66.
6. We may now perceive, the benefit of the early choice and call of Paul to be an Apoftle. Who having been feveral years employed and exercifed in preaching to Jews in Judea, and out of it, was ready to preach to Gentils likewife, as foon as a door was opened for applying to them at Antiochy and ' other places ; as there w^as, after Peter had received Cornelius at Cefarea : whilft it was not as yet fit for any of the twelve Apoftles to leave the land of IfraeL
7, We now obtain fome afTiftance for inters preting thofe expreffions of Paul: Gal. ii. 7. §. 9. M-'hen tkeyfaw, that the ^"fpel of the un-
L 2 circum'
148 Of the Time, Ch. VL
circumcifion was committed unto me^ as the gof- pel of the circumcifion was committed unto Pe- ter. For he that wrought effeBually in Peter to the apoflejhip of the circumcifion ^ the fame ■ was mighty in me toward the Gentils. And they gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands offellowjhip^ that we fiould go unto the Heathen, and they unto the circumcifion. And Rom. xi. 13. inafmuch as lam theApojile of the Gentils^ I magnify my ofice. Thofe expreffions cannot be intended to fignify, that Paul was Apoftle of the Gentils only, and exclufive of the Jews : or that Peter and the other of the twelve, were Apoftles of the circumci- fion only, exclufive of the Gentils. For an Apoftle is a teacher or mafter of the whole world. They were appointed to be fo by Chrift himfelf. Nor could their commiftion be limited byany compad among themfelves. Our Lord's commiffion given to his twelve Apoftles, is, in Matthew, to this purpofe : Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, xxviii. 19. and in Luke : xxiv. 46. 47. hefaidto them, that repe?itance and forgivenefe of fins Jhould be preached in his name among all nations, begining at Jerufalem. And A<5ls i. 8. And Ye fiallbe witnefes unto me in Jerufalem, and in all Judeaj and in Samaria ^ and unto the
uttermojl
Ch. VI. when the JpoJlJes left Jiidea, 149
uttermofi part of the earth. And Mark xvi. 15. And he /aid unto them : Go ye into all the world J and preach the gofpel to every creature. And ver. 20. And they went forth and preached every where. Of Faul the Lord fays in a vi- lion to Ananias at Damafcus : He is a chofen vejfel unto me^ to bear my name before the Gen- tils, and Kings y and the children of If raeL Ads ix. 5. And Faul fays to King Agrippa : I was not difobedient to the heavenly vifion : but Jhewedfirft unto them of Damafcus ^ and at Je- rufalem^ and throughout all the coaji offudea^ and then to the Gentilsy that they fiould repent, and turn to God. ch. xxvi. 19. 20. Moreover we know from the hiftorie of Paul's preach- ing recorded in the Ad:s, that he always firft addrelTed himfelf to Jews, in all the places where he came, if there were any, and if they had there a fynagogue.
It fhould be obferved likewife, that Peter had actually preached to Gentils, in fudea, and was the firft difciple of Jefus, that did fo. There is a particular account of it in the book of the Ads ch. x. and xi. And himfelf takes notice of it in his fpeech at the Council of ferufalem. ch. xv. 7.
The reafon therefore, why the gofpel of the circumcifion is faid to have been com-
L 3 mitted
I jo OJtheTime^ Ch. VL
mittcd unto Peter ^ and the other Apoftles with him, is, that for a good while, their miniftry was foly, or however very much, and chiefly, employed among Jews in Ju{lea : though afterwards they preached very freely to Gentils, in feveral parts of the world. And Pdul is called the Apoftle of the Gen- tils, and the gofpel of the uncircumcifion is ' faid to have been committed unto him, be- caufe he got the ftart of all the reft in preaching to Gentils, and had labored among them for a good while in divers countreys, with great fuccelTe, and had formed many churches in divers places : whilft they were flill in Jti^ieay teaching Jews, aud had made no addrelles to Gentils abroad in other countreys.
It may be alfo implied in what St. Pai/l fays in the epiftle to the GalaiianSy that (b)
feveral
(h) Alterum, quod ex di6o Pauli ad Galatas colliglmus, illud eft, Joannem etiam poR difceffum Pauli cum duobus col- legis per aliquod temporis intervallum Hierofolymis, et in Ju- daea fubflitifle. Gentium enim converfione Paulo et Bar- nabae demandata, ipfi inter Judaeos fe operam porro loca- turos declarant. Quae etlam caufla eft, cur Joannis et foci- orum in Adis Apoftolicis vix mentio occurrat, quia poftquam primordia Ecclefiae Chriilianae inter Judaeos memorata erant, nihil amplius videbatur addendum, nifi iit narretur, quomodo primitiae Gentium e/Tent introduftae. Lamp, Pro/eg. in Jo, /. l.cap, 3. §. •vii.
Ch. VI. when the Apoflles left Judea. 151
feveral of the firfl: twelve Apoftles intended to flay ftill fomewhat longer in Judea. This they were the more willing to do, being fully fatisfied with the preaching of Paul \n foreign countreys : infomuch that they encouraged him to proceed, as he had begun.
8. Once more, we may now be reconciled to the fuppofition of the late date of the Gof- pels. For they were not to be publiflied, till the do6lrine concerning Jefus had been preached in divers parts, and many converts had been made, to whom they would be ufeful, for whom they would be needful, by "whom they would be received with joy, be highly valued, frequently read, and often copied. Written hiftories of Jefus could be litde wanted by the JewiOi believers ia jfudeay whilft all the Apoftles were ftill in that countrey, and there were alfo ftill living among them many ftncere followers of Jefus, and eye-witnefTes of his perfon and miniftrie. Very probably, therefore, there was no writ- 1 ten gofpel, till after the Council at Jerufakm,
Still there may be objedlions, which fliould be ftated and confidered.
Obj. I. It may be faid : Was not the pro- grefTe of the gofpel by this means much re- tarded ? I anfwer : No. And this objec-
L 4 tion,
52 Of the rime, Ch. VI.
tlon, methinks, fliould be of little moment now, after all that has been faid of the many advantages of the Apoftles flay in Judea,
However, feme confiderations fliall be here added to what has. been already faid. Though the Apoftles did not leave Jiidea themfelves, they encouraged thofe who did, who preached the gofpel abroad, whether to Jews or Geniils. Of this there is an in- ftance with reg«rd to the church of Antioch^ related Ads xi. 19 . . 22. And there may have been feme other iilce infiances. More- over the Apoftles were very ufeful by their ftay in Judea^ as has been already (hewn. They made many converts among the Jews. During their ftay in that countrey, if there was any mealure of public liberty for the believers, the Apoftles would all, or moft of them, be at Jerufalem^ at the great feafts, to which there was a general refort of Jews from all countreys. Here the inquifitive of that People would have an opportunity of converfing with the Apoftles. And if they were convinced, and perfuaded by them, they would carry the dodrine of the gofpel into the places of their ufual refidence, and propagate it there,
Obj. 2,
Cb. VI. when the Apoflles left yudea, i^^
Obj. 2. But, if the Apoftles had attempt- ed to make a long ftay in Judea, it feems, that they muft have been all deftroyed. I anfwer, that doubtlefs they met with many and great difficulties. What they were from the time of our Lord's afceniion to the year 44. was briefly rehearfed juft now. After that, for feveral years, as 1 apprehend, their difficulties would not be fo great, as they had been. Yea, during that fpace would be the beft opportunity that ever they had, to promote the interefts of the gofpel, as I faid before. For (i) the Jewifli People had not the power of life and death in their own hands. And the Roman Procurators were
not
(i) Contra perfuafum habeo, hoc emblema fupponere, ■ Ecclefiam jam longo admodum tempore fuifle afflidam . . . Ne jam dicam, non conftare ex hiftoria Ecclefiae, quinam illi ilnt Marty res, (\uor\iTn.fanguis, praeter eum Stephani, et utriuf- que Jacohi, de quorum altero ex Luca, altero ex Jofepho li- quet et Hegefippo, a Judaeis fufus fuerit. Judaei enim, ex- cepto brevi intervallo regni Agrippae, rerum fuarum non erant domini : et licet in Chriftianos pefTirae affedi fuerint, a Prae- iidibus tamen Romanis prohibebantur, pro lubitu in innocuos Jefu Chrifti difcipulos faevire. Quae enim junior Ananus tentavit in Jacobum fratrem Domini, et Tiu«i hifin, quofdam al.osy Chrillianae profeffionis homines, ut conftat ex Jofepho, Fefto mortuo, et Albino adhuc in itinere agente, peraOa funt. Campeg, Vitring. in Apoc, cap, <vi, ver. 12. §. xxx,
h 303-
,154 OfiheT'ime.^c. Ch. VI,
not difpofed to give any men difturbance upon account of difference of opinion in re- ligious matters. Finally, the Apoftles of Jefus Chrift, we have reafon to think, had an efpecial dire(5tion, and an efpecial pro- tedion. They, who were employed in teaching fo important a dodrine, and were enabled to work miracles upon others for confirming it, may be reafonably fuppofed to have been the fubjeds of fome wonderful interpofitions of Providence. And it muft be reckoned very probable, that affairs would be fo over-ruled and influenced, as that thefe chofen men (hould be upheld, and enabled to fulfill their miniftrie, and bear fuch a tef- timonie to Jefus, as fhould be fufficient to lay a good foundation for the eftablifhment of his Church in the world, and leave all thofe of the Jewifh People, who did not re- ceive him as the Meffiah, abfolutly inex- cufable.
CHAP.
^55
>cv' ^i^<s2" ^^^^^^<>^ V***v:^ lii;. >i^*^^ ^^*^ jM?»*sSi *^^^ v-p<^Jr v?<:
CHAP. VII.
St. Mark, Evangeliff.
I. T'Z'^/ /Z;^ Evangelijl is the fame as "John Mark, and nephew to Barnabas, II. His Hiftorie from the New 'Tejiament. III. From other Writers. IV. Tejiimonies to bis Go/pel^ in a?taent Writers. V. Re^ marks upon them. VI. The Time of writ- ing his Go/pel, according to iheje ancient Writers^ and the Sefitiments of learned Moderns, VII. Chara6iers of Time in the Gofpel itfelf, VIII. Obfer'uaiions upon this Gofpel.
I. p'l^MM"^ T is generally, or even univer- <rheE-^m
§ J B Tally, allowed, that Mark, men- g^¥ the
)^ )^ tioned i Pet. v. 13. is the E- j^ln^
hJ^'^^j. vangelift. But it has been ^'":^'
doubted, whether he be the fame as John
Mark mentioned in the Ads, and feme of
St. Paul's epiftles. And it appears from our
coUedions out of ancient authors, that there
were
■van-
156 St. Mark. Ch. VII.
were doubts about this in the minds of fome
in former times. Divers learned moderns are perfuaded, that
they are different perfons. Of this number are (a) Cave, [who neverthelefs thinks him (if) the fame Mark, that is mentioned by St. Paul in his fecond epiftle to Ttmothie,] (c) Groiius, (d) Du Pin, and (e) Tillemont, Which laft, in his Ecclefiaftical Memoirs, makes two different articles for this name : one entitled, St. Mark the Evangeliji, Apoflle of Egypt, and Martyr : the other, St. 'John Mark, dijciple and coufin of St, Barnabas, On the other hand they are reckoned one and the fame by (f) Jer. Jones, (g) Light- foot, and (h) Wetjiein.
I fhall
' (a) S. Marcus Evangelifta, quern cum Joanne Marco, de quo Aft. xii. 1 2. male nonnuUi confundunt. H, L. T. i. p. 24.
(ij Cum enim ilium epiftola fecunda ad Timotheum— Romam accerfiverat Paulus — Ici. ib,
(c) Gr. Pr. in Marc.
(d) Dif. Prelim. I. 2. ch. it. §. i'V.
(e) Mem. Ec. Tom. 2.
(f) NeTo and full Method, vol. 3. ch. vi. /. 65 . . 70.
(gj Light/hot is making obfervations upon the firft epiftle of St. Peter. " He fends this epiftle, fays he, by Sihanus, Paur% old attendant, but now with Peter . . His naming of
Mark
Ch.VII. St, Mark. \ i^y
I fliall now without delay confider the reafons of thofe, who think there are two Marks mentioned in the New Teftament.
I. They fay, that Mark the Evangelift was converted • and baptifed by Peter, be- caufe he calls him his fin. i Pet. v. 1 3 . But there is no reafon to fuppofe this of John Mark,
To which I anfwer. That needs not to be reckoned the conftant meaning of the expreflion. It may denote only great affec- tion and tenderneffe, and a refped to faith- ful fervices: in like manner as Paul fays of Timothie, Philip, ii. 22. that as a fin with the father he bad firved with him in
the
Mark with him calls our thoughts back to what has beett mentioned of Mark heretofore : his being with Paul at Rome, and his coming from him into the Eaft. To fuppofe two Marks, one with Peter, and another with Paul, is to breed confufion, where there needeth not. . . It is eafily feen, how John Mark came into familiarity with Paul and Peter. And other Mark we can find none in the New Teftament, unlefs of our own invention. . . . He it was, that wrote the Gofpel. Ughtfoot Harm, of the N. T. Vol. /. />. 336.
(h) Nihil vetat, quo minus fimplicit«r cum Viftore et Theophylado hunc eundem Marcum intelligamus, quoties illius nomen in AAis et ^Epillolis repcfimus, Wetji. Pr. in Mate. Tom, ». ^« 55 1.
Sf.MarL Ch.VII.
the go/pel. Grotim (i) and Du Pin (k) who mention this reafon, feem not to have judged it conclufive. Moreover, if Mark was a convert of Peter, it does not follow, that he was not an early believer. For he might be one of that Apoftle's converts at his firfl: preaching the gofpel at yerufalem, Mark the Evangelift, upon that fuppofition, could not be one of the feventy : but he might be among the firfl believers, and the fon of Marie. However, I choofe not to infift upon this, but chiefly upon what was before mentioned : that the appellation, my Jon, needs not to be underftood rigoroufly, as mSaning a convert begotten to the faith of the gofpel.
2. It is faid, that (I) Mark^ the com- panion of Paid, was called Jolm : but the
Evangelift
(zj Aclde, quod Joannes Marcus inter primos Chriflianos ! Marcus hie, ut vidctur, Petri opera converfus. i Pet. v. 13. Nam tales peculiariter filios fuos Apoftoli vocabant. i Cor. iv. 15, Gal. iv. 19. Gr. Pr. in Man,
(k) II y a plus d'apparence, qu'il a re9u I'evangile de S. Pierre, qui I'appelle fils, peutetre parcequ'il Tavoit engendre en J. C. DtJ'. Pi-el. /. 2. ch. 2. §. i'v.
(I) Joannes quoque ille Mariae filius, Barnabae con- fanguineus, . . . Marcus vocabatur : quern multi hunc noflrum fcriptorem puf^nt. Quibus quo minus afTentiar,
movecr
Ch.VlI. St. Mark. 159
Evangelid is never fo called by the ancients, who mention him.
To which I anfwer. It is true, that Pauh companion is fometimes called Johriy as Adls xiii. 5. and 13. But we arealfo in- formed that he was furnamed Mark. Sa Ad:s xii. J2. j4nd when he had conjidered the things he ca7ne to the houfe of Marie, the mo- ther of fohn, whofe furname was Mark. And ver. 25, . . .and took with them fohn, whofe furname was Mark. And he is feveral times mentioned by the furname, Mark, only. Ads XV. 39. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Col. iv. 10. Philem. ver. 24. Secondly, fuch of the an- cients, as fuppofed Mark, the Evangelift, to have been the fame with him mentioned in the Ads, muft alfo have fuppofed, that he was called John^ as well as Mark, though they have generally mentioned him by his furname.
3. It is faid, that (m) John Mark wa$
much
inoveor veterum au£toritate, qui hunc fcrlptorem Joanncra nunquam, Marcum femper vocant. . . . Grot. Pr. in Marc.
L' Evangelifte n'eft appelle niille part du nom de Jean, qui etoit le nom propre de celuici. Du Pin, ubi fupra.
(m) Et ita Petro addunt [Veteres] comitem, ac difci- pulum, ut non tantum de Barnaba, fed et de Paulo, quem
Joannes
i6o St. Mark, Ch. VIL
much with 'Paul^ Mark^ the Evangelift, with Peter. So fay the ancients in general.
I anfwer ; It is not at all impoffible, but that Mark might be fometimes with Paul^ at other times with Peter, As may appear by and by.
As thefe reafons therefore do not appear to me conclulive, I rather think, that there is but one Mark m the New Teftament, yohn Marky the Evangelift, and fellow-la- borer of Paul and Barnabas, and Peter,
Hishijbrie ^^* ' "°^ procccd to writc the hiftorie of from the John Mark from the New Teftament, men- tioning, as they offer, fome obfervations, fliewing his acquaintance with Peter, as well as with Paul. After which I fhall take notice of fome other things faid of him by the ancients.
He was the fon of Marie, a pious wo- man at yerufalem, and an early believer, at whofe houfe the difciples ufed to meet, and that in troublefome and difficult times, as t^'ell as at other feafons. Peter having been
de-
Joannes Marcus poft illud frigufculum feftatus eft ... . nihil meminerint. Grot. ibid.
II etoit difciple de S. Pierre, et attache a lui, dans le tems q^ue r autre etoit avec S. Paul, et S. Barnabe. Du Pin. Ibid.
Ch. VII. Sl Mark, i6l
delivered out of prifon by an angel, came to the hoiife of Marie, mother of 'John, whofe furname was Mark, where many were gather^ cd together praying, A(fl:s xii. 12. So. that the very firfl: mention of 'John Mark allures us of Peter's intimacie in that famihe.
That deliverance of St. Peter happened in the year 44. about the fame time that Paul and Barnabas, came to Jerufalem from Au' tioch with contributions for the relief of the brethren in Jiidea in the time of a famine, or fcarcity. And it is faid at the end of that chapter. And Barnabas and Saul returned from yerufalem, when they had fulfilled their miniftrie, and took with them fohn, whofe fur"' name was Mark. This, with fome other things to be hereafter mentioned, may dif- pofe U9 to think, that this yobn Mark is the fame, who in Col. iv. 10. is CdW^dJiJlersfon to Barnabas.
Mark therefore went now from yerufa- lem to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, And, when fome fhort time afterwards, they went abroad to other coujitreys, Mark ac- companied them, as their minijler. Adts xiii.- 5. They went to Cyprus, and preached the word in that countrey. But when they returned to the continent, and came on fliore
Vol. I. * M at
1 62 St, Mark. Cb.VIL
at Perga in Tamphylia^ he departed from ihem^ and returned to yertifalem. ver. 13. H^e there- fore did not attend them in their farther pro* grefle to Antioch inPifidiaJconiumy and other places, but went to 'Jerufalem.
And now, very probably, he converfed a- galn with Feter^ and the other Apofcles, and was prefent with them at their difcourfes, and their devotions. For, as I apprehend, all the Apoftles were flill in Judea^ except yames the fon of Zebedee^ who had been be- headed by Herod Agrippa, in the begining of the year 44.
Paul and Barnabas having finifhed their progrelfe, returned to Antioch, and there a- bode. Whilft they were there, debates arofe about circumcifing Gentil converts. Which determined Paul and Barnabas to go to Je^ rufalem. That controverfie being decided, they returned to Antioch.
Some time afterwards Paul /aid unto Bar- nabas : Let us go again y ajidvijit our brethren, in every city, where we have preached the word, and fee how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them fohn, whofe fur^ nume was Mark. But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who had depart' ed from them from Pamphylia^ and went not
with
Ch. VII. Sf. Marh 163
with them to the work. Barnabas, however, perfifted in his refolution, and went with Mark to Cyprus. And Paul chofe Silas to "J accompany him. Ads xv. 36 .... 41. Hereby we perceive the good temper of Mark. He was now at Antioch, and was willing to attend Foul and Barnabas in their journeys, and actually went with Barnabas to Cyprus. And though Paul would not now accept of his attendance, he was afterwards fully reconciled to him. Mark is mention- ed in feveral of his epiftles fent from Kom€y during his confinement there. I fdppofe, I {hall hereafter fhew, that St. Fauf% fecond epiftle to Timothie was writ in the fummer of the year 6 1 . not long after Pauh arrival at Rome, In that epiftle he writes to T/'- mothiCy to come to him. And he defires him to bring Mark with him. 2 Tim. iv. 1 1 . Take Marky and bring him with thee : for he is profitable to me for the minijirie. Where Mark then was, does not clearly ap- pear. It is probable, that he was either at Ephefus, or at fome other place, where Ti- mothie would find him in his journey from Ephefus to Rome, And, unqueftionably. Murk did come with Timothie. He is mentioned in two of the epiftles writ by the Apoftle at
M 2 Rome.
l64 ^ St. Mark. Ch. VII.
Rome, Phllem. ver. 24. and Col. iv. 10. Ariftarchus falutes you, and Mark, 0er' s fen to Barnabas J touching whom ye received com^ mandments. If he come wito you^ receive him, Mark is not mentioned in the epiftle to the Philippiam. Perhaps he was not acquaint- ed there, or upon fome occafion was abfent from the Apoftle, when that epiftle was writ. Or rather, he is comprehended in thofe ge- neral expreffions. cb. iv. 21. The brethren that are ivith me, greet yen. For in the epiftle to the Fhilippians St. Faul does not mention his fellow-laborer^ by name, as he does in the epiftles to the Colojfians, and to Fhilemon. Nor is he mentioned in the epiftle to the Ephefians. To thofe who admit the tru& date of that epiftle the reafon will be obvious. It was writ, and fent away, before Mark came to be with St. Paul at Rome,
This is all we can fay concerninor St. Mark from the New Teftament. But from that we can colled his excellent charader, and may conclude, that after this time he no longer attended on Paid. It is not impro- bable, that going now into jifia, he there met with St. Peter, and accompanied him, till that Apoftle came to Rome, where he fuffered martyrdom. Where likewife Mark
wrote.
Ch. VII.^ St. Mark, 165
wrote, and publiflied the Gofpel that goes by his name.
III. We will now inquire, whether there From other is any thing in other writers to illuflrate' the ^^^'^^^'^ hidorie of this Evangelift.
Cave fays, without hefitation, that (71) Mark was a Levite. But he does not fay, upon what authority. I do not remember, that it is in any of the writers, of which I have given a particular account, excepting (0) Bede. It is alfo in a commentarie upon St. Mark's Gofpel, ufually joyned with 'Jeromes works, though (p) allowed not to be his. That writer fays, that (q) Mark was a Le- vite^ and a Prieft. It is not unlikely, that this was inferred from Mark's relation to Barnabas^ who was a Levite of Cyprus,
M 3 Comp.
(n) S. Marcus, Evangelifta, quern cum Johanne Marco, de quo Ad, xii. 12. male nonnulli confundunt, crat Levites. H.L.T. i. p. 24.
(0) Tradunt autem hunc, natione Ifraelitica, et facerdotali ortum profapia, ac poll paffionem ac refurredionem Domini Salvatoris, ad praedicationem Apoftolorum Evangelica fide a facramentis imbutum, atque ex eorum fuifTe numero, de qui- bus fcribit Lucas, quia multa etiam turba facerdotum obedie- bat fidei. Bed. Prol. in Marc.
(p) Vid. Benedi^lin Monitum, et Petav, Animad-v. ad Epiph. H. 21. num. ■vi. p. 88,
(q) Marcus Evangelifta Dei, Petri difcipulus, Leviticus ge- nere, et facerdos, in Italia hoc fcripfit Evangelium. Praef, in Marc. ap. Hierom. T, v.J). 886.
l66 St. Marh Ch. VII.
Comp. Ads. Iv. 36. and Col. iv. 10. But then Cave fliould not have denied; as he does in the fame place, that Mark the Evan- gelift is the fame as John Mark^ mentioned in the Ads. For that, as I apprehend, is to remove out of the way the fole ground of
this opinion.
By Eiifebe we are informed, it (r) was faid, that Mark going into Egypt ^ firft preach- ed there the Gofpel, which he had writ, and planted there many churches. And after- wards, in another chapter, he fays, that (i) in the eighth year of Nero^ Ant amis, the firft Bifliop of Alexandria after Mark, the Apoftle and Evangelift, took upon him the care of that church. Of which Anianus he gives a great charader, as beloved of God, and a wonderful man.
Epiphafjius fays, that foon after Matthew, Mark, companion of Peter, compofed his Gofpel at Rome. And having (t) writ it,
he
(*■) Tbtow cTs fji.d§)(ov T^arov qieto-iv «t/ tjk diyiTna ^eiha.- li.i¥ov, TO kvotyy'iAm o cTm )dj cvKyed.'^a.ro xnov^oii, iK<?\il<ria.i •n '^r^arov k-n avTiii aXi^avS'^eaxii av^n<xa.aio(.i. a. A. H. £. I. 2. cap. 16.
(sj . . . TpaTof jU«Ta (JidfiKQV tow d'^i^oXov ty Ivotyyihis-uv^ rTiq iV dhi^cLvJ'peia. TxpoiKicLi dvi'toivo^ T«y X&iTHfyiuv J'/x- J'i^ira.r dyttp fieof/Jvo? ^ •TruvTct BoiViXMUoq. lb. cap. 2^.
(t) , . )y ypd'^f diio^tKKirou vtto tb uyiit 9r4Tf« «j tob TftJj' diyxnniav yj>^(x.v% H, ^\. num. nii.
Ch. VII. Sf. Mark. - 167
he was fent by Peter into the countrey of the Egyptians.
Jerome, in his article of St. Mark, as (u) before quoted, after other things, fays : " Taking fxj the Gofpel, which himfelf ** had compofed, he went to Egypt, and at ** J[lexa7idria founded a church of great ** note . . . He died in the eighth year of ** NerOj and was buried at Alexandria, " where he was fucceded, as Bifliop, by " Anianus!'
From all thefe accounts, I think, it muft appear to be probable, that if indeed Mark preached at all in Egypt, and founded a church at Alexandria j it muft have been after he had writ his Gofpel, and after the death of Eeter and Faul at Kome, Never- thelefs, when prefently afterwards Edtfebe, and Jerome likewife, fpeak of Mark\ con- verts, and Philds Therapeuts, as all one, they feem to have imagined, that Mark had very early preached in Egypt. But what
M 4 they
(u) Vol. X. p. 92. 93.
(x) Affumto itaque Evangelic, quod ipfe confecerat, per- rexit ad Aeguptum, et primus Alexandriae Chriftum annun- tians conliituit ecclefiam . . . Denique Philo . . videns Alex^ andriae primam ecclefiam adhuc judaizantem, quafi in lau- dem gentis fuae, librum fuper eorum converratione confcripfit. D4 y. L. cap. S.
j6S ' St. Mark. Ch. VIL
they fay upon that head is exceeding ftrange and unaccountable. For they both fuppofe, that Mark had writ his gofprl at Ro?Jie, be- fore he went into Hgyyt : and that his Gof- pel was not writ before the reign of Nero. if therefore Mark went at all to Alexandria^ it was later, in the fame reign : and Philds Therapeuts could not be Chrlftians, nor MarTiz converts : but were a fort of people, who had a being, and had formed their in- flitution, before the gofpel could bepublifli- ed in Egypt^ and before the rife of the Chrif- tlan Religion.
By Baronim (y) and many others, it is faid, that St. Mark died a Martyr. This is admitted by (z) Cave, and the (aj late Mr. Wetjkin. But it is difputed by (h) S. Baf- nage : and as feems to me, with good reafon. For St. Mark is not fpoken of as a Martyr by Eiijehe^ or other more ancient writers.
And
(y) An. 64. §. i. ii. - (zj Alexandriae primus Epifcopus fadus Martyn'um ibi fubiit : quo vejro anno, mihi hadenus incompertum. H. L. f. 24.
(a) Tandem vero in Aegyptum concefliire, atque Alexan- drlae fanguine ftfo dodlrinam Chrifti confirmafre, hifloria ecr clefiaftica teftatur. J. J. Wetjlat, N. T. 'Tom, i.p. 551,
(b) Ann. 66, pum. xix. .xx.
Ch. VII. Si. Mark, 169
And Jerome, as before quoted, fays, St. Mark died in the eighth year of NerOy and was buried at Alexandria. Pie does not fay, that he was crowned with martyrdom : as he would have done, if he had known of it. And his exprefiions feems to imply a natural • death. Fabricius (c) in his account of St. Mark, fays nothing of his having been a Martyr.
IV. Having thus writ th^ hiftorie of St. 'lepmomtt Mark^ I (liall now recollect the teftimonies p^i^ to his Gofpel, which we have feen in ancient writers, particularly, with a view of afcer- taining the time of it : obferving likewife whatever may farther lead us into the know- ledge of his ftation and charader^ and whe- ther he was one of Chrift's feventy difciples, or not.
The firft v/riter to be here taken notice of IS P apt as, about A. D. 116. He fays, " That (d) the Elder, from whom he had " divers informations, faid : Mark, being the " interpreter of Peter, wrote what he re- ** membred : but not in the order, in which " things were fpoken and done by Chrift.
For
(c) Vid. Fair. Bib. Gr, /, 4. cap. 'V. ». Hi. Tom. 3. /. 1 30. , .. 132.
(d) Vol. i.p. 241.
170 St. Mark. Ch. VII.
" For he was not a hearer of the Lord, but " afterwards followed Peter."
Irenaeusy as before (e) cited, about 178. fays : " After the death of Peter and Paul, " Marky the difciple and interpreter oi Peter, *' delivered to us in writing the things that " had been preached by Peter." In another place (f) he calls Mark " the interpreter *• and follower of Peter."
Clement, of Alexandria^ about the year of Chrift 194. fays : " That (g) Peters hearers ** at Romey not content with a lingle hear- *' ing, nor with an unwritten inftru6lion in ** the divine doftrine, entreated Marky the " follower of Peter, that he would leave *' with them in writing a memorial of the " dodrine, which had been delivered to " them by word of mouth. Nor did they " defift, untill they had prevailed with him. ♦' Thus they were the means of writing the ** Gofpel, which is called according to Mark,
It is faid, that when the Apoftle knew
what had been done, he was pleafed with ** the zeal of the men, and authorifed that ** fcripture to be read in the churches/*
That
(e) Vol. i, p. 354. (f) p. 357.
(g) Vol. H, 472.
Ch. VII. St. Mark,
That puflage is cited from Eufebes Ecclefiaf- tical Hiftorie.
Again, Eufebe fays : " Clement (h) informs ** us, that the occafion of writing the Gof- " pel according to Mark was this. Peter, " having publicly preached the word at Rome, <' and having fpoken the gofpel by the Spirit, " many who were there, entreated Mark to *' write the things that had been fpoken, he " having long accompanied Peter, and re- " taining what he had faid: and that when " he had compofed the Gofpel, he delivered " it to them, who had alked it of him. " Which when Peter knew, he neither for- *' bid it, nor encouraged it."
Many remarks were (/) formerly made upon thefe accounts of Clement, which can- not now be repeated. But it may be need- ful to fay fomething here for reconciling Irejtaeus and him. Irenaeiis faid, that Mark publifhed his Gofpel after the death of Peter and Paul : whereas Clement fuppofes Peter to have been ftill living, and that this Gof- pel was fhewn to Peter, who did not difap- prove of it. But the difference is not great.
Clement
(h) p. 475.
(ij Vol. i. />. 245. , . 249. Fe/. it. p, 476. , . 493.
171
172 aSV. Mark, Ch. VI I.
Clement fays, that Mark's, Gofpel was writ at Rome at the requeft of the CKriftians there, who were hearers of Peter. If fo, it could not be compofed long before Peters death. For I take it to be certain, that Peter did not come to Rome, until 1 the reign of Nero was far advanced, nor very long before his own death. So that it may be reckoned not improbable, that Mark\ Gof- pel was not publifhed, or did not become ge- nerally known, till after the death of Peter and Paiil^ as lre7iaeus fays.
^ertullian, about the year 200. fpeaks of Mark as (k) an apoftolical man, or com- panion of Apofiles : and fays, ** That (I) " the Gofpel, publifhed by Mark^ may be " reckoned Peter %y whofe interpreter he «' was."
Says Ortgen^ about 230. *' The (m) fe- «' cond Gofpel is that according to Marky " who wrote it as Peter didated it to him. *' Who therefore calls him his fon in his ca- " tholic epiftle." See i Peter v. 13.
Eufebe, about 315. may be fuppofed to agree in the main with Clement and Irenaeus^
whofe
(k) See Vol. a. p. 576. . . 58S. (I) p. 581.
(fn) Vol.'viii.p. 235.
Ch. VIT. Sf, Mark, 173
whofe paflages he has tranfcrlbed, and in- ferted in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie. And in a long palTage of his Evangelical Demon- llration, formerly {ii) tranfcribed by us, he fays : " Peter out of abundance of modeftie " thought not himfelf worthie to write a ** Gofpel. But Markj who was his friend *' and difciple, is faid to have recorded " Peters relations of the adts of Jefus." At the end of which palTage he fays : " And " foj Peter teflifies thefe things of himfelf, ** For all things in Mark are faid to be me- ** mohs of Peter s difcourfes." He likewife fays, " that (p) Mark was not prefent to hear " what Jefus faid." Nor (q) does it appear, that he thought the writer of the Gofpel to be yofmj furnamed Markj nephew to Barnabas, But unqueftionably he fuppofed him to be the fame that is mentioned i Pet, v. 13,
Mark is mentioned among the other Evangelids by (r) Athanafiiis^ without other particularities. But in the Synopfis, afcribed to him, and by many fuppofed to be writ by another Athanafim^ Bifliop of Alexandria^ near the end of the fifth centurie, it is faid,
That
(n)Vol.'vm. 86... 88.
(o)P.%^. (pJP.86. (9)P-H3'
(r) Vol, 'viii. /). 227,
i74
Sf. Mark, Ch. VIL
*' That (s) the Gofpel according to Mark " was didated by Peter at Roffh% ahd pub- «* liflied by Mark^ and preached by him in ** Alexandria^ and Egypt, and Tentapolis, ** and Lybia.''
The author of the Dialogue againft the Mardonites, about 330. fays, that (^) ili^r/^ was one of Chrift's feventy difciples.
Epiphaniits, about 368. fays : " Matthw " {u) wrote firft, and Mark foon after him, ** being a companion of Peter at Rome." Afterwards he fays, ** That (x) Mark was " one of Chrift's feventy difciples, and like- " wife one of thofe who were offended at *' the words of Chrift, recorded John vi. 44. ** and then forfook him : but he was after- " wards recovered by Peter, and being filled ** with the Spirit wrote a GofpeL"
Upon the laft paffage of Epiphanius Pe- tavius fays : " Mark (y) might, poffibly,
have
(s) Vol. miii. p. 250. (fj ^- 255.
(u) P. 305. {xj P. 306.
(y) Diffentit Papias apud Eufebium. . . . Quod autem aflerunt nonnulli, Marcum ron vidifle Dominum, viderit necne non affirmo. Videre quidem potuifle, temporum ipfa ratio perfuadet. Neque vero damnanda eft Epiphanii fententia, dum ilium e lxxii difcipulorum numero fuifie tra- dat, etfi contrarium alii patres tradant. Peiaa.: ad kc. Jni- mad-v, /I. 88.
Ch. VII. Sf. Mark. , 175
have feen Clirifl:, and have been one of the feventy : but it is faid by very few ancient v^^riters of the Church."
In the Conftitutions Mark (z) is reckoned with Luke a fellov^^- laborer of Paul. Which may induce us to think, that the author fup- pofed Marky the Evangel ift, to be John Mark, mentioned in the Ads, and fome of St. Paul's epiftles.
Gregorie Nazianzen fays, ** That {a) Mark ^
wrote his Gofpel for the Italians,'' or in Italie,
Ebedjefu fays, " The {b) fecond Evan- " gelift is Marky who preached [or wrote] *' in Latin, in the famous city of Rome''
Jerome'^ article of this Evangelifl, in his book of illuftrious Men, is to this purpofe : '* Mark [c) the difciple and interpreter of " Peter, at the defire of the brethren at ** Rome, wrote a (hort Gofpel, according to ** what he had heard related by Peter. ** Which when Peter knew, he approved " of it, and authorifed it to be read in the ** churches : as Clement writes in the fixth *' book of his Inftitutions, and alfo Papias,
*' Bifhop
(z) Vol. 'viti. p, 393. {a) Vol. ix.p. 1 3 3.
{b) P, 216. (f) Vol. X. p, 92. 93.
176 St. Mark. Ch. VII.
" BKhop of Hierapolis. Peter alfo makes *' mention of this Mark in his epiflle writ '' at Rome, which he figuratively calls Ba- " byloji. . . Taking the Gofpel, which him- *' felf had compofed, he went to Egypt, and " at Alexandria founded a church of great " note. ... He died in the eighth year of " Nero, and was buried at Alexandria : where " he was fucceded, as Bifhop, by AnianusJ*
In the prologue to his Commentarie upon St. Matthew, Jerome fays : " The {c) fecond '* Evangelift is Mark, interpreter of the « Apoflle Peter, and the firil: Biihop of " Alexandria : who never faw the Lord *' himfelf, but related things as he had them *' from his mafter, very truly, but not ex- ** adly in the order, in which they were «' done."
In his Commentarie upon Philem. ver. 24. he fays : " He {d) thinks, that Mark there " mentioned is the writer of the Gofpel." That Mark may be well fuppofed to be Joh?i Markj mentioned in the Ad;s, and in Col. iv. 10. where he is filled nepheiv to Barnabas, Whether that Mark was the Evangelift, was doubted of by fome. Nor was Jerome pofi-
tive.
(r) P. 83. {d) P. 93.
Ch. VJI. St. Mark. 177
tive. But he was inclined to think him the fame.
Augufiin [e) calls Mark and Luke difci' pies of Apoftles: and fays, that (f) Mark follows Matthew^ as his abridger. Upon v/hich fome remarks were {£) made.
By Chryfoftom (h) Mark is faid to have writ his Golpel in Egypt^ at the requeil of the believers there. However, at the end ■ of that paffags he fays : " In (/) what place each one of the Evangelifts wrote, cannot be faid with certainty." He likewife (k) calls Mark difciplc o^ Peter, and Peter his mafler.
He mud have fuppofed him the fame, ihat is mentioned i Pet. v. 13. But I do not re- colled: him to have any where faid, that he was the fame as John Mark.
Vi5icr, v/riter of a Commentarie upon St* iWjr^''s Gofpel, about the year 401. fays: '* He (I) was alf3 called ^ohn : that he *' wrote a Gofpel after Matthew, and was " the fon of Marie, mentioned A(fls xii. " For a while he accompanied Paid, and his " relation Barnabas. But when he came
(e) P. 228. Cf) P' 229.
(g) P. 233 zy,. (h)P. 315.
(i) P. 316. ..;i8. ^^;p. 318. 319.322.
(I) Vol. xi. f. 30. 3 ! .
Vol. I. •* N " to
(f
cc
178 St. Mark. CI1. VII.
to Rome^ he joyned Peters and accom- =' panied him. For which reafdn he is
mentioned i Pet. v. 13. Mark is alfo " mentioned by Paul, Col. iv. 10. 2 Tim. '* iv. II. ... When he was obliged to go *' from Rome, and was earneftly defired by *' the believers there to write a hiftorie of -" the preaching of the heavenly dodrine, *^ he readily complied. This, as he adds, " is faid to have been the occafion of writing ** the Gofpel according to Mark."
CofTnas^<ii Alexandria i about 535. fays: «' Mark (m)i the fecond Evangelift, wrote " a Gofpel at Romey by the diredion of <* Peter:'
By Ifidore, of Seville, about 596. Mark (n) is faid to have writ his Gofpel in Ifalie, Afterwards, he feems to fay, it (0) was writ at Alxeandria. But perhaps no more is meant, thao that Mark preached at AlexaU' dria the Goipel, which he had writ.
Oecumejiiiis, about 950. upon Ads xiii. 13, fays: *^ This (p) 'John, who is alfo *' called Mark, nephew to Barnabas^ wrote «' the Gofpel according to him, and was " alfo dilciple of Peter ^ of whom he fays
« in
(m) P. 267, (n) P. 367.
("J P' 37S- (PJ ^' 413.
cc « <c
Ch. VIL St, Mark
" in his firfl epidle : Mark^ my fin ^ Jalutcth *' you:'
'ThcophylaSi flourifhed about 1070. His preface to St. Ma?^k is to this purpofe: " The *' (q) Gofpel according to Mark was writ at Rome ten years after Chrift's afcenfion, at the requeft of the believers there. For this Mark was a difciple of Peter, v/hom he calls his fon fpiritually. His name was ** yohn. He was nephew to Barnabas, and " was alfo a companion of Faul^
EutbymhiSy about 1 1 ;o. fays :' 'VThe (r) " Gofpel of Mark was writ about ten years ** after our Lord's afcenfion, at Rome, as fome " fay, or in Egypt, according to others. " He fays, that at firil: Mark was much " with his uncle Barnabas, and Paul, Af^ " terwards he was v/ith Peter at Rome, as " the firft epiftle of the Apoftle {hews, whorn " he there calls his fon. From whom alfo " he received the whole hiftorie of the Gof- «* pel."
Nicephorus CalUfti, about 1325. fays: ** Two (s) only of the twelve, Matthew and " John, have left memoirs of our Lord s " life on earth : and two of the feventy, •* Mark and Luke'' And fomewhat lower :
N 2 " After
(i)p.^2u (r)p.i,i6. r^;p. 442.
179
iSo St. Mart Ch. VII.
♦' After this Mark and Luke publiflied their ** Gofpels by the dire£]:ion of Peter and " Paul:'
I add here one author more, not particu- larly mentioned in the preceding part of this work, Eiitychius, Patriarch of Alexandria^ in the tenth centurie : who fays, " that (t) in " the time of the Emperour Nero^ Peter the " prince of the Apoflles, making ufe of the *' pen of JVf^r/^, wrote a Gofpel at Pome^ in " the Roman language. And he publifhed *' it under Marli% name." By the Romany probably, meaning the Greek language, which then very much prevailed in the Ro- man Empire, as (u) Selden has obferved. ne7narh V. Let US HOW briefly recoiled: what has palTed before us, in feveral articles.
I. All the ancient writers in general fup- pofe, the Evangelift Mark to have been a companion of Peter in the later part of his life, and to have had great advantages from that Apoftle's preaching for compofing a Gofpel.
2. Though
(t) Et tempore Neronis Caefaris Tcnpfit Petrus, Apoftolo- ■ rum princeps, Evangelium Marci, didlante Marco, lingua Romana, in urbe Romae. Sed adtrlbuit illud Marco. £«- tjch. Ann.f, 335. Conf. ejujd. Origines. ^.35. (ti) Vid, Selden in Eutych. Origin, not, 28. />, 152,
upon them.
Ch. VII. , ^t.Marh i8i
2. Though fome have doubted, who Mark was, many have been of opinion, that he was ^ohn Mark, fon of Marie, a pious Jevvifli woman, and an early believer, of yerufalemy and nephew to Barnabas,
3. \i Mark, the Evangelift, be 'John Mark^ as feems to me very probable, he was well acquainted with Barnabas and Paul, and other Apoftles, and difciples, eye-witnefles of Jefus, befide Peter.
4. Some of the ancient writers, quoted by us, thought Mark to have been one of Chrift's feventy difciples. Which, I apprehend can- not be either affirmed, or denied with cer- tainty. But, if he was not one of them, he was an early believer, and an early difciple and companion of Apoftles, and intimatly converfant with them. Whereby, and by hearing Peter preach in Judea, and other pla- ces, and laftly at Rome, he w^as well qualifi- ed to write a Gofpel.
^.Bafnage has fome obfervations upon this point, which deferves to be taken notice of, « Epiphanius (x) and the Author of the Dla-
N 3 ^' logue
(x) Marcum deLXX difcipulis unum fuifTe, credidit Epi- phanius Nobis tamea non arridet ea fententia cum in-
Cfcdibile fit, PetrUi-n Marco Jilli nomen addidilTe, fi de fep.
tuaginw
.c
182 Sf. Marh Ch, VII.
*' logue again ft the Marcionifcs, fuppofe, ^* Mark to have been one of Chrift's'feventy " difciples. But that opinion, fays he, does not appear to me well grounded. It feems incredible, that Peter (hould call Mark, his ^^ Jbuy if he was one of the feventy, who had " a commiflion from Chrifl; himfelf, and ** were almpft equal to Apoftles. That an- " cient writer, P^ipias^ excludes him from <* that number, faying, that Mark was not a *' hearer or follower of the Lord. . . . And ** TertuUian calls Mark Peter's interpreter^ " which ofHce would be belov/ the charader " of one of the feventy. . . . Nor does Origen «* make him one of the feventy, whofe autho- *' rity muft be of great weight. . . . However, " it fcems to me very probable, that Mark <« was one of the five hundred brethren, who *' faw Chrift after his refurredtion. And
" having
tuaginta difcipnlis unus fuiflet, quos Chriftus ipfe legaverat, ijuique ab omni fere parte aequales erant Apoftolis. Papias quoque vetullus ille audor LXX difcipulis Marcum eximit. . . Ex Tertulliano quoque fcimus, Marcum intcrpretis officio fundum fuifle, quod infra LXX dignitatem fuit. . . . Neque LXX difcipulis eum appofuit Origenes, cujus non minimi pnnderis eft teftimonium. . . Nobis tamen eft admodum pro- babile, Marcum unum fuifle quingentorum fratrum, qui Chriftum a morte revocatum contemplati funt. Cuique, ut telH oculato, commifta eft fcribendi Evangelii provincia. J^nftt. Ann, 66, nufn. x-vii.
(5h. VII. Si. Mark. 183
" having been an eye-witneffe of that, he ** was qualified to write a Gofpel."
Upon which I obferve : The fuppofition, that Mark might be one of the five hundred, fpoken of by St. Paul i. Cor. xv. 6. is a mere conjedure, without any authority, either in Scripture, or antiquity. But I would add a thought or two for ftrengthening the argu* ment, that Mark was not one of the feventy difciples. Eufebe (y) in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie, has a chapter concerning the Difci- ples of our Saviour. But Mark is not there [ named, as one of them. Nor does Jerome fay any thing of it in his book of Illuftrious Men : nor elfewhere, that I remember. The filence of Origen^ Eiijebe, and Jerome^ upon this head, muft amount to an argument of no fmall weight, that there was not in their times any prevailing tradition, that Mark was one of the feventy. It may be alfo reckoned an argument, that he was not of that number, in that he has not ^in his Gofpel taken any notice of them, or of the commifTion given to them. Which is in St. huke only. ch. x. I. . . 17.
I therefore conclude with faying, that Mvrk was an early believer, and an early
N 4 dif-
(y) H. E.l. I. cap. xii.
184 St. Mark, Ch. VIL
difciple and fellow-laborer of Apoftles. But that he ever faw, or heard the Lord Jefus, is not certain.
5. The general account of the above named writers is, that Mark wrote his Gofpel at Rome. In this there is a remarkable agree- ment, with a very few exceptions. Chryfof^ torn indeed fpeaks of it's being writ in Egypt. But he is almofl lingular. That it was writ at Rome, or in Italic, is faid not only by Epi- phanius, Jerome , Gregcrie Nazianze?!, Vi5for, and divers others : but the Egyptian writers Jikewife all along fay the fame thing : that it was writ by Mark at Rojne, in the companie of the Apoftle Peter. So fay Clement , of A' lexandria, Athanajtiis, the fuppofed author of the Synopds of Scripture, Cofmas, and Eu- tychius, all of Alexandria. Ebedjeju likevi'ife, in his catalogue of Syrian writings, fays, that Mark wrote at Rome. And the Latin au^ thor of the commentarie upon St. Mark's Gofpel, quoted fome while ago, fays, that it was writ in Italie.
6. This leads us to think, that St. Mark'% Gofpel was not writ before the year 63. or 64. For we cannot perceive any good reafon to think, that St. Feter was 2XRome, till about |hat time. And this date is fupported by the
tefti-
Ch. VII. St. Mark, 185
teftimonie of that ancient writer, Irenaeus, \h-iX Mark publidied his Gofpel ajter the de- ceaje of Peter and Paul,
VI. Thefe are obfervations, which the TheTimti above cited teilimonies fetm naturally to goj^I afford. But before we proceed any farther, it will be fit for us to take notice of the fentiments of learned moderns concerning the time of St. Mark\ writing his Gofpel.
Cave fuppofes St. Mark to have publiihed his Gofpel at Rome^ in the year of Chrift 65. His argument for it 1 place (z) below.
Mr. Jojtess opinion was, that (a) this Gofpel was publiflied betv^een the year 64,
and
(z) Rogp.tus Roinae a fratribus, fcripfit Evangelium, a Petro approbatum, idque Graeco fermone Romanis fatis famiiiari. Factum id circa ann. 65. Petro et Paulo jam morte fublatis. Cum enim ilium epiftola fecunda ad Timotheum non longe ante martyrium fcripta, Romam accerfiverat Paulus, proba- blle eft, Marcum vel eodem, vel faltem fequenti anno illuc venifie, ibique Evangelium vel primum condidifTe, vel prius conditum in publicum edidifie. Certe Irenaeus, 1. 3. cap. i. et apud Eufebium, 1. 5. c. viii. S. Marcum ueja t)jv r/.jav 'ic^oS'ov Evangelium fuum confcripfifTe difcrte tradit. Cav. H, L, T. i. p. 24.
(a) Mr. Jonesh words are thefe : " Thefe, with fome other *' reafons, make it evident to me, that St. Peter was not at *' Roifie, till the year of Chrift 63. or 64. and confeqiient- " ly, that the Gofpel of St. May-k was not written before " this time, but between that and the martyrdom of this " Apoftle and St. Paul, in the year of Chriil 67. or 68.'^. JVfiy and full Method. Vol, 3, p. 88,
86 Sf. Mark, Ch. VII.
and Sy. or 68. when, according to his com- putation, Peter and PWfuffered martyrdom.
y Jl. Fabricius (b) was for the year of Chrid 63. the ninth of Nero.
Mill fays, that (c). St. Mark published his Gofpel at Rome in the year of Chrift 63. after that the Apoftles Feter and Faul had been gone from thence, as Irenaeus fays.
But here 1 beg leave to obferve, that, pro- bably, Irenaeus does not fpeak of thefe two Apoftles removal from Rome, but of their deceafe. Secondly, Dr. Mill has no reafoii to fuppofe, that Peter was at Rome, during the time of Patirs two years imprifonment there, efpecially at the period of it. But there is a great deal of reafon to think otherwife. For we have feveral epiftles of St. Paul, writ near the end of that confine- ment, in which no notice is taken of Peter.
Bafnage,
(b) Biv. Gr. I. \..cap. i', Tom. 3. ^. 124. et 131.
(c) Poft Pauli ac Petri l^oS'ov, feu difceflum ab urbe Roma. . . . Marcus dijdpulus et hiterpres Petri, el ipfe quae a Petro annuntiata erant, perfcripta nobis tradidit. Inquit Irenaeus . . . Scripfit igitur Marcus Evangelium, juxta Irenaeum, paullo pofc horum duorum Apollclorum difceflum a Roma, qui accidifle videtur anno aerae vulgaris Lxiii. Mill. Proles, man. lOi.
Ch.VII. St. Mark. 187
Bafncfge (d) clofely following Irenaeus^ fays, Mark'?, Gofpel was publifhed in the year 66. after the deccafe of P^/^r and Paid: whofe martyrdoms, according to him, hap- pened in (e) the year 65.
So that it has been of late the opinion of many learned men, of the heft judgement in thefe matters, that St, Marlz% Gofpel vvas not publiflied, till after the year of Chrift 60. I readily affent to them fo far. And as I am difpofed to place the martyrdoms of thefe two great Apoftles at Kome^ in the later part of the year 64. or in 6^. it feems to me probable, that St. Mark\ Gofpel was compofed in the year 64. or 65. and made public by him the firft fair opportunity, fyon afterwards, before the end of the year 65. That I mention as the lateft date. I do not prefume to fay the time exad:Iy. For it might be finidied, and publid^.ed in the year 64.
I hoped to have had afliftance from Mr. Wetjlein in this difquifition. But have been
fome-
(d) De Marci Evangelio legimus apud Irenaeum . . . Poji tvero horurn excejfum .... Quae traditio magis apud nos valet, quam alia quaelibet de tempore editi a Marco Evan- gelii chronologia. Ba/n. ann. 66, n, xii.
(e) Vid. ann. 6^, nnm, ix.
1 88 Sf. Mark. Ch. VII.
fomcwhat difappointed. In his preface to St. Mark's Gofpel he concludes from Col. iv. lo. and Philem. ver. 23. that CfJ St. Mark had been with the Apoftle Paul at Romey in the time of his confinement there : that from thence he went to Colojjey and after- wards returned to Rome, where he is faid to have writ his Gofpel. Accordingly, as one would think, St. Mark's Gofpel could not be publifiied before the year 64. or 65. But in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel the fame learned writer expreffeth himfelf to this purpofe. *' According (g) to fome ec- clefiaftical writers Luke publidied his Gof- pel fifteen, according to others two and twenty years after Chrift's afcenfion .... *' That he tranfcribed many things from ** Matthew, and yet more from Mark, is *' manifeft."
But
(f) Inde Romam veiiit, Paulumque captivum invifit. Col. iv. 10. Philem. 23. Inde ad ColofTenfes abiit, a quibus ro- gatu Pauli Romam rediit. 2 Tim. iv. 11. ubi Evangelium confcripfiffe .... dicitur. Wetfien. N. T. Tom. i. p. SS^-
(g) Evangelium autem edidit xv, aut feciindum alios
xxii. pofl Chrifti adfcenfionem annis Lucam multa ex
Matthaeo, ex Marco pliira defcripiiffe, ex collatione patet. Jb. f. 643.
(C
cc
Ch.VII. St, Mark. 189
But if St. Luke wrote within two and twenty years after Chrift's afcendon, and tranfcribed a great deal from St. Mark ; St. Mar1i% Gofpel muft have been firft publifh- ed, ard very early. If St. Mark\ Gofpel was not publifhed, till the year 64. and St. L'ike tranfcribed from him ; St. hiike could iiot write, till a good while after two and twenty years from Chrili's afceniion. I do not perceive therefore, that Mr. Wetjlein had any determined opinion concerning the date of thefe two Gofpels. Nor can I, as yet, perfuade myfelf, that any of the Evangelifts tranfcribed each other.
VII. I will now obferve fome charaders Marks of of time in the Gofpel itfelf, like thofe before c^rpeTit- taken notice of in St. Matthew. filf^
1. From ch. vii. 14 . . 23. it appears, that St. Mark fully underftood the fpirituality of the dodrine of Chrifl:, recommending righ- teoufnelle and true holinefle, without an ob- ligation to JewiOi ritual ordinances and ap- pointments.
2. His hiftorie of the Greek or Gentil woman, in the fame chap. vii. 24 . . 30. who befought Jefus to heal her daughter, and ob- tained her requeft, dcferves notice here.
3. The
^90 St. Mark. Ch. VII.
3. The call of the Gentils, and the rejec- tion of the Jews, as a People, are intimated in ch. xii. i . . 12. in the parable there re- corded, of the Houfeholder, who planted a vineyard, and let it out to huibandmen : to whom after a while he fent fervants, and then his fon, to receive from them the fruit of the vineyard. But they abufed the fer- vants, and killed the fon. It is added : What therefore will the lord of the 'vineyard do ? He will defl'^oy the hujhandmeriy and will let out the 'vineyard unto others. And what follows.
4. In ch. xiii, are predidions concerning the de{lru6lion of the temple, and the de- folations of the Jevvifh People. And, par- ticularly, at ver. 14 . . 16. are remarkable expreliioos, intimating the near approach of thofe calamities, and fuited to excite the at- tention of iuch as were in danger of being involved in theoi.
5. Ill his account of the inditULion of the eucharift our Lord fays : ch, xiv. 24. ^Im is my bloud of the New Teftamejit, which is fied for mmiy : that is, for all men, not for Jews onlv, but for Gentils alfo.
6. In ch. iv. 30 . . 32. is the parable of X\\Q grain of miiflardfeed^ the lefl of all feeds ^
which
Ch. VIT. Sf. Mark, 191
which become th greater than all herbs : repre- fenting the fwift and wonderful progrefTe of the gofpel in the world. Of which it is very likely, St. Mark, at the time of writing, had fome knowledge.
7. It is manifeO, that he well underflood the extent of our Saviour's commiflion to the twelve Apoiiles. For he has recorded it in thefe words, ch. xvi. 15. Go ye there- fore into all the world, aJtd preach the gofpel
to e'uery creature : or the whole creation, that is, Jews and Gentils, all mankind of every denomination.
8. Yea, it appears from the conclulion of his hiftorie, that before he wrote, the Apof- les (at left divers of them,) had left fudea^ and had preached in many places, ver. 20. And they went forth, and preached e^cery where , the Lord working with them, aud confirming the word with figm following.
9. Ch. xvi. 18. ^hey fijall take up ferpents. Some may think, that here is a reference to the hiftorie, which we have in Ad:s xxviii. 3 . . 6. I do not fay, there is. But allow- ing it, I (hould not reckon it an objection to the genuinnefle of this part of that chapter. It would only be an argument for the late date of this Gofpel. And it has been fo un-
derftood
192 -S"/. Marh Ch. VII.
derilood by (h) fome. For my own part^ 1 cannot fay, that St. Mark has referred to it. But I make no queftlon, tliat he was ac- quainted with the event there related, when he wrote his Gofpel, Ohfernia- Vlli. I lliali coHclude this chapter with
ThhGoJ^el. ^^^^ obfervations upon St. Mark'^ Gofpel.
I. It confirms the accounts given by the ancients, that it is the fubftance of Peter's preaching.
This was taken notice of jufi: now in our recollection. But I choofe to enlarge upon it here, and (Lew, that the Gofpel itfelf af- fords evidences of it's being writ according to that Apoftle's difcourfes, or according to informations and diredioris given by him to this Evan!?elili.
I.) In the firft place I would here remind my readers of a long paffage of Eiifebius, the
learned
(h) Poftremo, iti ipfis Evangeliis quaedam exilare videntur criteria, ex quibus caTero efle confcripta colligi potelt, Phra- fis uiyN 7>K ffii y-iooVf ^f^ite ad hunc diem. Mat. xxviii. 15. juflum fpatium inter Chrifti refurredionem et Evangelium exaratum poftulare videtur. Ita quae Marcus cap xvi. 18. de ferpeKtibus a ChrilH difcipulis fine damno tollendis habet, ad Paulum, Rornam tendentem, et quod ei in itinere in in- fiila Milcto contigit, refpicere videntur. Herman. Venema DiJJ', fecund, de titulo ep. ad Ephef. Cap* v. num. iv.
Ch. VIL Sf. Mark
learned Bifhop of Cefarea, formerly tfan- fcribed, of which I take here a very fmall part only.
Having obferved feveral things very ho- norable to Peier, related in the other Gof- pels, he adds : " Though (i) fuch things " were fald to Peter by Jefus, Mark has " taken no notice of them : becaufe, as is ** probable, Peter did not relate them in *' his fermons. For he did not think fit " to bear teftimonie to himfelf by relating ** what Jefus faid to him, or of him. There- ** fore Mark has omitted them. But what " concerned his denial of Jefus, he preached ** to all men, becaufe he wept bitterly. . . . *' For all things in Mark are faid to be me- ** moirs of Peter's difcourfes."
2.) And (k) Chryfojiom, reconciling Mat- thew's and Mark's accounts of Peter's de- nying Chrift, fays : " Thefe things Mark " had from his mafter. For he was a dif- " ciple of Peter. And what is very re- " markable, though he was a difciple of *' Peter, he relates his fall more particularly, " than any of the reft."
(i) Vol. njiii. p. 86. ... 88. (k)Vol.x.p.-^\2.
Vol. I. * O 3.) The
193
^94
St. Mark, Ch. VII.
3.) The (I) fame great preacher explaining the hiftorie of our Lord's paying the didrachm or tribute-money to the temple, which is in Matth. xvii. 24. . . 27. and particularly thofe words : That take^ and give unto them for me and thee ^ fays, " Mark, who was a difciple of *' Peter, omits this, becaufe it was honorable " to that Apoftle. But he relates the hiftorie <* of his denial of Chrift. And perhaps his *' mafter forbid him to infert fuch things, as " tended to aggrandife him."
4.) No one has more largely treated this point, than Mr. Jones, who has (m) a cata- logue of feveral places in the Gofpels, con- taining things tending to Peter's honour, which are not mentioned in St. Mark's Gofpel.
(i.) The account of Chrift's pronouncing Peter bleffed, when he had confeffed him : Chrift's declaring, that he had his faith and knowledge from God : the promife of the keys, and of that large power, which is made to him : are omitted by St. Mark, though the former and the fucceding parts of this dif- -courfe are both told by him. See Matt. xvi. 16. . . 20. compared with Mark viii. 29. 30.
r (2.) The
(m) See wxv md full Method, Part 3. />. 79. . . 8u.
Cb. VII. St. Mark, 195
(2.) The relation of St. Peters being commiiTioned by Chrift to work the mi- racle, by getting money out of the filh's mouth, to pay the tribute-money, is told by St. Matthew, ch. xvii. 24. . . 28. but omitted by St. Mark : though the preced- ing and fubfequent ftories are the very fame as in St. Matthew. See Mark ix. 30. . . 33.
(3.) Chrift's particular expreffions of love and favour to St. Peter^ in telling him of his danger, and that he prayed particularly for him, that his faith might not fail, is omitted by St. Mark^ but related Luke xxii.
{4.) St. Peter's remarkable humility above the reft of the Apoftles exprefted in an un- willingnefle, that Chrift (hould wa(h his feet, which none of the reft did exprefs, with Chrift's particular difcourfe to him. John xiii. 6. 6cc. is omitted by Mark.
(5.) The inftance of St. Peter's very great zeal for Chrift, when he was taken, in cut- . ting off the High-Prieft's fervant's ear. John xviii. 10. is not mentioned by Mark in par- ticular, but only told in general, of a certain 'perfon that ftood by. Mark xiv. 47.
(6.) St. Peter's faith in cafting himfelf into O 2 the
196 St. Mark. Ch.VII.
the Tea, to go to Chrift. John xxi. 7. is not mentioned by St. Mark, (a)
(7.) Chrift's difcourfe with Peter concern- ing his love to him, and his particular re- peated charge to him, to feed his flieep. John xxi. 15. is omitted by St. Mark.
(8.) Our Saviour's prediding to Peter his martyrdom, and the manner of it. John xxi. "'18. 19. is not related by St. Mark.
" Thefe, adds that diligent author, are fome inftances of things, tending to St. Peters honour, recorded by the other Evangelifts, none of which are fo much as hinted by St. Mark. . . . All which cannot be accounted for any way more probable, than fuppofing, that this Apofile did not publifli thofe cir- cumftances, which were fo much to his honour.'*
Indeed, I think, they do confirm the ac- counts given of this Gofpel by the ancients. For thefe omiffions cannot be fo well afcribed to any thing, as to St. Peters modeftie and refervednefTe, who had not mentioned fuch things in his preaching, and difcouraged the putting them down in writing : infomuch,
that
(a) There Is a like thing, and more extraordinarie, related by Matthenv only. ch. xiv. 28. , . 31, I do not know, why Mr. Jones omitted it.
Ch. VII. St. Mark. igy
that as TerttilUan fays, the (n) Gofpel pub- liflied by Mark^ may be faid to be Peter' 5.
5.) Neverthelefs I muft acknowledge, that there are fome things in St. Mark\ Gofpel honorable to Peter ^ which are not in any- other. I fliall mention two or three.
Says St. Mark ch. i. 36. ylfid Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him. If thereby be intended the whole companie of the Apoftles, that way of defcribing them is very honorable to Peter, But fome may fuppofe, none to be intended, befide thofe mentioned ver. 29. If fo, it refembles Luke ix. 32. But Peter, and they that were with him : meaning John and James, and refer- ring to ver. 28.
In Mark xiv. 3, Peter is mentioned, as one of the four Apoftles, to whom our Lord ad- drelTed himfelf, when he foretold the de- flrudion of the temple, and the calamities attending it. V/hich is a pafTage peculiar to St. Mark.
And Ch.xvi. 7. The meffage, which the angels fent to the difciples by the women at the fepulchre, is thus expreiled : But go your way. 'Tell his difciples, and PetiT, that he goes before you into Galilee, Peter is not men-
O 3 tioncd,
(n) See Vol, it, p, 581.
jpS ' Sf. Mark. Ch. VII.
tloned, upon this occafion, by Matthew xxviii. 7. nor by any other of the EvangeUfts.
Upon this text JVhitby fays very well : " Feter is here named, not as Prince of the ** Apoftles, but, as the Fathers fay, for his *' confolation, and to take off the fcruple, *• which might be upon his fpirit : whether *' by his threefold denial of his mafter, he *' had not forfeited his right to be one of " Chrift's difciples.'*
I now proceed to another obfervation.
2. St. Marli^ Gofpel, as is evident to all, is the fhorteft of the four. 'Jerome^ as before cited, fays, Mark (0) wrote a (hort Gofpel. And Chryfoftom obferved, that (p) Mark had the concifeneffe of Peter^ following hig mafter.
3. Neverthelefs there are in St. Mark many things peculiar to himfelf, not mentioned by any other Evangelift.
I fhall here put down feveral fuch things, and not thofe, which are omitted by Matthew only, but fuch things, as are in Marky and in no other of the Evan<2;elifts.
I .) In the account of our Saviour's tempta- tion in the wilderneffe, St. Mark fays, ch. i, 1 3 . and was with the wild beajfs : not mien-
tioned
(oj See here. p. 175. (p) See Volume x, p. 322.
Ch. VII. Sl Mark.
tioned by any other Evangelifl:, and yet very proper to Qiew the hardfliips, which our Lord underwent at that feafon.
2.) Ch, i. 20. In the account of the call of
jfames and yohi, the fons oi ZebedeCj he fays,
they left their father ifi the Jhip, with the hired
ferva?2ts. A circumftance not mentioned by
any other.
3.) Ch. i. 29. And forthwith, when they were come out of the Jynagogue, they entred into the houfe of Simon, a?id Andrew, with yames and John. In Matt. viii. 14. it is only, come into Peter's houfe. In Luke iv. 38. and entred into Simo7is houfe.
4.) Ch. i. 33. And all the city was gathered together at the door. Not in any other Evan- gelift. Compare Matt. viii. 16. Luke iv. 40. 41.
5.) Ch. i. 35. And in the morning rifing up a great while bejore day, he went out, and de^ parted into a folitarie place, and there prayed, 36. And Simo7i, and they that were with him^ followed after him. 37. And when they had found him, they faid unto him : All 7nen feek thee. This is not at all in Matthew^ and is here much fuller, and with more particulars, than in Luke iv. 42.
O 4 6.) Ch.
/
199
200 Sl Mark. Ch. VII.
6.) Ch. i. 45. Of the leper, cured by our Saviour, he fays : But be wejit outy and began to publifi it miichy and to blaze abroad the mat- ter: Not particularly mentioned by the other Evangelifls. Compare Matth. viii. 4. Luke V. 14. 15.
7.) In the cure of the paralytic, ch. ii. 2. And /Iraitway many were gathered together y infomuch that there was no room to receive the mi not fo much as about the door. 3 . And they come unto him^ briiiging one fick of the palfiet which was born of Jour. 4. And they un- covered the roof. . . No other Evangelifl: has fo particularly defcribed the croud. In Mark only is it faid, that this lick man was born of four. He likewife more particularly defcribes the uncovering the roof. Compare Matt, ix, I. 2. Luke V. 18. 19.
8.) In the hiftorie of the man with a wi- thered hand^ cured in the fynagogue, on a fab- bath. ch. iii, 5. Aiid when he had looked round about on them with anger ^ being grieved for the hardnejje of their hearts^ he faith unto the man : Stretch forth thy hand. Not fo full in any- other Evangelift. Compare Matt. xii. 9. . . 13. Luke vi. 6. . . 11.
9.) Ch. iii. ver. 6. And the F bar i fees went forthy and Jhaitway took counfel with the He-
rodians
Ch. VII. St, Mark, ^ 201
rodians againft kim. Matt. xii. 14. mentions Pharifees only. Luke vi. 11. mentions no perfons by name.
10.) Ch. iii. 17. And James the fin of Ze' be dee, and John the brother of James. And he named them Boanerges, Not in any other Evangelift.
II.) Ch. iii. 19. . . And they went into the boufe, 20. And the multitude cometh together again, fo that they could not fo much as eat bread, 21. And when his friends heard of ity they went out to lay hold of him. For they f aid : He is bejide himfelf Whether that expreilion he is befide himfelf, is to be underftood of Chrift, or of the multitude, this pafTage is pe- cuHar to '^t.Mark,
12.) Ch. iv. 26. Ajid he faid : So is thekijjg- domo/God, as if a man JJjould caf his feed in- to the ground, 2 7 . andfmuldfeep, and rife night and day, and the feed foidd fpring and grow up, he knoweth not how. 28. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of itfelffrfi the blade, then the ear^ after that the full corn in the ear. 29. But when the fruit is ripe, immediatly he putteth in the fickle, becaife the harveji is come. This parable is peculiar to St. Mark, See Whitby upon the place, and likewife (q) Grotius,
(q) Haec parabola, aliis omiiTaj cum fuam hie explic.^tio-
nem
202 Si. Mark. Ch. VIJ.
1 3.) After the parable of the grain of muf- tard'feed, befide other things common to him and Matthew^ be adds. ch. iv. 24. And when they were alone, he expounded all things to his dijciples. Compare Matt. xiii. 31. . . 34^ This particular leads us mightily, to thirtk, that either Mark was an eye-witneffe, or had the beft and fulleft information of things.
14.) Mark iv. 36. And when they had fent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the Jl:ip. This cir,cumftance, pecu- liar to St. Mark^ enables us to account for our Lord's faft fleep in his paiTage to the countrey of the Gadarens. We perceive from St. Mark, that this voyage was undertaken in the evening, after the fatigue of long dif- courfes in public, and without any refresh- ment. Our Lord's fleep in the midfl: of a ilorm is mentioned by all three Evangelifts. Matt. viii. 24. . . 26. Mark iv. 37. 38. Luke viii. 23. 24. But this Evangelift alone leads ' us to difcern the occalion of it.
15.) Farther, in the fame ver. 36. of ch.
iv. And there were alfo with him Jeveral other
little jlnps. A particular, peculiar to St.
- Mark.
16.) Ch.
nem non habeat, ^xplicari debet ex fimili comparatione; quae eii apud Match, xiii. 24. Grot, ad Marc, i'v. 26.
Ch. VII. ' SL Mark. 203
16.) And in the account of this voyage crofs the Tea, he fays ver. 38. that our Lord was in the hinder part of the Jhip, ajleep on a pillow : two circumftances, wanting in the other Evangelifts.
17.) Certainly, thefc, and other things, are fufficient to aiTure us, that either Mark was an eye-witnelTe : or, that he wrote things, as related to him by an eye-witnelTe, even Peter himfelf, as all the ancients fay.
18.) In Matt. viii. 28. . . 34. Mark v. i. .. 19. Luke viii. 26. . . 39. are the feveral ac- counts of our Lord's healing the demoniac. Of demoniacs, in the countrey of the Gada- rem. For Matthew fpeaks of two, Mark and Luke of one only. In St. Mark's hiftorie are divers things, not in the other Gofpels. In him alone it is faid, that the man was aU ways night and day in the mountains^ and in the tombs^ crying, and cutting bimjelf with jlones. And he only mentions the number of fwine, that perished in the fea, faying, they were about two thoiijand.
19.) All the iirft three Evangelifts have given a hiftorie of our Lo.d's railing the daughter of yairus, and healing the woman with an iflue of bloud, both in connexion. Matt. ix. 18. . . 26. Mark v. 22. . . 43.
Luke
204 St. Mark. Ch. VIL
Luke viil. 41. . . 56. St. Mark has feveral things, which are in neither of the other. Of the woman he fays ver. it.jljehadjuffered much of many Thjficiam . . . and was noihifig bettered^ but rather grew imrfe. At ver. 29. And fie felt in her body, that fie was healed of that plague. At ver. 41. he inferts the very words, which Jefiis fpake, when he raifed the daughter of Jairus : Talitha Kumi. I have omitted fome other things, peculiar to ^t.Mark in the account of thefe two miracles.
20.) Ch. vi. 13. In the account of the commiffion given to the twelve by Chrift in his life- time, he fays : they anointed many with oyly and healed them. Which is men- tioned by no other Evangelift, as was ob- ferved of old by (r) ViBor.
21.) Mark vii. 2. 3. 4. What is there faid of the Jews wafhing themfelves, when they come from the market, before they eat : and of their cleanfing cups^ pots^ hrafen vejfelsy end tablesy is peculiar to St. Mark. Comp. Matt. XV. 1.2.
22.) Ch. vii. 21. 22. Are the things, that defile men. St. Matthew, ch. xv. 19. men- tions feven things only. St. Mark has thir- teen.
(r^ See Vol. XI. p. 34.
Ch. VII. St. Mark, 205
teen. And two of them, an evil eye, and fooliJJmeJfei are very fingular.
23.) Ch. vii. 31. . . 37. Our Lord be- flows hearing and fpeech upon a deaf and
dumb man.
24.) Ch. viii. 22. . . 26. Our Lord cures a blind man at Bethfaida.
Thefe two miracles are peculiar to St. Mark, being related by no other Evangelifl. 25.) Ch. X. 46. . . 52. is the account of the miracle on the blind man near Jericho, St. Mark, ver. 46. calls him blind Bartimeus, [on ofTimaeiis. Not mentioned by the other Evangelifts. See Matt. xx. 29. . , 34. Luke xviii. 35. . . 43. And at ver, 50. he cajling away his garment , rofe, and came to Jefus, A circumftance peculiar to St. Mark, Which {hews his exad knowledge of the hiftorie, as did likewife his calling the man by his name. 26.) Ch. xi. 1 3. Tor the time of figs was not yet : that is, the time of gathering was not yet come. A moft ufeful obfervation peculiar to this Evangclift, fhewing, that as there were leaves, it was reafonable to exped fruit on this fig-tree, if it was not barren. Upon this text might be confulted (s) Bifhop Kidder and {t) Mr. Hallet,
27.) Ch.
(s) Demonjlration of the MeJJiah. Part z, ch. it. /•• 38. 39. (t) Notes and Difcour/es. Vol. 2. p. 114. . . i Z5.
2o6 St. Mark. Ch. VII.
27.) Ch. xiil. 3. 4. And as he fat upon the mount of Olives^ over againfi the temple^ Peter^ and James, and John, and Andrew, ajked him privatly . . . When fJdall thefe things be ? No other Evangelifl: has mentioned the names of the difciples, who put this quefiion to our Saviour. Comp. Matt. xxiv. i. , . 3. Luke xxi. 5.
28.) In Mark xii. 41. . , 44. and Luke xxi. I. . . 4. is the account of the people cafting their gifts into the chefts of the trea- furie, in the temple. St. Mark fays : And Jefus fat over againjl the treafiirie. In which cxpreffion there is great propriety. And he alone mentions the value of the poor widow's two mites, faying : Which make a farthing.
29.) Ch. xiv. 51. And there followed hi?n a certain young man, having a linen cloth cajl ' - about his naked body. And the young men [the guards] laid hold on him. 52. And he left the linen cloih\ and fled from them naked, A particular, in no other Evangelifl:, yet very fitly taken notice of, as intimating the ufual noife and difl:urbance, when a man is taken up in the night-time, as a malefadtor, and is carried before a magiftrate. By (u)
the
(u) Non de ApoHoIorum grege ... fed ex villa aliqua horto
proxima.
Ch. VII. St. MarL 207
the noife of the people pafling along that
young perfon was excited to come haftily
out of the houfe, where he was, to inquire,
what was the matter. Mr. Le Cierc, in his
French Teftament, has an ufeful note upon
this place. He obferves the natural fimpli-
city of the Evangelifts narration. Which, ,
as he juftly fays, confirms the truth of their
hiftorie,
30.) Ch. XV. 21. j^iid ihey compel! one Simony a Cyrenian^ who pajpd by, coming out of the count rey, the father of Alexander and RuJuSy to bear his crojje. That particular, the father of Alexander and Rufus^ is in no other Evangelift. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 32. and Luke xxiii. 26.
31.) Ch. xvi. 3. 4. And they faid among themfelves : Who fdall roll us away the /lone from the door ofthefepulchre. For it was very great. In no other Evangehft.
32.) Ch. xvi. 7. But go your way. Tell his difciplesy and Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee. The mention oi Peter is pe- culiar to St. Mark. For in Matt, xxviii. 7. it is : Go quickly, and tell his difciples, St. Luke has not recorded that meilage.
33-) I
proxima, ftrepitu militum excitatus, ct fubito accurrens, ut confpiceret, quid ageretur. Grot, ad Marc. xi. 51. -
2o8 ' S^. Mark. Ch. VIL
33.) I add nothing more of this kind. I have omitted many things, which are in this Gofpel, and no other, being apprehenfive, that if I enlarged farther, I fhould be charged with prolixity.
34.) The particulars that have been al- leged, are fufficient to aflure us, that St. Mark is not an.epitomifer of another au- thor : and that he v^as vi^ell acquainted with the things, of which he undertook to write a hiftorie. He writes as an eye-witnefle, or as one, who had full and authentic infor- mation at the firft hand. In a word, St. Mark's Gofpel, though fliort, is a very valuable, and mafterly performance.
4. It may be proper for me to add one thing more : That I fuppofe the twelve verfes at the end of the fixteenth chapter to be a genuine part of this Gofpel. ]f any doubt of it, I would refer them for their fatisfadion to Dr. Mill, and to the obfer- vations of Grotius at the begining of that chapter, and to Beza upon the ninth verfe. And for explaining thofe twelve verfes, and' reconciling them with the other Evangelifts, I refer to Grotius j and other Commentators.
CHAP.
209
CHAP. VIII.
St. Luke, Evangelift.
I. His Hiflorie from the N. T. II, 'Teftimo* iiies of ancient Chriftian Writers to St. Liike^ and his two Books, his Go/pel^ and the ABs. III. Remarks upon thofe T^eflimonies. IV. l^he Time of luriting his Gofpel and the ABs. ijV. Internal CharaBers of Time in the Gofpel. VI. The Place, where it was
writ. VII. A general recolleBion of St. Luke's CharaBer. VIII. Obfervations upon his Gofpel. IX. Obfervations upon the Book of the ABs.
I. F^)^"^H E firft time that we find any Hhrnprit 8 T ^ mention of St. Luke in the books ^'"V^'' k_)S^^j«( of the New Teftament is in
his (a) own hiflorie. Ads xvi. lo. 1 1.
Whereby
(a) From fome words in the Cambridge manuicript Bp. Vol. I. * P P ear/on
210 St. Luke. Ch.VIII.
Whereby it appears, that he was in PauFs companie at Troas, before the Apoftle took
fhip-
Pear/on has argued, that Luhe was in PauPs companie from the year 4^. Dein paragrat [Paulus] Phrygiam et Galatiam, et per Myfiam venit Troadem, ubi fe illi comitem adjunx- iffe indicat Lucas xvi. i o. Qui antea etiam Antiochiae cum Paulo fuit, et jam eum Troade afTecutus ell: : ut colligere li- cet ex Ad. xi. 28. ubi Codex Cantabr. habet, cwi^^oc^iAvuv cTe Mjw&i'. Ab anno igitur43. per oftennium difcipulus fue- rat Antiochiae. Annal. Paulin, p. 10. But it is not fafe to relye upon one manufcript only, difi'erent from all others, and of no great authority. As Mr. Tillemorit took notice of .. this obfervation of Pear/on, I tranfcribe his thoughts about it. Selon le manufcrit de Cambrige S. Luc dit qu'il eftoit avec S. Paul a Antioche, des V an 43. ce que Pearfon a receu. Mais il ne feroit pas feur de fier a on manufcrit different de reus les autres. Et quand cela fe pourroit en quelques occa- fions, ce ne feroit pas a I'egard du manufcrit de Cambrige, qui eft plein d'additions et alterations contraires au veritable texte de S. Luc. Mem. Ec, T. 2. 5. Luc. note Hi. Some may- argue from thefe words, that Luke was a Gentil, converted by PaitlzX. Antioch. And others might argue, that he is the fame as Lucius^ mentioned Ads xiii. i . But I fhould think it beil for neither fide to form an argument from this reading. Mr. V/etflein has referred us to a place of St. Augiifi'my where this text is (Quoted very agreeably to the Cctmbt-idge manufcript. In illis autem diebus defcenderunt ab Jerofolymis Prophetae Antiochiam. Congregatis autem nobis, furgens unus ex illis, nomine Agabus. &c. T>e Serm. Dom. I. z.c. 17. But it is obfervable, that Irenaeus /. 3. c. 14. imt. a more ancient writer, enumerating St. Luke's journeys in St. Paul's compa- nie, begins at Troas. Ads xvi. 8. ... 10. I prcfume, it muft be beft to relye upon him, and the general confent of all manufcripts, except one, in the common reading.
i
Ch. VIIL St. Luke. ' 211
fl:iippinp^ to g-o into Macedonia : in which voyage St. Luke was one of the companie. ver. 8. And they pqffiug by MyJIa, came to Troas. 9. And a vijion appeared to Faulin the night. There Jiood a man of Macedonia ^ and prayed him^ faying : Come over into Ma-- cedonia^ and help us. 1 o. And when he had feen the vifion^ immediatly we endeavored to go into Macedonia^ affuredly gathering, that the Lord had called us to preach the go/pel to them. 1 1 . Therefore loofing from Trcas^ we came with a fir ait courfe to Samothracia.
In that journey St. Paul went from Samo- thracia to Neapclis, and thence to Fhilippi. 1 1. . . 17. So far St. Luke fpeaks in the firft perfon plural. But having finiihed his ac- count of the tranfadlions at Philippic which - reaches to ver. 40. the laft of that chapter : at the beginingof the next ch. xvii. i. he (b) changeth the perfon, and i^ays : Now when they had pa fed through Amphipolis^ and Apol'
P 2 lonia^
(b) Neverthelefs it is f.ippofed by many, that Luke con- tinued with Paul. Irenaevs calls him PauPs infeparable com- panion, after his coming to be with the Apollle at Troas. Ad-v. H. I. 3. c. 1 4. So llkewife Ci^'^, Cujus perinde fedlator crat, et omnis peregrinationis comes. H. L, T. i, p. 25. See alfo lilUm, St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.
212 St. Luke, Ch. VIIL
Ionia, they came to Thejfahiica, where was a Synagogue of the yews.
Nor does he any more expreflly fpeak of himfelf, untill Paul was a fecond time in Greece, and was fetting out for 'Jeriifalem with the colledlions, which had been made for the poor faints in yWd'^, A(fts xx. i. . . 6. And cfter the uproar [at Ephefus,] was ceafed, Paul called unto him the difciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when he had gone over thofe farts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece^ and there abode three months. And when the fews laid wait for him, as he was about to fail into Syria, he purpofd to return through Macedonia. And there accompanied^ hi?n into AJia Sopater, of Berea. . . Thefe go- ing before, tarried for us at Troas, And we failed away from Philippi . . . and came unto them at Troas in five days, where we abode fe- ven days. So that Luke accompanied Paul, at that time, from Greece through Macedonia to Philippi, and alfo went with him from thence to Troas.
And it appears from the fequel of the hi- ftorie in the Ads, that Luke was one of thofe, who accompanied the Apoftle to yerufalem, and ftaid with him there. And when the
' ApoRle
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 2r3
Apoftle was fent a prifoner from Cefarea to Rome^ he was in the fame fhip with him, and flaid with nim at Rome during the whole time of his two years imprifonment there, with which the hiftorie of the Ads con- cludes.
From St. Pauh epiftles writ at Rome, in the time of that confinement, we have proofs oi Luke's, being with him. He is mentioned as with the Apoftle. 2 Tim. iv. 1 1, an epiftle writ, as I fuppofe, in the fummer, after the Apoftle's arrival there. In Philem. ver. 24. he is one of thofe, who fend falutations to Philemon, and is mentioned by the Apoftle, as one of his fellow-laborers. And, \{ Luke the beloved Phyfician, mentioned Col. iv. 14. be the Evangelift, that is another proof of his being then with the Apoftle.
St. Luke is alfo fuppofed by fome to be the brother, "johofe praife is in the Go/pel throughout all the churches, 2 Cor. viii. 18. But that is not certain.
As I think, that all St. PauF^ epidles, which we have, were writ, before he left Rome and Italie, when he had been fent thither by Fef- tus J I mufl be of opinion, that the New Tef- tament affords us not any materials for the hiftorie of St. Luke, lower than his own book
P 3 °/
thors.
214 St. Luke. Ch. VIII.
cf the x'^ds, which brings us down to the end of that period. Froman- I'- ^ i^ow therefore proceed without far-
ther delay, to obferve what hght may be ob- tained from ancient Chriftian Vv^riters. And as St. Lukes two books, his Gofpel and the Ads, were all along univerfally received ; I intend here, for avoiding prolixity, to allege, chiefly, fuch pafiages only, as contain fome- thing, relating to the hiftorie and character of St. Luke, or the time of writing his two above-named works.
IrenaeuSy as before quoted : " And (a) *' Luke, the companion of Paul^ put down *' in a book the Gofpel preached by him." And the coherence feems to imply, that this was done after the writing of St. Mark's Gof- pel, and after the death of Peter and PauL In a pafTage formerly cited (b) at length, Ire- naein {hews from the Ads, as we did juft now, that Luke attended Paul in feveral of his journeys and voyages, and was his fellow- laborer in the gofpel. He likewife fays : *' that [c) Luke was not only a companion, but " alfo a fellow-laborer of the Apodles, efpe- "cially of Pauiy Again, he calls him
(a) Vol. i. p. 354. (b) P. 361. . . 363.
r^;^. 363.
Ch. VIII. Si. Luke. 2fS
'^ a (d) difciple and follower of the Apoftles." *' The fe) Apoftles, he fays, envying none *' plainly delivered to all the things which ** they had learned from the Lord. Solike- ** wife Luke, envying no man, has delivered '' to us what he learned from them, as he " fays : Eve?i as they delivered them unto us, " who from the begining uere eye-ivitiiejfes and " min'ijiers of the wordy
By all which it Teems, that Irenaeus reckon- ed Luke to have been a difciple of the Apo- illes, not a hearer of Jefus Chrift himfelf.
Clement oi Mexandria has bore a large tef- timonie to this Gofpel, and the Ads, as well as to the other books of the New Teftament. And as we learn from Eufebe, *' in (f) his *' Inftitutions, he mentions a tradition con- *' cerning the order of the Gofpels, which he " had received from Prefbyters of more an- " cient times, and which is to this purpofe. *' He fays, that the Gofpels containing the ge^ P 4 nealogies
(d) P. 361.
(ej Sic Apoiloli fimpHciter nemini invjdentes quae didice- rant ipfi a Domino haec omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et Lucas nemini invidens, ea quae ab eis didicerat, tradididit nobis, ficut ipfe teftatur dicens : Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contemplatores et miniflri fuerunt verbi. j4ii-v. H. /.J. cap. 14. n, 2.
{/J Fo/.ii. p.^jS-
2J6 Sl Luke, Ch. VIII.
*' nealogies were writ fird : " According to that tradition therefore St. Matthew^ and St. Luke's Gofpels were writ before St. Mark's. Which, according to the fame Clement^ and the tradition received by him, was writ at Rome, at the requefl of St. Peters hearers, or the Chriftians in that city.
I'ertullian fg) fpeaks oi Matthew and jfobfiy as difciples of Chrift, of Mark and Luke, as difciples of Apofiles. Therefore, 1 think, he did not reckon thefe to have been of the feventy, or hearers of Chrift. However, he afcribes a hke authority to thefe, and fays : ** that (hj the Gofpel, which Mark pubHfli- ** ed, may be faid to be Peter s, whofe inter- " preter Mark was. For Lzike's Digeft alfo " is often afcribed to Paul. And indeed it ** is eafie to take that for the mafters, which «' the difciples publiflied." Again : *' more- " over (ij Luke was not an Apoftle, but apof- *' tolical : not a mafter, but a difciple : cer- *' tainly lefs than his mafter, certainly fo much «' later, as he is a follower of Paul, the lafl: of ** the Apoflles." This likewife fhews Ter- , tullians notion of St. Luke's charader.
Orige^
fg) Vol. a. p. 587. 588. (h) p. 581, (-/;?. 587.
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 217
Origen mentions the Gofpels in the order now generally received. *' The (k) third, " fays he, is that according to Luke, the Gof- " pel commended by PW, publillied for the " fake of the Gentil converts." In his Com- mentarie upon the epiftle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin verfion only, he fays, upon ch. xvi. 21. " Some (I) fay, *' Lucius is Lucas the Evangelift, as indeed it " is not uncommon to write names fome- " times according to the original form, fome- " times according to the Greek or Roman " termination." Lucius, mentioned in that text of the epiftle to the Romans, muft have been a Jew. Neverthelefs, as Origen affures us, fome thought him to be Luke the Evan- gelift. The fame obfervation we faw in (m) Sedulius, who wrote a Commentarie upon St. Paul's epiftles, collected out of Origen, and others.
Eujebius of Cefarea, as tranfcribed former- ly, fpeaking of St. Pauh fellow-laborers,
fays :
(k) Vol. Hi. p. 235.
(I) Sed et Lucium quidam perhlbent efle Lucam Evan- geliftam, qui Evangelium fcripfit, pro eo quod foleant nomina interdum fecundum patriam declinationem, interdum Grae- cam Romanamque proferri. In Rom. 1. 2. /. 632. Baftl.
^m) Vol.xi.p. 182,
2i8 Sf. Luke. Ch. VJII.
fays : " And (n) Luke, who was of Antiocb, *' and by profeffion a Phyfician, for the moft *' part a companion of Paul, who had like- " wife more than a flight acquaintance with *' the rell: of the Appilles, has left us in two " books, divinely infpired, evidences of the *' art of healing fouls, which he had learned *• from them. One of thefe is the Gofpel, *' which he profelTeth to have writ, as they " delivered it to him, who from the begining ii filler e eye-witnejjes and minijiers of the word: " with all whom, he fays likewife, he had *' been perfeBly acquainted f-om the vetyfr/i, •* The other is the Ad's of the Apoftles, " which he compofed now, not from what *' he had received by the report of others, " but from what he had feen with his own *' eyes."
And in another place, cited (o) alfo for- merly, he obferves, " that (p) Luke had de- *' livered in his Gofpel a certain account of " fuch things, as he had been well aflured of *' by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity
«' with
(n) Vol, 'vi'ti.f. 103. 104. (0) P. 95.
(p) • . . lilv d<}^a7.n A&'j/ov c-i'i avrU h'.Mai rnt aAw9«aP y.ofrei7\\i(pei, kx. T»i a[j.ei •no.xjha ffvvovaioi<; n Jt) J'la.T^iCui, '-ij
ir tikis' uy.a iunyyiT^'m. H. E. L 3. c. 24. p. 96. c.
Ch. VIIT. Sf. Luke.
" with Pmil, and his converfation with the «' other Aooftles."
From all which, I think, it appears, that Eitfcbe did not take Luke for a difciple of Chrift, but of Apoftles only.
In the Synopfis afcribed to Athanafius it is faid, *' that (q) the Gofpel of £/?//t was dic- " tated by the Apoftle Faid, and writ and ** pubiiflied by the blefled Apoftle and Phy^ " fician Luke"
The author of the Dialogue againft the Marcionites fays, " that (r) Mark and Luke were difciples of Chriil, and of the number of the Seventy."
Epipha72ius (s) fpeaks to the like purpofe. , Gregcrie Nazianzen fays, *' that (t) Luke wrote for the Greeks," or in Achala.
Gregorie Nyjjen fays, " that (u) Luke was as much a Phyfician for the foul, as for the body : " taking him to be the fame, that is mentioned Col. iv. 14.
In the catalogue of Ebedjcfu it is faid, ** that (x) Luke taught and wrote at Alex^
" andria^ in the Greek language."
The
(q) Vol. ruiii. p. 250, (rj P. 255.
(sj P. 306. ft) Vol. ix. p. 133.
(h)P.1^6, (x)P.2lJ.
219
220 Sf. Luke. Ch. Vlir.
The Author of the Commentarie upon St. Paul's thirteen epiftles feems to have 'doubt- ed, v/hether (y) the EvangeHft Luke be the perfon intended Col. iv. 14.
yerome agrees very much with Eufebey al- ready tranfcribed. Neverthelefs I lliall put down here fomewhat largely what he fays. " Luke (z) a Phyfician oi Antioch^ not un- *' fkilfull in the Greek language, a difciple of " the Apoftle Vauly and the conftant compa- *' nion of his travels, wrote a Gofpel, — and *' another excellent volume, entitled the Ads *' of the Apoflles. ... It is fuppofed, \hz\.Luke " did not learn his Gofpel from the Apoftle " Paul only J who had not converfed with the *' Lord in the fle(h, but alfo from other A- *' pofiles. Which likewife he owns at the *' begining of his volume, faying : Even as
they delivered them unto us^ who jrom the
begining were eye-witnejjes a7id minijlers of *' the word. Therefore he wrote the Gofpel " from the information of others. But the " Ads he compofed from his own know- *' ledge."
So writes Jerome in his book of Illuftrious
Men,
In
(y) Vol ix. /. 367. 368. (z) Vol. X. p. 94. . . 96.
(C (C
Ch. VIII. Sf, Luke. 221
In the prologue to his Comnientarie upon St. Matthew he fays : '* The (aj third Evan- '' gelift is Luke, the Phyfician, a Syrian of " Antiochj who was a difciple of the Apoftle *' Paul, and publiOied his Gofpel in the coun- " treys of Achaia and Baeotia."
He obferves elfewhere, " that (b) fome faid, jLz//('^ had been a profelyte to Judaifm, before his converlion to Chriftianity." He fpeaks of St. Luke in many other places, which I need not now take notice of.
Augiijiin fays, "that (c)X.'^o of the Evan- gelifts, Matthew and 'John^ were Apoftles. . . Mark and Luke difciples of Apoftles."
Chryfoftom in the Synopfis, probably his, fays : " Two (d) of the Gofpels were writ " by John and Matthew, Chrift's difciples, «' the other two by Luke and Mark, of whom " one was difciple of Peter, the other of *' Paul, The former converfed vvith Chrifi, " and were eye-witneffes of what they wrote. *' The other two wrote what they had re- " ceived from eye-witneffes." And to the like purpofe in (ej his firft homilie upon St. Matthew, Again, he fays : " Luke (f) had
"the
(a) P. 83. 84. CIJ P. 97. (c) P. 227. 228.
(dj /'. 3 1 2. ('f; P. 3 1 4. . . 3 1 6. Jfi^/ei p. 3 25.
(/)P.IZ2,
222 St, Luke. Ch Viir.
'' the fluence of PW, Mark the conciie- " neffe of Fetei\ both learning of their maf- " ters." And upon Col. iv. 14. he fays: This (g) is the Evangehft.
Upon Col. iv. 14. T'heodoret fays, *' this (h) perfon wrote the divine Gofpel, and the hif- torie of the Ads." He fays the fame upon (I) 2 Tim. iv. 1 1.
Pmdinus (m) celebrates Luke^ as having been firft a Phyficlan of the body, then of the foul.
Here I would refer to the Author of Quaef- tiones et Refponfiones, probably writ in the iifth centurie, who (n) reckons both the E- vangelifts, writers of the genealogies, that is, Matthew and Liike, to have been Hebrews.
According to Eiithalius (0) Luke was a dif- ciple of Faul^ and a Phyficlan of Antiocb.
Jfuhre of Se*viHey fays : ''of (p) the four ** Evangeliils, the hrft and laft relate what *' they had heard Chrift fay, or had feen him " perform. The other two, placed between " them, relate thofe things, which they had " learned from Apoftles. Matthew wrote
*' his
(g) 'Ovroi er/y o ivctyyiKKiti;. In Col. horn. 1 2. T. xt. p. 41 2. (h) See Vol. xi. no'te (A). (I) In z Tim. T. 3.^, 505.
(m) Vol. xi.p. 44. (n) See Vol. i. p. 263.
(0) Vol, xi, p. Zl I, (tJ^-3^7'
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 223
" his Gofpel firft in Judea. Then Mark In •* Italie, Luke, the third, in y^cbaia, John, " the laft, In Afia.'' In another place he fays : " Of fq) all the Evangelifts Luke, the ^' third in order, is reckoned to have been the " moft IkilfuU in the Greek tongue. For he *' was a Phyfician, and wrote his Gofpel in " Greece."
In TheDphyla5i are thefe things. In his ' preface to St. Matthew's Gofpel he fays, " that (r) there are four Evangelifts, two of " which, Matthew and Johny were of the *' choir of the twelve Apoftles : the other *' two, Mark and Luke^ were of the number " of the Seventy. Mark was a difciple and *' companion of Peter, Luke of Paul. . . . *' Luke wrote fifteen years after Chrift's af- *' cenfion.'* In the preface to his Commen- tarie upon St. Luke he fays, " that (s) from *' that introduction it appears, Luke was not " from the begining a difciple, but only af- ** terwards. For others were difciples from ** the begining, as Peter ^ and the fons of Ze- *' bedee, who delivered to him the things *^ which they had feen or heard." Upon which fome remarks were made by us in the place referred to. In his comment upon
the
(q)P.^12. (r) P, ^ig.^20. (s) P. 4^22.
224 S^' ^^^^^' ' Ch. VIII.
the hiftoiie of the two difciples, whom Jefus met in the way to EmmauSj one of-whom is faid to be Ckopbas. Luke xxiv. i8. TheO" phylaSl fays : " Some (t) have thought the " other to be Luke the Evangel ill, who out ** of modeftie dedined to mention himfelf." In his preface to the Ads TheophylaB fays : " The (u) writer is Luke, native oi Antioch, ** by profeffion a Phyfician."
Euthymiii^ fays : " Luke (x) was a native " of Antioch, and a Phyfician. He was a *' hearer of Chrifl, and, as fome fay, one of *' his feventy difciples, as well as Mark, " He was afterwards very intimate with " Faul. He wrote his Gofpel, with Paul's '' permiffion, fifteen yeais after our Lord's " afcenfion."
So Euthymius. But I fliould think, that very few, who fuppofed Luke to have been a native of Antioch, could likewife reckon him a hearer of Jefus ChriH:. But Eutby- mius, as it feems, puts together every thing he had heard or read, without judgement or difcrimination.
What Nicepboriis Caliijli fays, is, briefly, to this purpofe. " Two (y) only of the
*^ Twelve,
(t) P. 423. (u) p. 426. (x) P. 437. (y) p. 442.
Ch. VIIL 5/. Luh, 225
" Twelve, Matthew and "John left memoirs " of our Lord's life on earth : and two of " the Seventy, Mark and hiike , . Matthew *' wrote about fifteen years after our Savi- •' our's afcenfion. Long after that Mark **■ and Luke publifhed their Gofpels by the '' diredion of Feter and Paul, The fame " Luke compofed alfo the book of the Ads " of the Apcftles."
To thefe authors I now add EutychiuSi Pa- triarch of Alexandria^ in the tenth centurie, who fays : " In (z) the time of the fame Em« *^ perour, (that is, Nero^) Luke wrote his Gof- *' pel in Greek to a noble and wife man of *' the Romans, whofe name was Theophihts : *' to whom alfo he wrote the Adls, or the " hiftorie of the Difciples. The Evangelift " Luke W2LS a companion of the Apoftle " PaiJy going with him where-ever he went. " For which reafon the Apodle Paul in one
fz) Etiam tempore hujus Imperatoris fcripfit Lucas Evan- gelium fuum Graece, ad virum nobilem ex fapientibus Ro- nianis, cui nomen Theophilus, ad quern item fcripfit Ada feu Difcipulorum hilloriam, Erat autem Lucas Evangelifta comes Pauli Apoftoli, quocumque per aliquod tempus manfit. Unde eft, quod Paulus Apoftolus in quadam epiftola fua dicit. Lucas Medicus vosfalutat. Eutych. Annal. p, 335. 336.
Vol. L * Q^ '.' of
226 !Sl Luke. Ch. VIII.
bi
" of his epiftles fays : Luke, the Fhyfictan^ ^^falutes you'* Remarks. III. Having thus recited the teflimonies of all thefe writers concerning the Evangelift Luke, 1 fliall now make fome remarks.
I. We hence perceive, that the notion, that St. Luke was a Painter, is without foun- dation, no notice having been taken of it in thefe ancient writers. Indeed this is faid by one of our (a) authors, Nicephorus CalUJii, in the fourteenth centurie, from whom a paf- fage was quoted in the way of a fummarie concluiion. But we do not relye upon him for any thing not confirmed by other writers, more ancient, and of better credit. Nor is this account received by (b) T^illeinont^ or (c) Du Pin, but rejected by them, as ahogether fabulous, efpecially the later : though our Dr. Cave (d) was fomewhat inclined to admit
one
L 2. cap. 43. T. i. p. 210.
(bj Saint Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.
(c) Nicephore et les nouveaux Grecs le font Peintre. Et il y a en differens endroits des images de la Vierge, qu'on donne pour I'cuvrage de S. Luc. Ce font des fidlions, qui n'ont ni verite ni apparence. Du Pin Dijf. I. 2, ch. 2. §. 5.
(d) Of more authority with me would be an ancient in- icrlptionj found in a vault near the church of S. Mary in
via
Ch. VITI. Sf. Luke. 227
one teAimonie to this affair, whild herqcd- ed the reft. For a farther account of St. Lukes pretended pidiires of the Virgin Marie 1 re- fer to (e) Mr. Bower,
2. We karn alfo, what judgement o«ght to be formed of the account given of St. Luke by (f) Hugo Grotius^ and (g) J, J, Wefftein :
0^2 which
via lata at Rome, fuppofed to be the place, where S. Paul dwelt : wherein mention is made of a piflure of the B. Virgin. Una ex vii. a B. Luca depidlis : One of the feven painted by St. Luke. Ca'ves Liues of the Jj>oJlles, in Englipy ■p. 222.
(e) See his Lives of the Popes. Vol. 3. p. 20,. 206.
(f) Noftro autem nomen quidem Romanum fuifTe arbi- tror, fed aliquanto longius. . , . Quare et Lucas, fi quid vi- deo, contradum eft €X Romano nomine, quod fufpiccr fuifTe Lucillium. Nam ea gens turn R.omae florebat. . , Erat nof- tor hie Syrus, ut veteres confentiunt, et medicinam fecit. . , Syria autem multos Romanis fervos exhibebat. Et medici- na, ut ex Plinio atque aliis difcimus, munus erat fcn-ile, Manumiffi autem nomen patroni induebant, ut Coinaedia- rum fcriptor, Afer cum effet, didlus ell: a patrono Terentio Terentius. . . . Ita hie a Lucillio Lucillius, et contrafte Lu- cas. Credibile eft, cum Romae medicinam faftitaffet ali- quamdiu, accepta libertate, rediifle in patriam. &c. Grot, Pr. in S. Lucam.
(g) Exercuiffe medicinam Paulus ad CololTenfes tcftatur, Eufebius autem et Hieronymus addunt fuifle natione Sy- rum Antiochcnum. . . . Interpretes porro conjedura pro- babili, turn ex nomine, turn ex arte quam profitebatur, col- ligunt, fuifle fervum manumiffum, Obfervant enim primo, nomen ejus in compendium fuifie redaftum, ut pro Lucillio
vel
22.8 St. Luke. Ch. VIII.
which is, that he was a Syriarij and a flave, either at Rome^, or in Greece : and that having obtained his freedom, he returned to his na- tive place, Antioch : where he became a Jew- i£h Profelyte, and then a Chriftian. Which thofe learned interpreters endeavor to make out in a fomewhat different manner. But neither has alleged any ancient writer, faying, that the Evangeliil Luke was once a Have, and afterwards became a free-man. .Some flaves indeed were Ikilful in the art of medi- cine, and pradifed it in the families of their Roman maflers. But does it follow, that becaufe Luke was a Phyfician, that he was alfo a flave ? This therefore being entirely defiitute of foundation in antiquity muft be efteemed the fidion of fome learned critic, who was much delighted with his own in- genious fpeculations.
3. The account given of this Evangelift by
Eujeife, and Jerome after him, that he was a
Syrian,
vel Lucano vocaretur Lucas. . . . Obfervant fecundo, fervos et praecipue Syros medicinam fadlitafle. . . . Quod vero qui- dam exiilimant, eum Romae rerviiiTej et a domino, qui ipfum manumiferit, nomine Lucam appellatum fuifie, non fatis cer- ium videtur. Nam praeter familiam Lucilliam, quae Ro- mana fuit, etiam Graecis illud nomen fuit impofitum, ut ex Anthologla couftat. Wetjl, Pr, ad Luc. T, i. />. 643.
Ch. VJir. St. Luke,
Syrian, and native of ^filiocby may be juftly fufpecfled.
We do not find it in Irenaeus, nor Clement of Alexa7jdria,x\QV TertuUian^ novOrigen^ nor in any other writer before Eujebe. Probably, therefore, it is not founded in any general, or well attefted tradition : but was the inven- tion of fome conjedural critic, who having firrt imagined, out of his own head, that Luke was originally a Gentil, at length deter- mined, that he was converted by Paul^X An- iicch. But all this was taken up without any good ground, or fufficlent authority. And Ltike may have been a believer, before either Paul or Barnabas went' to Ai^tioch, The fame Account is in Jercine. But he only follows Eiifebe. He does not feem to have had any information about it from any others. Which is an argument, that there was not any early tradition to this purpofe.
This ftorie, I fay, is in Eujebe, and yerome, and fome others, after them, but not in all fucceding writers. Some of the ancients, as Epiphanius, and others, fuppofed Luke to have been one of Chrift's feventy difciples. Which is inconfiftent with his being a native of Antioch. \f any did not fee this inconfif- tence, and allowed both, it muft have been
CL 3 owing
229
230
St. Liihe. Ch. VIIL
owing to want of due attention and confider- ation. And the fuppofition, made by fome, that huke was one of the Seventy, (liews, that there was no prevailing, and well attef- ted tradition, that he was a native ol Antioch. For if there had been any fuch tradition, it is not eafie to conceive, how any (liould have held the opinion, that he was one of the Se- venty.
It was formerly obferved, that (h) Chryfof- torn no where fays in his remaining Vt^orks, that Luke was of Antkch. Indeed, we (i) have loft one of his homilies upon the title and beginingof the Adlsof the Apoftles. Ne- verthelefs it feems, that in fome of his many homilies, ftill remaining upon that book, or elfewhere, we fliould have feen this par- ticular, if it had been known to him. He takes notice, that (k) there might be feen in his time the houfe, in which Faul dwelled at Antioch, And he often fpeaks of the prero- gatives of that city, in his homilies preached there. Methinks, this alfo fliould have been mentioned as one : that Luke^ whom, (as is well known,) he often celebrates, was a na- tive of that city. If this had been then
known,
(h) Vol. X. p. 328. (i) P. 323.
(kJP.zju
Ch. VIII. St. Luke, 231
known, or generally believed, it is reafonable to exped:, that it fhould have been frequently mentioned by Chryjbflom. a native and Prelby- ter of Antiocb^ who fhined there as a Preacher twelve years. This has difpofed me to think, that in his time there was not 2itAntioch any prevailing tradition to this purpofe.
Cave fays, it (I) is likely, that Luke was converted by Paul at Antioch. Mill (m) fays the fame, rather more pofitively. Which may now be the opinion of many. I have guelied, that it might be the opinion of the perfon, who firft gave rife to the account, that Luke was a Syrian^ of Antioch, mentioned in Eufebe. But I do not remember, that this is expreiHy faid by any of the ancient writers, out of whom I have made fo large coUedlions in the preceding volumes. And the thing is altogether unlikely. If Luke had been a Gen- til, converted by Paul, he would have been always uncircumcifed, and unfit to accom- pany Pauij as he did. For the Apoftle would
0^4 not
(/) . . . a D. Paulo, dum Antiochiae ageret, (uti verifimile eft) converfus. Hi/i. Lit. T. i. p. 25.
(mj Scriptor opei i huic fufcipiendo, fi quis unquam, fumme idoneus : utpots qui ab ipfo tempore converfionis, quae con- tigit circa annum aerae vulgaris XLI. Ipfum enim j^^Anc/raTf illis, qui magno numero Antiochiae converfi funt, [A(^, xi, 20.] omnino adnumerarim. Pro/, n. \\z.
232 Sf. Luke. Ch. VIII.
not have allowed the Greeks, or Gentlls, of jintiochy or any other place, to receive that rite. Nor are there in the Ads, or Paul's epiflleSj any hints, that Luke was his convert. Whereas, if he had been fo, there (c) would have appeared fome tokens of it in the af- fedtionate expreffions oi Paul toward him, on the one hand, or in the refpedful and grate- ful expreffions of Luke toward Paul, on the other hand.
4. It has been reckoned doubtful by divers learned men, whether the Evangelift Luke . was a Phyfician.
This particular is different from the fore- going. Nor has it any connexion with it. Luke may have been of Antioch, and not a Phyfician. He may have been a Phyfician, and not of Antioch. The queftion is, whe- ther Luke, the beloved Phyjician, mentioned
by
(c) This thought occurred to Dr. Whitby, who in his pre- face to St. Luke's Gofpel fpeaks to this puVpofe : " We are *' told, that Luke was converted by Paul at Thebes. Anfwer. *' But this we have only from Nicephorus. And it is the lefs *' credible, not only becaufe it comes to us fo late : but alfo be- •' caufe it appears not from any credible author, that St. Paul ♦* ever was there. It is more probable from the filence of St. ♦' Luke, and St. Paul, who never calleth him his fon, that he ** was a Chriftian, or a believer, long before."
Ch. VIII. Sl Luke. 233
by St. Paul Co\. iv. 14. be the EvangellO:. Divers of the ancients, as we have feen, have fuppofed him there intended. Chryfojiom's expreffions are thefe : " This (72) is the E- " vansjehft. But he does not diminifli him ** by naming him fo late. He extols him, " as he does Epaphras, It is likely, that <* there were others called by that name." This laft particular, perhaps, may deferve to be taken notice of. He affirms, that this is the Evangelift. But he fuppofeth, that there were others of the fame name.
That diftinguifhing charader, beloved Thy- futan, not given to the Apoftle's companion, and fellow laborer, in any other epiftle, has induced divers learned and inquifitive mo- derns, to doubt, whether one and the fame perfon is intended. Among thefe are (<?) Ccl~
760 ovof/.ctTi T^rv- Chry. in Col. ini. horn. \z.T . xi.p. 412.
(0) Non afientior iis, qui Lucam Evangcliftam intelligunt. Nam et notiorem fuiffe judico, quam ut opus fuerit tali in- dicatione, et fplendidiore elogio fuillet inflgnitus. Certe coadjutorem fuum, aut fidum faltem comitein, et certami- num participem vocafTet. Potius conjicio, hunc abfuiffe, et alterum niedici epitheto ab illo difccrni. Qiiamquam non contendo, ut de re certa, fed tamen conjeduras afTero. Cal- <vin, in CqL iv. 1 4.
^34 St. Luke. Ch. VIII.
'uin, (p) Sam. Bafijage, (q) Dr. Beumami, whofeobfervations and arguments Itranfcribe below. On the other hand (r) Efliiis, and (j) Mr. 'jones, ftrongly argue, that the fame Luke is here intended, who is mentioned by St, I* aid in fome other cpidles, even our E-
vangehft.
Upon
(p) Sunt tamen in Scriptnra, Lucam Evangelifiam a Luca Medico diftingucndi cauflhe. &c. Bafnag. Ann. 60. n. xxxiii, (q) Lucam Evangelillam fuifl'c Medicum, Hieronymus aliique probari pofl'e credunt ex Col. iv. 14. Sed ex hoc ipfo loco confirmari poffe puto contrarium. Si cnim iflo loco Paulus innuiffct comitem iuum ojnnibus notum, Lucam E- van'^diilam, ilmplicitcr vocaflet Lucam, uti fecit. 2 Tim. iv. II. At ut fignificaret, fe de alio luca loqui, difcriminis caufTa addit 0 /aTpo?. C. A. Heiman. Ep. Mifc. T. z. p. 518, (r) Sunt qui in dubium revocent, num de Luca Evange- lifta loquatur Apollolus. Hunc enim dicunt notiorem fuiffe, quamutartis nomine eum dcfignaret, Ac faltcm, inquiunt, cum coadjutorcm fuum, aut fidclem comitem vocaiTet. Ve- rum, ut vetus et communis, ita probatiflima fententia eft. , . Lucam Evangelifiam, Medicum fuifTe, et eum ipfum, cu- jus hie mentio eft: (neque enim alium Lucam Paulo fami- liarem ulla prodit hiftoria :) Qiiod vero tacuit hoc loco ad- jutorem, id diferte exprefilt ad Philemonem fcribens, Demas et Lucas adjutorcs 7nci. Ncn enim putavit Apoilolus rem fatis notam ubique inculcandam efle. Ubi illud obfervandum eft, Apoftolum aflidue Lucam cum Dema nominare, tarn hoc loco, et ad Philemonem, quam ctiam in fecunda ad Tim. ep. cap. iv. Quis ergo dixerit, alium atque alium efle Lucam cum codcm Dema nominatum ? Co;;/, in Col. i-v. 14.
(s) Hce Mr. Joneis-Ncvj ami Full Method. Vol. 3. p, 103.
104.
I
Ch.VIII. St, Luke, 235
Upon the whole, it muft be acknowledged, • that this ditlinguilhingcharadler, beloved Phy- faian^ has occafioned a difficulty. Neverthe- lefs, I would hope, that it is not infuperable. It is allowed, that in all other places of St. Taui'^ epiftles by Luke is intended the Evan- gelift. We know from the book of the Ads, that Luke, the v/ritcr of it, went with Faul to Rome^ and ftaid with him to the end of his captivity there. Nor is there any reafon to furmife, that at the time of writing this epiftie he might be abfent from the Apoftle upon fome fpecial occafion. For he joyns in the falutations in the epiftie to Philemon^ of Coloffey fent at the fame time with this epiflle to the Coloffians. Where alfo he is ftiled a felloW'laborer. Philem. ver. 24. So that I cannot but think it probable, that Luke, the Evangelift, was by profeffion a Phyfician.
5. St. Luke was a Jew by birth, at left by religion.
None of the writers, out of whom we have made colled:ions, call him a Gcntil. Some, in Jerome's time, whofe names we do not know, faid, Lukeh2i(\ been a Jewifli Pro- felyte, that is, had been converted from Gen- tilifm to Judaifm, and afterwards became a
Chriftian.
236 Sl Luke. Ch VIII.
ChriAian. But none, that I remember, ex- prefHy fay, that he was converted from G&n- tilifm to Chridianity. Unlefs we fhould make an exception for Nicephorus Callijii^ who in one place fays fo. But he is too late, and of too little credit, to be much regarded : efpecially, if he is lingular. All our writers, who fpeak of Luke^ as a companion and dif- ciple of Apoftles, mufl: have fuppofed him to be a Jew. And fome have faid, that he was one of the Seventy, as we have feen.
That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at left by religion, may be argued from his being a conftant companion oi Paul in many places, particularly, at "Jerufalem. l^ Luke had been an uncircumcifed Gentil, fome exceptions would have been made to him. Neverthe- lefs nothing of that kind appears either in St. pmih Epiftles, or in the Adis. Another thing leading to this fuppofition is his (t) following the Jewifh computations of times : fuch as the PafTover, Pentecoft, the Fafte.
Of
(0 Qy'^^ ^^^° ^""^ ^^^^ Tpecie aliqua Lucam Evangeliftam iinum ex judaeis fuifle neget r Lucam qui in defignandis tem- poribus fudaeorum difciplinam adhibet, Pentecofieni fcilicet, Jejunium, tertiam noflis vigiliam. Quae omnia ex Judaico more petuntur. Bajhag, An, 60. n, xxxiii.'
Ch. VIII. St. Luke.
Of all which inftances may be feen In Ads xii. 3. XX. 6. and 16. xxvii. 9.
Here it will be objeded, that Lzike the Thyfician^ mentioned Col. iv. 14. muft have been a Gentil, becaufe at ver. 10. 11. the Apoftle had mentioned all thofe of the cir- cumcijion^ who were his fellow-worker 5 y and had been a comfort to him. To which I an- fwer. It is not certain, that Luke^ the E- vangelifl:, is the beloved Phyfician^ there fpo- ken of. We juft now faw the reafons of doubting about it. But there is another fo- lution. St. Paul (u) needs not to be under- ftood to fpeak abfolutly. There might be feveral exceptions to that propofition. T/- mothie was one, who joyns with the Apofile in fending the epiftle. But he and Luke were fo well known to all, as faithful to the Apoftle, that they needed not to be there mentioned. And Luke and Demas follow afterwards, fomewhat lower, nearer the end of the epiftle, very properly, ver. 14. Luke, the beloved Phyfician^ and Defnas greet you. And I Ihould be unwilling from this text, and
the
(a) Adde, quod ifte fermo, hi foUy non eft ita rigide acci- piendus, ut abfolute excludat omnes alios, fed benignofenfu : Hi fere foli funt adjutorcs, Eji. adi-v. Col. 1 1 .
^Zj
238 St. Luke. Ch.Vill.
the cohd'ence, to conclude, that Demas was a Gentll. Says the Apoflle : Philem. ver. 24. There falute thee Marcus^ Arijlarchus, Demas^ Lucas, my J ellow- laborers. Th-e two firil named were certainly Jews. 1 fuppofe, the other two were fo likewife. Salutations from believers, of the Jewiih People, would •be very acceptable and encouraging to Gentii converts.
St. Luke fays A6ls i. 19. infomuch as that field was called iii their proper tongue Aceldama. Whence fome may argue, that he was not a Jew. But it might be obferved, that none of the Evangelifts, Vvhen they ipeak of the Jews, fay any thing, to denote they were of that people. Says St. Matthew ch. xxviii. 15. And this faying is commonly reported among the yews untill this day. Mark vii. 3. Fcr /',6^ Pharifees^ and all the jews, except they wafl? their hands, eat net. John i. 19. The je-^s fe?it Priefis and Levi tes from Jerufalem. ch. V. J . After this there w^s ajeafi of the yews. See alio ch. xix. 40. — 42. And does not St. Paul hy I TheiT. ii. 14. 15. Te became fol- lowers of the churches of God in Judea. For ye alfo have fuffered like things of your own countrey-inen, even as they of the yews : who both killed the Lord fcfus, and their own Pro- phets*
Ch. VIII. St, Luke.
phets. It might be not amifs to obferve alfo Ad^sxxviii. 17. . . 19. And I might refer to other places.
That this Evangelift was a Jew, is the opinion of many learned and judicious mo- derns : particularly, Mr. S. Bafnage^ whom I have cited at note (t) and y. A. Fabricius^ who (x) likewife is clearly of the fame opi- nion. Indeed, I think, it ought not to be queftioned.
6. Luke^ the EvangeliH:, was, probably, aix early Jewifti believer, foon after ChriR's af- cenfion, if not a hearer of Chrift, and one of the feventy difciples.
Our moft ancient writers, as we have feen, fpeak oi Luke as a difciple of the Apoftles. Some have reckoned him one of the Seventy, others have thought him to be Lucius, men- tioned by St. Faul in the epiftle to the Ro- mans J and others have fuppofed, that he was
one
(x) Lucas, five Lucius, . . . incertum, num Idem cum Luca Medico Col. iv. 1 4. quin Judaeus fuerit, at antequam Chrifto nomen daret, ne dubito quidem, praccipue fi verum eft quod legas in Origenis five Adamantii cujufdam dialogis, adverfus Marcionitas, ct Epiphanii LL IL eum fuiffe e numero LXX. difcipulorum. Bib, Gr. I. 4, c. v. T. 3. f. 132.
239
240 Sf. Luke. Ch. VIII.
one of the two difciples that met Jefus in the way to Emmaus.
The large accounts, which Luke has given in the book of the A6ts of feveral, below the rank of Apoftles, has made me think, that he was one of the fame rank, and pof- fibly one of them. There are three inftances of this kind. The firft is Stephe?!^ one of the feven Deacons, who, as we learn, iz-as Jull of faith and poiver^ and did great wonders and miracles among the people : again ft whom there arofe a ftrong oppoiition, fo that he was the very firfc Martyr for Chrift and his doc- trine, and of whom St. Luke has recorded a long difcourfe before the Jewiili Council, ch. vii. The fecond is Philips another of the Seven, of whom St. Luke writes, that he firft preached Chrifi to the Samaritans, ch. viii. 5. ... 8. fo that the people with one accord gave heed to thofe things, "xhich Philip [pake ^ hearitjg^ and feeing the ?m racks which he did, and what follows. The fame Philip afterwards, having firft explained the fcriptures to him, and brought him to fincere faith in Jefus as the Chrift, baptized the Chamberlain and Trea- furer of the Queen oi Ethiopia, a Jewilh pro- felyte, and a man of great diftindion. ver. 26. . . 40. The third inftance of this kind
is
Ch. VIII. St. Luke, 241
is that of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene^ who travelled as far as Fhenice^ Cyprus^ and An- tiochy preaching the word to Jews only. Who foon after their coming to Antioch,Jpake unto the Greeks y preaching the Lord Jejus, And the hand of the Lord was with them. And a great number believed^ and turned unto the Lord. ch. xi. 19. . . 21. Thefe were the men, who firft preached to Gentils out of fudea : as Peter was the firfl, who preached to Gentils at the houfe oi Cornelius in Cefarea. ch. x. and not long before them. We have, as it feems, the names of three of thofe men. ch xiii. i. Simeon^ called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, The fecond perfon, here named, may be our Evangelifl:.
A like argument may be formed in favour- of St. ZfZ^Zv^s having been one of Chrid's fe- venty difciples, in that he, and he only of all the Evangehds, has inferted in his Gofpel an account of the commifiion, which Chrifl gave unto them. ch. x. i. . . . 20.
And indeed fome learned m.en of later times, as well as formerly, have been of opi- nion, that Luke was one of the Seventy. Among thefe is our Dr. Whitby, \n\\o (b)
(b) See his Preface to St. Luke's Gof[>el.
Vol; I. * R reckoned
42 St. Luke. Ch. Vm.
reckoned both Mark and Luke to have been of that number.
y. A. Fabricius (c) was inclined to be of the fame opinion. And in favour of it refers to the paffages oi Adamantius and Epipha- niiis, before taken notice of by us. This likewife was the fentiment of (d) Mr. Baf- iiage.
Dr. C. A. Heiimann has lately publlfhed a dilTertation concerning Chrift's Seventy Dif- ciples, containing many curious obfervations. And he fuppofeth, that (*) thefe feveral fol- lowing were of that number. Matthias, chofen in the room of the traitor, Jofephy called BarfabaSj furnamed yujlus^ and pro- bably, the feven Deacons, or however, fome of them, and the four teachers and Prophets of Antiochj Barnabas^ Simeon called Niger,
Lu'
(c) . . . praecipue, fi verum eft, quod legas in Origenis feu Adamantii cujufdam Dialogis adverfus Marcionitas, et Bpi- phanii K. LL n. xi. Ncque adeo repugnat et Lucam et Marcum ex illis fuifle, licet Vcteres miro confenfu, ut Mar- cum Petri, ita Lucam tradunt Pauli fuifTe interpretem et fec- tatorem. Haud dubie enim Apoftolorum etiam prae LXX illis magna praerogativa erat. hz. Bib. Gr, I. iv. cap. v. T.
(iij j^nti. 60. mtffi. xxnjiii.
(*) Dijfertatio de Septuaginta Chrifii Legatis, ap, Nov, Sjt/og, DiJ'ertat.Part.i.p. 120. ... 154.
Cb. VMT. S/. LuJ^e. 243
Lnciits of CyrenCy whom he thinks to be our Luke the Evangelili, and Matiacn. Ads
xiii, I,
His argument is to this purpofe. We have not in the Gofpels the names of thofe Difciples. Nor did Chrift form a college or companie of them, as he did of the Twelve, becaufe it was a temporarie office, which fubiifted for a fhort time only. They were but once fent forth. And when they were returned, their commiflion v/as at an end. Neverthelefs they hereby became qualified for public fervice. And it may be reckoned •very probable, that if an opportunity was af- forded, they would be very v/illing, after Chrift's afcenfion, to exert themfelves in his caufe. And it is very likely, that fome of thefe Seventy were chofen, and employed by the Apoflles, as men, who had been already exercifed in the fervice of the gofpel, and were thereby fitted for farther ufefulnefTe.
So that learned writer. And it mufi: be acknowledged, that this is a fpecious argu- ment. But it is rather founded in afi inge- nious fpeculation, than in the authority of teftimonie. Which, in this cafe, would be more valuable.
R 2 Indeed
244 St. Luke, Ch. VIII.
Indeed EpiphaniuSy befide the places (e) formerly alleged, where he fays, Mark and Luke were of the Seventy, has another : where (f) he mentions a great many, who were faid to be of that number : as the feven deacons, all whom he mentions by name, and alfo Matthias, Mark, Luke, JuftuSy Bar' nabas, Apelles, Rufus^ Niger. And there- fore, we cannot deny, that in the time of Epiphanius there were fome, who entertain- ed an opinion, that all thefe were of Chrift's feventy Difciples. Neverthejefs we do not find it in Irenaeus, or Clement cj Alexandria^ or Origen, or any others of the higheft an- tiquity, and beft credit : nor in Eiifebe^ °^ J^' rome, that I remember, who were acquainted with the writings of thofe ancient authors, and many others, which are not come to us. Eujebe has a chapter concerning the Difciples of our Saviour. He fays, the names of Chrift's twelve Apoftles were well known ; but {g) there was no where any catalogue of the Se- venty. However, he mentions Barnabas, Matthias, and the difciple put up wiih him,
and
(e) Haer. LI. num. 'vi. xi. (f) H. 20. fium. I'v.
ii<Psiy.ii ifi^cTOii. H, E. L i. c. 12.
Ch. VIII. Sl Luke. 245
and one or two more, v/ho were faid to be of the Seventy. But he takes not here any notice of Mark, or Luke, or of any of the fe ven Deacons.
Matthias and Barfabas certainly were fuch men, as are defcribed Ads i. 21. 22. And they may have been of the Seventy. But we cannot be certain, becaufe we have not been affured of it by any accounts, that demand full aflent. Some of the feven Deacons may have been of the Seventy, as Stephen and Philip. But we do not know, that they were. It is very probable, that all thofe Deacons were not of the Seventy, particu- larly, NicoIaSy a profelyte, of Antioch. If Luke^ the Evangelift, be the fame as LuciuSy of Cyrene, there arifeth a ftrong objedlion a- gainfl his having been one of the Seventy. Simeon, called Niger ^ and Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Ads xiii. i. and the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, (of whom thofe two, juH: mentioned, were a part :) were early be- lievers, after Chrift's afcenfion, and they may have heard and feen the Lord in perfon. But they cannot be well fuppofed to have been of the Seventy. Chrift's twelve Apoftles were of Galilee, It is likely, that the Seventy alfo were of the fame countrey,
R3 or
2A.& ■ St. Luh, Ch. Vlil.
or near it. Cbriil: fent them forth from, him, to go over the land of Jfrael, and to return to him in a (liort time, where he {iiould be. And his ufual reiidcnce was in Gdlilee. It does not appear to me at all probable, that our Lord put into that commiflion any men, who were born, and irfiiaHy refided abroad, in other countreys, out of the land of IfraeL Hitherco, then, we have not any fall proof, that our Evangeliil was one of the Seventy. Let u.s proceed.
St. Luke ch. xxiv. 13. . . 34^ relates how two difciples met Jefus after his refwrreftion, as they were going to Emmaus. And he fays, that the name of one of them was Ck- cphas, '^beopbjlaB in his comment upon this place, as (h) formerly iliewn, obferves ; ^* Some (i) fay, that one of thefe two was Liiike himfelf : but that the Evangelif^ con- cealed his own name." Nicephorus CalliJIi [k) in one place, makes no doubt, that Ltike was the other difciple not named, it is like-
[h] Vvl xi. p. 423.
(?) T/»5i Toc zua, r'.Tuv tuv J^vo avTov rov Xovxav eiccti ^afft' <Pto J9 a-7e;fpi/-4-2 70 sstt/Ta ovoy.u o \v'J.yyzKm]<;- Theoph, pi Luc. cap. xxiv. p. 539.
(i) Tc/V TTifi ?>i"av K^ K^^tozscty thu oJ^ov 'net^rcai yvcupl^iTscti
'TrpliZCT'Tlk^lX.V eii S'^TTVOIf dvTQli SV^KCtTcCKhl^cic. Niceph. I. U,
f, 34./>. 117.
Ch. VIII. St, Luke,
]y, that he had met with it in more ancient writers. Sam. Baf?2age (I) readily declares himfelf of the fame opinion. Indeed, I think, it has a great appearance of probabili- ty. It is much more hkely, than the tradi- tion, or interpretation in Epiphanius^ that (m) it was Natha?iaeL The fame Bafnage fays, that \iNathanael\\2.^ been the other, St. Luke would have named him.
St. Mark ch. xvi. 12. 13. has a like ac- count, but briefer, of two, to whom Chrift appeared, as they were walking into the couu' trey. He does not name either of them. Grotius (n) allows, that Mark's and Luke's hiftories are of the fame perfons. Both the Evangelifts fpeak of thefe as tivo of them, ^ They were not of the Twelve, but yet they were of their companie, fuch as had been
R 4 with
(/) Nulla fane magis idonea ratio obfervatur animo, cur Cleopae, non alterius, Lucas meminerit : quomodo Joannes, ubi de fe mentionem agitat, nomen difumulat fuum. Side grege Apoflolorum fuiiTent, aut virorum multa laude in Evan- gelio celebratorum, uti Nathanael, quod Epiphanio vifunij iterum atque iterum dicemus. tarn ejus quani Cleopvie nonien foeneralTet. Ann. 33. num. CL.
{m) See 'vol. li'ii. p. 316-
(«) Quare immerito Euthyoiius hie aliam putat hiftoriam indicari, quam earn, quae a Luca copiofe defcribitur. Grot, ad Marc, xvi, 1 2.
247
248 Sf. Luke. Ch. VIII.
with Jefus : as is allowed by (0) Grotius^ and (p) Beza. Neverthelefs they fay, that (q) Luke is not the other. He is excluded, as they fay, by the tenour of his introdudions both to hisGofpel, and the Ails. Their rea- fonings will be confidered prefently.
However, fuppofing Luke to be the perfon here intended, I do not think, that he is there- by (hewn to be one of the Seventy. Cleophas and the other were difciples of Chrift, and eye-witnefles. But it does not therefore follow, that they were of the number of the Seventy.
We
(0) . . S'vah in o.vicov.'] TUP fj.iTu \mv. yevoiAvuv, ut fu- pra dixit ver. lo. Nam hoc nomine etiam alii extra xii. cenfentur, praecipue qui de numero erant illorum feptuagin- ta. Grof. ad Marc. pcvi. I I.
(p) Ex iis, e^ dvTKV, nempe difcipulis, non autem ex A- poltolis. Alioriim enim praeter Apoftolos mentio fadla fuit praecedente verfu 9. Bez. in Luc. xxi'v. 13.
(q) Alteram fuifle hunc noftrum Lucam, quidam ex veteri- bus arbitrantur, quorum opinio refellitur ex praefatione Adlis ApofiOiorum praepofita. Bez.adLuc.xxi'v. 18.
Duo ex illis, nenspe eorum, quos modo Koi'aZv, ceterorum nomine defignarat, e fedatoribus Chrifti. Probabiliter fen- tiunt Veteres, fuifle hos de numero LXX. . . Nomeu alte- rius infAaexprimit Lucas, Cleopam vocans. Alteram ipfum Lucam multi putarunt, quos fatis ipfe refellit in Evangelii anteloquio, ab oculatis tefdbus fe feparans. Grot, (id Luc Kxyv. 13.
Ch. Vlir. St. Luke.
We proceed. Among the Salutations in the epiflle to the Romam are thefe. ch. xvi. 20. Timothie my work-fellow^ and Lucius ^ and Jafon^ and Sofipater, my kin/men^ fa lute you. All thefe were Jewifh believers, and, the three laft mentioned, as it feems, were the Apoftle's relations. That by Lucius fome fuppofed the Evangelift Luke to be in- tended, we have been informed by fo ancient a writer, as Origen. And it is very likely, that St. Luke's name was writ differently : Lucas, Lucius, and Lucanus. There is the more reafon to think, that the Evangelift is here intended, becaufe he mufl: have been with the Apoftle at the time of writing the epiftle to the Romans, Says Mr. Tillemont : *' Many (^rj believe, that St. Lz^/^^ is he, whom " St. Paul in his epiflle to the Romans calls *' Lucius J making his name a little more La- *' tin. And it is the more likely, inafmuch " as the Ads afTure us, that St. Luke was *' then with St. Paul. If that be fo, he was " related to this Apoflle." Grotius, who fup- pofed our Evangeliflto have been oi Antiochy taking notice of the above-mentioned obfer-
vation
(r) Mem, Ec, Tom. 2. S. Luc.
•49
250 St. Luke. Ch.. WW.
vation of Origen, fays, that (s) Lucius, m Rome xvi. is the fame, as Lucius o^^Cyrene, mentioned Ads xiii. i.
Fabriciiis (t) efteemed it fomewhat pro- bablCj that Lucius is the Evangelifl:.
Dr. Heumann fbppofes (11) this Lucius to be St. Luke, and the fame as Lucius of Cyrene^ whom (x) he computes to be one of the fe- venty Difciples, as before feen.
Mr.
(s) Docet nos Origenes, in annotationibus epiftolae ad Romanos, fuiffe qui crederent Lucium eum, qui in eadeni epiilola nominatur. xvi. 21. efle hunc ipfum Lucam, et Lu- cium dici iiexione Romana, Lucam Graeca. Ego Lucium ilium, cujus ibi meminit Paulus, puto non alium efie a Cyre- nenfi, quem nofter hie nominat Ador. xiii. i. Grot. Praef. ad E'vang. S. Luc.
(t) Fuerunt enim jam olim, qui telle Origenc Lucam eun- dem putarunt cum Lucio, quem Paulus inter ffvyyeie-i fuos refertRom. xvi. 21. Neque verifimilitudine deftituitur haec fententia. Fab. Bib. Gr. uhi fupra.p,. 132.
(u) Lucas non eft verum, id eft, pure expreflum nomen Evangeliftae, fed vel Lucanus, (quem in modum et ex Sil- vanus fadum eft Silas,) vel Lucius. Ac perverifimile eft, Evangeliftam noftrum effe Lucium ilium Cyrenaeum, cujus £t mentio Aft. xiii. i. Quem nee diverfum effe credo ab illo Lucio, quem Paulus Rom. xvi. 21 . vocat cognatum fuum, fmiulque teftatur, eum in fuo coniitatu fuilTe. Heujnan. Bp. Mifc. T. 2./>. 519.
(x) Jure igitur credimus, et hos quatuor [A£l. xiii. i.] fuifie e feptuaginta illorum difcipulorum numero. Jam inter hos fi Lucius non eft alius quam Lucas Evangelifta, merito et Lucam noftrum recenfemus inter fuptuaginta illos difcipulos. Vif. de hxx, ChriJH Legat. %. x,x.p. J 49.
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 251
Mr. R/zjhage llkewife argues very flrongly, that' (y) Lucius is our Evaiigelift.
Indeed this opinion cannot be well faid to be deftitute of probability : fince there is a good deal of reafon to think, that Luke was in the ApoHle's companie, when he wrote the epiftle to the 'Romans. And if Lucius be not he, no meiition is made of him. Which is very unlikely.
if this be our Evangelift, we hence learn, that he was a Jew, and related to the Apof- tle. And if this be Lucius of Cyrene, we know his chara6ler, and, in part, his hifiorie, from Ads xi. 19 . . 21. and xiii. 1 ... 4. He was an early Jewifh believer after Chrifl's afcenfion, and together with others was very ferviceable in early preaching the gofpel to Jews and Gentils out of Judea, And, once more, if the other, who accompanied Cleo-
phas
(y) Lucam Evangeliftam Paulo confanguineum fui/Te ve- xihmilitudinis multum habet. LuciumTane, cujus nomine Ro- manes falutat Apoflolus, ex ipfius cognatis unus erat. Sunt vero non pcrtenues conjedurae, quibus adducamur ad exifd- mandum unum eundemque virum cum Luca Lucium efTe. Quae antiqua fane fententia fuit, cnjus meminit Origenes in Rom. xvi. . . . Silam quidem Paulus ipfe Silvanum vocat, Aderat etiam Paulo comes Lucas, cum miffa efl. ad Romanos eriftola, quern infalutatos praeteriiffe, prorfus fit incrqdibile : quod tamen fadum fuiffet, fi Lucius eft a Luca diverfus, Bajn. ann. 60. m. xxxiii.
252 Sf, Luke. Ch. Vlir.
phas in the way to Emmaus, be Luke the Evangelift, he was a difciple and eye-.witnefle of Jefus Chrift. But I do not fay, one of the Seventy.
Now we come to confider the objecflion of Beza, Grothis^ and divers others : who have fuppofed, that St. Luke, in the intro- dudion to his Gofpel, excludes himfelf from the number of eye- witnefles. But though this has been a difBcuhy with many, there have been of late divers learned men, remarkable for inquilitivenelTe, and good judgement, who are not much moved by it. One of them is Dr. Whitby, in his preface to St. Lukei Gofpel, already taken notice of by us. Another is (z) Fabricius, a third (a) Bajhage, the fourth Heumann : who in his forecited Differtation obferves, that (b) St, Luke% introdudion imports no more,
• • than
(x) Neque obftat porro, quod Lucas affirmat, fe ea fcri- bere, quae acceperit ab illis, qui fuiffent ait" «pX"f etuTOTT-ra.'. Nam non de omnibus lxx dici hoc poterat, quod K&. i. 21. et feq. ad Apoftolum requiritar. Bib. Gr. T. 3. />. 133.
(a) Ann. to. num. xx'viii.
(h) Repugnare quidem videri pollit ipfe Lucas cap. i. 2. fcribens, fe quae tradat accepijTe a roti air i^yj\i duTOTT' TcLti* Vcrum non fe negat fuiffe avi'o'Tnw, qui negat, fe ttWoTTznc «V ^fyj^i fuiffe. Concedimus itaque, non zh
initio
Ch. Vlir. Sf. Luke, 253
than that he was not an eye-vvitneffe from the begining, nor an Apoflle. But he may have been for feme while a follower of Chrift, very confiftently with what he there writes. And, probably, he was fo. But he very fitly puts the credit and authority of his hiftorie upon the teftimonie of the Apoflles.
I (hall likewife tranfcribe below a pafTage of Petavius [c) from his Animadverfions up- on EpiphanhiSj though it be fomewhat long,
I do
initio ftatim, uti Apoftolos, quos virnoircti .ra \oyH appelkt, interfuiiTe rebus a Chrilto gclUs Lucam. Sed aliquo jam tempore fundlo fuo niunere MelTiae fe applicuifTe Lucam, et f^oilea Temper in ejus comitatu fulffe, quo minus credamus, hoc ipfius teftimonium rainime impedit. Accedit, quod mo- deftiae erat, Apoftolorum potius, quam fuum ipfius teftimo- nium commendare, jubereque leftares, fi forte fibi crediturl fmt aegrius, fidem habere Apoftolis, teftibus uulli obnoxiis exceptioni. Heum. Dijf. ib. num. xx.
(c) Qiiod Lucas & difcipulorum numero fuerit, afferit et Dorotheus in Synopfi . . . Sed contra fentiunt plerique, et id ex ipfis Lucae verbis collii^unt, cum ait : 'E</o^s KA[j.oi . . Sed tantum abeft, ut ha-ec difcipulum ChriiH fuifTe, ac non pleraque, cum ab eo gererentur, oculis ufurpafTe negeut, ut contrarium potius hinc eluci pollit. Verbum enim '^apxx.olnQ^v nonnunquam ad earn notitiam refertur, quae oculis ipfis, ac propria intelhgentia com- paratur, non aliorum fermonibus, Ut cum Dcnioflhenes 4v ru '^{p} •sTcifa.TTfiC&'iui;, de Aefchine, cujus in legatione comes fuerat, iic loquitur : Kai 0 rm 'jovi^iviAccTx biS'uu
,254 St. Luke. Ch.Vni.
I do It the rather, becaufe he is an older author than any of thofe, hitherto cited in behalf of this interpretation. He is confid.r- ing what Epipbanius fays of Lukes being one of Chrift's sfeventy difciples. The ifum of what he advanceth is to this purpofe : " He dares not afHnm, that Luke was a dif- " ciple of Chrift, becaufe many of the Fa- *' thers have thonght other wife. 'But he " fays, there is nothing in St. Luke's intro- *' dudion to induce us to think, he was *' not a difciple of Chrift, or that he had ** not feen a large part of the things related " by hiai : but rather the contrarie. And *' he was willing to {liew, that Epiphanms *« is not contradidcd by St. Luke himfelf ."
7. St.
jfe?/ TafH'coAsGi) •«; a/rraai y^-otrnyo^Z. Sic igitur Lucas trvcchv 'Trapif/.Q^v^UKkvcci TTita-iV iXKOsCZi dicitiir, hoc eft, com- perta, explorataqiie, ac fpectata etiam, habujfib. Ac videri ■poteft, ct nonnuila liaec antihefis efie, iit cnm fupcricre •verfu dixerit : Quemadmedum multi res a Chrifto geftas fcribere aggreffi lunt, na^jcji 'za^'i-S'ociay vuiv o» «x' tfp^wf, ftatim fiibjiciat : ''E/c^g Jia/^o/ 'mx2i)''.o'kt^^\uhi, ■ hoc e/l, qui non, ut ilii Ik, fisoc^xayia^y fed ex propria id feientia compererim. Ceteruih tametfi ad eum fenfum accommodari 1 Lucae verba nihil prohibet, non idcirco tamen Chrifd difci-
puhim fuiiTe certo pronunciare aufim : cum huic adverfari fententiae longe plures Patres intelligam. Sed iftacoinmem- oravi, ut ne Lucae ipfi de fe teftanti refragari quifquam Epi- phanium arbitretur. Teta^v. Animad-v, in E^iphan. Haer. ti. w»»;. xi. p. 89. go.
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 255
7. St. Luke was for a good while a con- ftant companion of St. Paul. But he was alfo acquainted with other Apoftles.
Tertulliany and Chryfoflom, as we have feen, call St. Paul Luke'^ Mafter. But they need not be underRood to intend, that Luke learned nothing from other Apoftles. So Irenaetn faid : *' Luke^ the companion of Paul^ put down in a book the Gofpel that had been preached by Paul^ But in another place he fays : " That (*) Luke was a fel- low-laborer of the Apoftles, efpecially, of Paul.'' And in another place he calls Luke (**) '^ a follower and difciple of the Apoftles." And Etifebius faid: '' Luke was for the moft part a companion of Pauly but had alfo more than a flight acquaintance with the other ApoHles." A.nd Jerome fays : ** It was fuppofed, that Luke did not learn " his Gofpel from the Apoftle Paul only, <* who had not converfed with the Lord " in the flefh, but alfo from other Apoftles. " Which alfo he acknowledgeth at the be-
" gming
{*) Quoniam iion folum profequutor, fed et cooperarius fuerit Apollolorum, maiime autem Pauli. Len. /. 3. r, 14, «. I. p. 201. b.
(**) Lucas autem feflator et difcipulas Apodolorum. Ihid. cap, X, [a/, xi.} in p. 189.
256 ' St. Luke. Ch.VIII.
" gining of his volume, faying : Even as " they delivered them unto us^ who from the - '* hegining were eye-witfiejjes oj the word'' That mud be right, I think, becaufe it is agreeable to the writer's own words in the introdadion to his work. I always conlider Paul a.s an eye-witnejje. But he was not an eye-witnelle from the begining : nor a rninif- ter of the word^ from the begining. He mail have had a dif}:in(5t knowledge of all things concerning the Lord Jefus. Chrif- tianity, as has been often, and juftly faid, is founded in fad^s. In order to preach it, Faid muft have had a knowledge of Chrift's life, preaching, miracles, death, refurrec- tion, and afcenfion. As he was not in- flruded by other Apoftles in the dodrine preached by him, he muft have had it from revelation. And I fuppofe, that a man, who, like hiike^ often heard Paid preach, might have compofed a Gofpel, or hif- torie of Jefus Chrift from Faui'i fermons, preached in divers places, and to men of all chara6ters. And the ancients feem to have fuppofed, that Luke had thereby great af- iiftances for compoiing his Gofpel. Which I do not deny. Neverthelefs it feems fairly
to
Ch. VIII. Sf. Luh. 257
to be concluded from his own introdudlon, that he had confulted others alfo.
It might not be amifs, if I had room for fuch obfervatlons, to compare St. Luke's Gofpel and the hiftorical parto of St. Paul's Epirtles, and alfo of his difcourfes recorded by Luke himfelf in the book of the Ads. It is reafonable to think, that wherever any difciples of Jcfus preached the Chriftian Re- ligion, they gave an account of the things concerning Chrift. Wherever the Apoflles,. or others, preached, in order to induce faith in Jefus and his dodrine, their firfl dif- courfes muft have been hiftorical. The reafon of the thinqr leads us to this. And we are ailared of it from their difcourfes, of which we have an account. V/e per- ceive this in the difcourfes of St. Peter at ^eriifalem. Ads ii. 22 . . . 36. iii. 12 . . . 26. iv. 10. and at the houfe of Cornelius in Ce- farea^ x. 34 • . . 43. from Paul's difcourfes in the fynagcgue at Antioch in- Pijidia. Ch. xiii. 23 . . . 38. at Athens, xvii. .31. at Co- rinth, xix. 8. before the Governour Fejius^ and King Agrippcij ch. xxvi. and at Rome : though then many years had pafTed, fince the afcenfion of Chrift, and fince his re- ligion had begun to be preached, and pro-
VoL. I. * S pagited
25B ^ St. Luke. Ch. VIII,
pagated in the world. St. Lw^^'s general account of Paul there is thus : y^nd Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired houfe^ and received all that came in unto him, preach- ing the kingdom of Godj and teaching thofe things which concern the Lord Jefus Chrijl, xxvii. 30. 31. *' That is, fays (d) Grotius, " his miracles, dodirine, death, reiurredion, " and the miffion of the Spirit : by which " things men were afTured, that the hea- " venly kingdom was fet up." And this may have been the occafion o^ the frequent ufe of thofe expreffions, preaching Chrijl^ and preaching fejus Chrijl^ as equivalent to preaching the Chrifiian Religion, or the doc- lilne of the Gofpel.
I muft own, that in the furvey of St. Liike\ Gofpel, and St. Poid\ difcourfes and epiftles, I have not difcerned any fuch fpe- cial agreement, as to be induced to think, that one of them had copied the other,
St. Paul fays, at Antioch in Piftdia^ Ads xiii. 23. Of this maii s feed has God raifed un- to Ifrael a Saviour ^ Jefus. And 2 Tim. ii. 8.
Remember,
(d) Miracula ejus, et praecepta, et mortem, et refurrec- tionem, et miflionem Spiritus San^i. Per quae certi fiebant liomines de regno il!o coelclli. Gr. ad A^. fcx-viii. 31.
Ch. Vllr. Sf. Luke, 259
Remember, that yefiis Chrift, of the feed of David, was raifedjrom the dead, according to my gofpel. Thefe things are agreeable to St. Lukes Gofpel. But they are alfo in St. Matthew'^, And muO: have been taught by all the Apoftles, and all preachers of the gofpel .
Ad:s XX. 35. And to remember the words of the Lord 'Jejus, how hefaid: It is mcrehlejjed to give^ than to receive. That faying of our Lord is not recorded by St. Luke'm his Gof- pel, nor by any other of the Evangelifts.
I Cor. XV. 5 . . 7. And that he was feen of Cephas^ then of the Twelve, After that, he was feen of above five hundred brethren at once . . After that he was feen of fames, then of all the' Apo (lies. St. Luke's, account of our Saviour's appearances after his refurrec- tion are in ch. xxiv. and Ads i. i . . . 12. And if they arc obferved, I fuppofe, that no remarkable agreement between Paul and Luke will be difcerned, but rather the con- trarie, The^^w hundred brethren, mention- ed by St. Paul, probably, faw Jefus- in Ga- like : where, as in Matth. xxvi. 32. xxviii. 7. and Mark xvi. 7. he appointed to meet the difciples. But of 'this there is nothing in St. Luke, And all our Saviour's appearances
S 2 to
26o , St.Luhe. Ch.VlII.
to the difclples, mentioned by him, were at Jerufakm, or in it's neighborhood. Nor does LtikegWQ any hint of that particular ap- pearance to James^ mentioned by St. Paul. Not now to add any thing farther.
However, I fhall tranfcribe below (e) fomc obfervations of Mr. Wetflein^ relating to this matter.
8. It may be reckoned probable, that St. huke died a natural death : forafmuch as none of the moil: ancient writers, fuch as Cle- ment of Alexandria^ IrenaeuSy Origen, Eufe- biiiSy Jerome^ fay any thing of his martyrdom. Gregorie Nazianzeny in (f) one of his ora- tions, feems to put Luke among Martyrs. Neverthelefs, as is well obferved by (g) JiU lemont^ EUas Crctenfis, in the eighth centu- rie, famous for his Commentaries upon Gre- gorie, fuppofeth it certain, that (h) Luke did
not
(e) Si Lucas vel Pauli hortatu, vel peculiarl Spiritus San6ti afflatu ad fcribendum impullus fuiflet, rem memo- rata tarn dignam . . . filentio neutiquam tranfiiffet. Quod vero quidam exiftlmant, ex locis 2. Tim. ii. 8. et i. Cor. XV. 4, collatis cum Luc. x. 7. et xxiv. 34. probari, Lucae, quod dicitur, Evqngelium ad Paulum potius audorem eiic referendum, nobis parum fit verofiiiiile. Wetjien. ad Luc. cap. i. ruer. 3. Tom, i, p. 644. '
(f) Orc.t. 3. p. 76. (g) St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.
(h) Quippe ne longe abeam, Joannes , . . et item Luca?
haud-
Ch. VJIT. St. Luke. 261
not dye a Martyr any more than yA, the Apoftle and Evangellft : but that after hav- ing fufFered much in the caufe of Chrifl:, and the gofpel, he returned in peace to the God of peace. Gaudentiiis, Bifliop of Bref^ da, about 387. obferves, that (tj in his time it was generally faid, that Luke and Aiidrew finifhed their courfe at Patrae in Achaia, He does not fay, in the way of martyrdom. I do not perceive PauUtJus, about the year 403. to (k) celebrate Lztke, as a Martyr, but rather Nazarius, mentioned in the next verfe. If Martyr belongs to Luke, it may be under- flood in a general fenfe, as equivalent to Con- fefTor, or a great fufferer for the gofpel. 9. Cave fays, that (I) Luke lived a fingle
S 3 life.
haudquaquam interempti fuere, verum cum permultas prop- ter Chriftum et ejus evangelium calamitates pertuliflent, in pace ad eum qui pacis Deus eft, reverfl funt. El. Cr. Anmt. f. 322. 323.
(t) Andreas et Lucas apud Patras, Achaiae civitatem, con- fummati referuntur. Gaud. Serm. 17. ap. Bib. PP. Tom. 5,/, 969. C.
(k) Hie pater Andreas, et magno nomine Lucas, Martyr et illullris fanguine Nazarius. Paulin, Ep^^z, p. 210. Conf. Annot. p. 75. Paru 1685.
(I) Vitam egit coelibem, ac mortuus eft anno aetatis 84. circa annum (ut nonnulli volunt,) 70. Quo vero mortis ge- nere incertumeft, Hijl. Ut. p. 25,
r62 Sl Luke. Ch. VIII.
life, and died in the 84. year of his age, a- bouttheyearof Chrift 70, but of what death, is uncertain. And it is true, that Nicepho- i:uSy in the fourteenth centurie, fays, that (mj Luke died in the 80. year of his age. And in feme editions of Jero?ne\ book of Illuflri- ous Men there is a pafiage, near the end of the article of St. Liikey importing, that he lived 84 years in ceiibacie. But Martian\\ the learned Benedidlin editor of 'Jeromes works, fays, that (n) pafTage is not in any manufcripts. Nor does he know, whence that filly fidion Vi^as borrowed. Fabriciui (0) confirms that account. ThcTmeof IV". Thei:e is no great difficulty In fettling this Go/pel. j.j^g tij^g Qf St^ Luke's Writing his Gofpel. The Ads of the Apoftles were publiflied in 63. or 64. and not long after his Gofpel, as is generally allowed, , Accordingly Dr. Mill
fup-
(m) 'Qyi'omovrA ItZv yivoutvoi. &? ip-iaiv. Niceph. I. 2.
c. 43.
(n) Falfo additur in hoc loco : Fixit oSoginta et quatitor anvios, uxoreni non hahens. Nullum exftat veftiqium horum verborum in manufcriptis codicibus, Neque novi, utide pu- tida haec conimenta fiuxerint. Martian.
(0) Sed ilia Erafmus, Martinus Lipfius, et SufFridus Petri, in examplaribus fuis mil', non invcneruj:it, Fabr. in loc. ap. Bib. Ecclef,
Ch. VJir. Sl Luke. 26x
fpj fuppofeth thofe books to have been two parts of one and the fame volume, and to have been publiflied in the year of Chrift 64.
This argument was reprefented at length (q) formerly. The reader is referred to it, that I may not enlarge upon it in this phce.
V. However, I cannot forbear to obferve Marks of fome marks of time in the Gofpel itfelf. Ti^'ryntht
i^ Go/pel it'
1. The occafion of writing it, as St. Luke fiif' aflures us in the introdudlion, was, that many had already publiflied narrations of thefe things. But it cannot be reafonably thought, that many (hould have writ hiftories of Jefus Chrift prefently after his afcenfion, nor indeed
till many years after it.
2. There are feveral things in the Gofpel, from which it may be fairly argued, that it W'as not writ, till after Feter and Faul^ and perhaps other Apoflles likewii'e, had preach- ed to Gentils, and received them into the Church, without their embracing the pecu- liarities of the law of Mofes.
S 4 3. la
(p) Voluminibus hujus D. Lucae partem pofleriorem, feu AsT^ou S'iuTipov quod attinet, librum dico Ai^cimm Apo-'.o!o- runi, baud dubium eft, quin is fcriptus fiierit ftatim poll ?\'jyov 'TT^urrovt iive Evangelium. Proleg. num, \z\.
(^) See in this 'volume fh. iTf-fe^- iv. f. 78. . . . 85.
264 Sf, Luke, Ch. VIIT.
3. In ch. il. 10. ,the angel fays to the fliepherds n^av Betb/ehem : I bri?2g you good tidings of great joy to all people. At ver. 30.
I ... 32. Simeon fays, at the prefentation of
Jefus in the temple : Mine eyes have fe en thy
fahaiiony which thou haft prepared before the
face of all people : a light to lighten the Gentils^
and the glorie of thy people Ifrael. In ch. iii.
8. fays John the Baptift : God is able of thefe
fones to ralje up children to Abraham, And
I might here refer to ch. i. 78. 79. I fup-
pofe, that when St. Luke recorded thefe
thing?, he underftood them. Which he
could not do, till after the gofpel had been
freely and fully publiHied among Gentils.
4. That St. Luke underftood the fpirituality of the dodrine of the gofpel, may be con- cluded from the account, which he has ^iven of our Lord's difcourfe, recorded ch. vi, 20. . . . 49. I might for this refer to ch. i. 74. 'jc^, and other places.
5. Ch. vii. 9. When our Lord had heard the centurion's profeffion of faith, he mar- "velled at him, and f aid : I have not found fo great fat thy 770 not in Ifrael, In Matth. viii. II. 12. is a farther enlargement. The like to which may be feen in Luke xiii- 28.
0 . . 30.
6. In
Ch. Vlir. " St. Luke, 265
6. In ch. xiii. 6. . . 9. is the parable o£ tbe Jig-tree^ /pared one year more : reprefenting
the ruin of the Jewifh church and people as near, if they did not fpeedily repent.
7. In' ch. xi. 48. . . 51. are predidions of the calamities coming upon the Jewifti peo- ple. In ch.xiii. 34. 35. are our Lord's la- mentations over the city of Jerufalem, in the view of the calamities coming upon it. See likewife xvii. 22. . . 37. xix. 11. . . 27. xx. 9. . . 18. xxi. 5. . . 11. and ver. 20. . . 35. As St. Luke enlargeth fo much in his accounts of thefe predidtions, it may be argued, that the accomplifhment was not far off, when he wrote.
8. In ch. xiv. 16. . . 24. is the parable of a great flipper. When they who were firfl invited, refufe4 to come. Whereupon the invitations were enlarged, and made more ge- neral. And in the end he who made the fup- per declares, that they who werefirjl bidden^ JJ:ould not taft of it : reprefenting the call of
the Gentils, and the general rejedion of the Jews for their unbelief.
9. In ch. xiii. 18. . . 21. are the parables of the grain of j?iuflard-fied, and leaven^ re- prefenting the wonderful progrefTe of the
golpel :
266 Sl Luke. Ch VIII.
gofpel : of which, probably, ^i,Luh had been witneffe, when he recorded them.
10. Ch. xxiv. 46. 47. . . And he /aid un- to them . . that repentance and remijjion offms Jhould be preached in his name among all na- tiofJSi begining at Jerufalem. When St. Luke wrote this, it is very Hkely, that he well underftood the commiffion of the Apoftles, as reaching to men of all denominations, throughout the whole world.
1 1. But I need not enlarge farther on thefe internal charaders of time, the other argu- ment being fufficient and fatisfadorie.
The Place, VI. I mull fay fomething concerning the place, where St. Liike'^ Gofpel was writ.
yeromey as before (r) quoted, in the pro- logue to his Commentarie upon St. Matthew, fays, that (s) Luke, the third Evangelift, pub- liflied his Gofpel in the countreys oi Achaia and Boe'dtia. In his book of Illuftrious Men he fays, the (tj Ads were writ at Rome, Gregorie Nazianzen fays, that fu) Luke wrote for the Greeks, or in Achaia. And fpeaking of the provinces of divers of the Apoftles and
Evan-
(s) In Achaiae Boeotiaeque partibus volumen condidit. Ibid.
(fJIt>-p'9S' (u)Fol.ix,p. i^i.
fjbere it ivas ijurit
Ch. VIII. Sf. Litke, 267
Evangelifts, he (x) afllgns Judea to Peter^ the Gentils to Pauly Achaia to Luke^ Epirus to Andrew^ Ephefiis or Afia to John^ India to 'ThomaSy Italic to Mark : in which countrey, undoubtedly, many of the ancients believed this laft mentioned Evangelift to have writ his Gofpel. Chryfojhm does not fay, where Luke wrote: but only that (y) he wrote for cili in general.
We are told by (z) Philo/Iorgey that In the reign of the Emperour Conftantim St, hiike% reliques were tranfiated from Achaia to Con^ Jlantinople. It muft therefore have been the general perfuafion in thofe times, that St. lauke had died, and had been buried in Achaia, Nicephorus fays, that (a) when Paul left Rome, Luke returned to Greece, where he preached the gofpel, and converted many : where alfo he fuffered martyrdom, and was burled. Soon afterwards he fays, that (d) in the reign of Conjlantius Luke's body was
tranflated
Abhs -STpof dxaloiV . . . ixoipxa -wpo; nukiav; Gregor. Or. 25.
(y) Vol. x,p. 318. (z) Vol. 'vii. p. 317.
(a) ^uvJ^iuymJ'' kv puy.n re} tsoivXa, iTsx-Jwti 7» IWaJ^f JvSii. X. A. Niceph. /. 2. cap. 43. /i. 210. (bj, (b)lbid,C,
268 St. tuke. Ch. VIII.
tranflated from Tbel?es to Con/la^itinople. The connexion leads us by Thebes to underftand Thebes in Greece*
Grofitis fays, he thinks, that (c) about the time that Paul left Rome, Luke alfo went thence \nioAchma,^nd there wrote his books, which we have, as 'Jerome likewife fays. Caije thought, that (d) both St. Luke's books were writ at Rojjte, and before PaiiFs captivity there was at an end.
But by Mill, Grabe, and Wetftein, it is faid, that Luke published his Gofpel at Alex- (indria, in Egypt, Let us obferve their proofs.
Firft of all {/) Mill and (f) Wetjlein quote Oeciimeniiis, as faying, that Luke preached at Thebes in Egypt. Neverthelefs I do not find
it
(c) Puto autem Roma iifTe Lucani in Achaiam, atque ibi ab eo confcriptos quos habemus libros. Quod et Hierony- mus prodidit. Grot. Praef. iu Enjang. Luc,
(dj Utrumque anno Chrifti 59. S. Paulo nondum ex car- cere dimifTo, fcripfifTe videtur. In Luca H. L. p. 25.
(e) Certe poft difcefTum a Roma Libyam petiiiTe noftrum hunc Evangeliftam, ac apud Thebanos verbum praedicafle, .teftatur Oecumenius comment, in Lucam. Mill. Prql. n.
(f) ... vel fecundum Hieronymum . . in Achaiae Boeo- tiaeque finibus, qui tamen Thebas Aegyptias, ubi tefte Oecu- menio Lucas praedicavit, pro Boeotiis accepifle videtur. Wetji. N. T, To7». i, /. 643 .
Ch. VIII. St. Luke, . 269
it in Oecumenius. And I fuppofe, that Si' tneon MetapbrafteSy a writer of no great credit, in the tenth centurie, in his Hfe of St. Lukcy is their authority. For he is the writer quoted by (g) Grabe, though he does it cau- tioufly. Nor does Metaphrajies fay, that St. Luke publiflied his Gofpel in Egypt. He fuppofeth it to have been writ before he went thither. For he fays, that (h) when Ltike preached there, he fometimes argued from the 0!d Teftament, and fometimes from the Gofpel, which he had writ.
It may be reckoned probable therefore, that this journey of St. Luke into Egypt is a mere fidion, a thing without ground afcribed to him by fome, after he had left Paul^ and after he had writ his Gofpel.
Neverthelefs thofe learned men (i) have
been
(g) Taceo recentiores, veluti Sinieonem Metaphraflen, qui in Vita S. Lucae Graece et Latine edita ad calcem commentariorum Oecumenii. p. 857. D. ita fcribit: Totam Libyam percurrens in Aegyptuni pervenit. &c. Gmbe Spic. r. /. ^. 33.
(h) Ka/ vvv [Av tf-zra tw? 'zretXetiocs 'srxpayav ypstipTu, pvv erl aa' Ktjrsp kts? aiera^aTo zvnyyiXiv S'lipfxiivivfjv avroii to. rsi- p/ Xp/rS. Sim. Metaphr. de Fit. S. Lucae p.S^S.B.
(i) Neque aliunde in aliam fententiam duftum arbitror Hieronymum, giui in Achaiae Boctiaeque finibus hoc Evan- gel! um
270 Sf. Luke. Cb. VI 1 1.
been pleafed to argue from this paiTage of Mefaphra/IeSy that Jerome miftook ^heles in Boeotia for Thebes m Egypt. Which. appears to me to be altogether arbitrarie. i (liould rather think, that fome hater writer miftook the place, and inflead of Thebes in Boeotia, thought of Thebes in Egypt, a very famous city, and better known to himfelf than the other.
It may be of ufe to take here more at large the pafTage oi Nicephoriis, in part quoted juft now. *' Luke (k) fays he, was born at Afi' *' tiochy which is in Syria^ by profeffion a " Phyfician,and aifo well flcilled in painting. " Fie came to 'Paul 2X Thebes with it's {tv^iw " gates : where renouncing the errour of his '* anceftors, he embraced the Chriflian doc- " trine, and of a Phyfician for the body, '* became a Phyfician for the Soul. He *' likewife wrote a Gofpel, as Paul didated ** it to him, and alfo the A6ts of the Apo-
" ftles.
gclium conditum ait, quam quod feu ledo, fea ex traditions alicubi accepto, Lucam apud Thebanos praedicalTe, ac coh- fcripfiffe Evangeliuni, incolas iftos fuiffe exiftimarit Theba- rum Boeotiarum, non autem Thebarum uibis Aegypti fuperi- ovis. Mill. Pro I. n. 115. Fid. et Wetfien. citat.fupra not. (/). (k) Nice^h. I. z. cap, J^.y. p. 210. J, B.
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 271
" ftles. Whild Paul was at Rome, [or, " When PWhad been at Rome,] he return- " ed into (d) Greece.'* This, 1 think, mufl: confirm our fuppofition, that fomebody mif- took Thebes in Egypt for T^hebes in Boebtia. It is plain, that Nicephorus means T^hebes of Greece. And he feems to have fuppofed, in this place, that huke was converted about the time that he came to be with Raul in Macedonia and Greece. See Ads xvi. 10. He fays, huke returned into Greece, There- fore the T^hebes before- mentioned muft have been in that countrev. Nor was Raul ever at Thebes in Egypt. Luke therefore could not meet him, and be converted by him there. He calls it Thebes with ifsfeven gates. So (I) Thebes in Boeotia was fome- 'times called.
Secondly. Another argument, that St. Luke\ Gofpel was writ at Alexandria^ is,
that
(d) ah muft be fenfible, that this fiorie o^ Nicephorus is very llrange. for in one place he without hefitation fpeaks of St. Luke, as the companion of Cleophas, mentioned Luke xxiv, i 8. Lib. \.cap. 34. p. ii-j.A, And he fcvcral times fpeaks of Mark ;x\\d Luke, as two of Chrift's feventy difciples. Lib. 2. cap. 43. in et cap. 45. p. 213. B. xjjjc TaV 0 cTi/o mf«j, ^.a'pxov
(I) Vid. Cellar, Qeogr^ Antiq. lib. 2. cap. 13,
272 St. Luke. Ch Vlir.
that (m) it is To faid in the Syriac verfion.
But thofe tides are of no great weight. Before the three Catholic Epiftles, received by the Syria^is, is a title or infcription, im- porting, that (?ij they were writ by fbe Apo- Jlles, James^ Petcry and Johfty witriejfes of our Saviour s transfiguration ^ taking James to be the fen of Zehedee : whereas the epiftie of James could not be writ till long after his death, who was beheaded by Herod Agrip- pay as related Ads xii. i. 2. AndSt. PWs fecond epiftle to Timothie (0) is faid by the fame SyrianSy to have been writ at Homey and fent by Luke. Which is manifeftly contrarie to the epiftle itfclf. See 2 Tim. iv. 11. 12.
St. Luke\ Gofpel is aifo faid in the Perfic verfion, (p) to have been writ at Alexandria.
But
(m) Tta quippe fonat titulus ejus in vcrfione Syriaca, ante -mille annos edita : Ev-angelium Lucae Evangeliftae, quod protulit et evangelizavit Graece in Alexandria magna. Grahe Spic. T.i.p. 33. C'j}if. Mill. Prcl. ?i. 1 1 4.
(n) Sanftorum Apoilolorum, Jacobi, Petri, Johannis, tranf- figurationis Chrilli fpeilatorum, epiftolae fingulae.
^0^ Ad Timotheum vero fecunda Roniae fcripta, fuit mif- fa per eundem Lucam Medicum et Evangeliftam. Ebedjefu Catal. ap. AJfeman.Bih. Or. 7". 3. p.iz.
(p) Et in verfione Perfica, quam tamen non ex Graeco, fed Syriaco textu tranflatam exilllmat admodum R. Walto- nus : Evangeliiun Lucae, quod lingua Graeca Aegyptiaca in Alexandria fcripfit. Grab, ubi fupr. />. 33.
Ch. VIII. Sf. Luke. 273
But then it is allowed, that this verfion was made from the Syriac^ not from the Greek.
'Thirdly^ it is alfo urged, that there zvQepi- graphai or iiifcriptions in fome manufcripts, at the end of this Gofpel, where it is faid^ that it was writ in the great city of Alexah- dria.
But it is well known, that thofe infcrip- tions at the end of the books of the New Teftament are of little value, divers of them containing manifeft miftakes : and they are in late manufcripts only, or however, fuch as are not of the higheft antiquity.
Fourthly, Grabe (q) likewife infifts upon a pafiage in the Apoflolical Conftituticns, where the Apodles are brought in, relating what Bifhops had been appointed by them ia their own time. And it is faid, that in Alex- andrta, Anianus^ the firft Bifhop, was or- dained by the Evangelift Mark^ and Abillm by Liike^ alfo Evangelift. And (r) Mill in
(q) Atque hoc non parum confirmatur ex eo quod lib, vii. Conft. Apofr. Clement, cap. 46. Lucas dicatrur Alexan- driae fuifTe, ibiquc Epifcopum Avilium ordinaffe. Vrbit A- hxatidrincrum Anianus pmus a Marco E^angelijla ordinatus eft, Jecundus n:ero A-vilii:s a Luca, et ipfi E-vangelifta. Grabe ibid,
(r) Et fi Conftitutionum Apoflolicarum feu auflori feu^ confarcinatori tdesj in ecclefia Alexandria, a Marco pri- .
Vol, I. * T mum
274
St. Luke. Ch.VIII.
like manner quotes the Conftitutians, after Grahcj though almoft afhamed fo to do.
But it Should be confidred, that the au- thor of that work is anonymous, and un- known, and his time not certain. He fays what he pleafeth. And has been convided of fahhood in fuch accounts (s) as thefe, as well as in others. It ha« very much the appearance of fidion, that the firfl Bifhop of Alexandria fhould be ordained by Mark^ and the fecond by huke. And poffibly it is a fidlion of the writer himfelf. For I do not recoiled:, that this is faid any where elfe. £- piphanius, as well as more ancient writers, muft have been totally unacquainted with this ordination, and with St. Luke\ journeys in Eg)pt. For he fays, that (t) this Evangelift preached the gofpel in Dalmatia^ Gaul^ Ita- iiCi and Macedonia^ but efpecially in GaiiL
Du Fin having taken notice of what is faid relating to this matter in the infcriptions, which are in Tome manufcripts, the titles in the Syriac and Perf.c verfions, Metaphrajies^ and the Conftitutions, concludes : *' All (u)
" thefe
mum fundata, . . . Avilium Aniani prima Epifcopi fucceflb- xem, ordinaverit. Mill. Prol.n. 141. , (s) See in this nvork 'vol. 'viii. p- ^^Z.
(t) Haer. L. i. ?ium. x/. ^. 433. «
(u) Dijj'erta, fur la Bible, li'v. 2, ch. 2, §. v. p. 39.
(C
Ch. Vill. S/. Luke. 27^*
" thefe monuments deferve no credit. We " ought to adhere to what is laid by Jtrome,
as moft probable : that this , Gofpel was
compofed in u^chaia^ or Boeotia'*
Upon the whole, there appears not any good reafon to fay, that St. Luke wrote his Gofpel at Alexandria^ or that he preached at all in Egypt. It is more probable, that when he left Patdy he went into Greece, and there compofed, or finiflied, and publifhed his Gofpel, and the Ads of the Apoftles.
VII. I would now offer fomething by H-.s chai way of charader of this Evangelift, But I "^'^^''* fliall do it briefly, and cautioufly. And if I mention doi^btful things doubtfully, I may hope to efcape cenfure. It is probable, that he is Lucius^ mentioned Rom. xvi. 21. .If fo, he was related to St. Paul the Apoftle. And it is not unlikely, that that Lucius is the fame as Lucius of Cyrrne, mentioned by name. Ads xiii. i. and in general with others, ch. xi. 20. It appears to me very probable, that St. Luke was a Jew by birth, and an early Jewifli believer. This mufl be reckoned to be a kind of requifite qualifi- cation for writing a hiftorie of Chrift and the early preaching of his Apoftles to ad-
T 2 vantage,''
276 tt.Luke. Ch. VllL
vantage. Which, certainly, St. Luke \\2.^ performed. I do not perceive fufScient rea- Ibn to believe, that Ijuke vi^as one of Chrift's feventy difciples. But he may have been one of the two, whom our Lord met in the way to EmmauSj on the day of his re- furredlion,'as related Luke xxiv. 13 . .35. He is expreflly ftiled by the Apoftle bis fel- low-laborer. Philem. ver. 24. If he be the perfon intended Col. iv. 14. (which feems very probable,) he was, or had been, by profeffion a Phyfician. And he was greatly valued by the Apoftle, who calls him beloved. Which muH: be reckoned much to his ho- nour. For nothing could be fo likely to re- commend any man to St. Pmih ePteem, as faithfulnefie to the interefls of pure religion. It is undoubted, that he accompanied Paul, when he firft went into Macedonia. Ads xvi. 8 . . . 40. And though we are not fallv af- fured, that he continued to be with him, confiantly afterwards : Vv'e know, that he went with the Apoftle from Greece through Macedp?iiaj and Afia, to Jerufaiem, and thence to Rome, vvhere he ilaved with him the whole two years of his imprifonment in that city. This alone makes out the fpace
. of
Ch. VIII. Sl Luke.
of above five years. And it is an attenflence well becoming Lucius of Cyrene : to which no man could be more readily difpofed, than one of the iirft preachers of the gofpel to the Gentils. We do not exa6tly know, when St. Ltde formed the defign of writing his two books. But, probably, they are the labour of feveral years. During St. Paul's imprifonment in JuJea, which lafted more than two years, and was a time of in- adion for the Apoflle, St. Luke had an op- portunity for compleating his colledions, and filling up his plan. For in that time un- queftionably Luke converfed with many early Jewilli believers, and eye-witnefTes of the Lord, and fome of the Apoftles, who were flill at Jerufalem, And I make no doubt, but that before that feafon he had converfed with feveral of the Apoftles, and other eye-witnefles of our Lord's perfon and works. Nor can any hefitate to allow the truth of what is faid by fome of the an- cients, that Lukey who for the moft part v/as a companion of Paul^ had likevvife .more than a flight acquaintance with the reft of the Apoftles. V/hilft he was with Paul at RomCy it is likely, that he had fome
T 3 lei fare
^77
278 ' St, Luke. Ch. VIII.
leifure for compofing, and writing. When St. Faiil left Rcme^ I imagine, that Luke ac- companied him no longer : but went into Greece^ where he finiflied, and publiflied, one after the other, his two books. Which he infcribed to 'Theophilus^ an honorable friend, and a good Chriflian in that countrey. Here Luke died, and, perhaps fomewhat in years. Nor need it to be reckoned an impro- bable fuppofition, that he was older than the Apoftle. Ohfer-ta. VIII. I (hall concludc this chapter with tionsupon fomc obfcrvations upon St. Luke\ Gofpel, and the Ads of the Apoftles. But thofe upon his Gofpel will chiefly relate to the introdudion : though fome were mentioned formerly.
I. St. Luke's two books, his Gofpel and the Ads, are infcribed to T^heophilus. Where- by fome underftand any good Chriftian in general, others a particular perfon.
Epiphanius (x) fpeaks as if he was in doubt, whether thereby fhould be under- flood a particular perfon, or a lover of God
in
(x) *Eit' 8U rm ho(piKa) toTJ yfOKpuv T~TO iMyiV, » cravT/ au9fWT«' 0£ov ayocTruvrii Epiph. Haer. LI. n, «v«, ^, 429. A,
Ch. VIIT. Sf, Luke.
in general. Salvian (y) feems to have fup- pofcd it to be only a feigned name.
Augujlin (zj and Cbryfojiom (a), and many others, have thereby underftood a real per- fon. T^heophyladl expreffeth himfelf after this manner : " Theophilus (b) to whom " Luke wrote, was a man of fenatorian rank, " and poffibly a Governour : forafmuch as *' he calls him mojl excellent^ the fame tide, *' which Faul ufeth in his addreifes to Fe- ** lix and Feftus" Oecumenius fays, " that (c) Theophilus was a Prefecl or Governour." However, we have no particular account in the ancients, who he was, or of what coun- trey.
Cave (d) fuppofed 'Theophilus to have been T 4 a Noble-
(y) Pofitus itaque in hoc ambiguae opinionis incerto, optimum fere credidit, ut bead Evangeliftae facratiffimum fequeretur exemplum : qui in utroque divini operis exordio Theophili nomen infcribens, cum ad hominem fcripfifle videatur, ad amorem Dei fcripfit : hoc fcilicet digniffimum effe judicans, ut ad ipfum afFeftum Dei fcripta dirigeret, a quo ad fcribendum impulfus efTet. Salvian, ad Salon, ep. 9, p. 215.
(z) De Confenf. E'van. I. 4. c. S.T. 3.
fa) Chryf. in Acl. Horn, i. 7". <).p. 3. 4.
(b) See Vol. xi p. 423.
(c) 'Kyzyicdit m Ivroi 0 flj&tp/Xof. &c. Cm»i^ i» ^^* 7", 2. p. 2. C,
(d) Utrumque opus infcripfif Theophilo optimati, (ut cre- dere fas eft,) Antiocheno. Hijh Lit. in Luca*
279
28o Si. Luke. Ch. VIII.
a Nobleman o( Antioch. And In his Lives cf the Apoftles and EvangeHfts (e) writ in Engliih, he refers to the Recognitions : where is mentioned a rich man of Antioch, of this name. But I do not efteem that to be any proof, that St. Lukes Jhecphilus was of Antioch. That fabulous writer is not fpeaking of Faiil^ nor o^ Luke, but of Peter : who, as he fays, in (f) feven days converted ten thoufand people at Antioch. And Theo- phihis, the greatefi: man in the city, turned his houfe into a church. Moreover, fup- pofing him to intend St. Luke's T^heophilus^ his authority is of no value. A writer at the end of the fecond centurie does not fpeak of his own knowledge. And if St. Luke publifhed his books in Greece, which to me feems probable, I fliould be in- clined to think, that Theophilus, to whom they are addreffed, was a man of the fame ccuntrey.
2. It
(e) P. 224.
(fj Et ne multis immorcr, intra feptem dies, plus quam decern millia hominum credentes Deo baptizati funt, et fiindificatione confecrati : ita ut omni aviditatis defiderio Theophilus, qui erat cundis potentibus in civJtate fublimior, domus fuae ingentem bafilicam, ecclefiae nomine confecravit. Js.(co^}2. 1. X, cap. 71,
Ch. VIII. St. Luke, 28 1
2. It may be of more importance to in- quire, whom St. Luke means by the man)\ who before him had attempted to write hif- tories of Jefus Chrift. Epiphanius fays, that (g) St. Luke intencied Ctrinthiis^ Mermthiis, and others. Flow Origen (h) exprefTed him- felf concerning this, in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel : and how 'Jerome (i) in his preface to St. Matthew, may be feen by thofe, who are pleafed to look back. They fay, that many attempted to write Gofpels, as Bafilides, Apellesy and others. And they mention divers Gofpels, not received by the Church : Such as the Gofpel of 'Thomas, and Matthias, the Gofpels of the Egyptians, and of the Twelve. But it is not necefTarie to be fuppofed by us, that they thought, that all, if any, of thofe Gofpels were writ before St. Luke's, or that he fpoke of them. For Bafilides and Apelles could not write Gofpels before the fecond centurie. And they might fuppofe, that feveral, if not all the other, mentioned by them, were writ after St.
Luke's, ■
(g) . . p:/V;'.&'v l-rreiS^nTZ^ ttoXXoi l^s'x^&ifnira.v' m nvii
6.iv> K) ly.i tfAAKf. H. LI. 71. wi. in, (h) See Vol. in. p. 317. 318. (i) See Vol. X. p. i-|0. 141,
282 6"/. Luke, Ch. VIII.
Lith\. The meaning of what thefe an- cient writers fay, is, that the Church re- ceives four Gofpels only. There were many others. But to them may be applied the words of St. Luke : they only took in hand^ or attempted. They did not perform, as Matthew^ and Mark^ and Luke^ and 'John did. And they might exprefs themfelves in that manner concerning Gofpels writ after St. Luke's, as well as before it.
However, T^heophylaSl , as was formerly (k) obferved, in the preface to his Com- mentarie upon St. Luke^ exprefleth himfelf, as if he thought, the Evangeliil: referred to the Gofpels according to the Egyptians, and according to the 'T'welve.
3. We will now obferve the judgements of fome learned moderns. Grabe (i) allows, that St. Luke did not refer to the Gofpels of
Baji-
(k) Vol.xi.p. 422.
(i) Reliqua quippe ab Origene et Ambrofio nominata falfa Evangelia, veluti Bafilidis, aliudque Manichaeorum, Apoilolo Thomae perperam adfcriptunij procul omni dubio poft S. Lucae obitum prodiere : adeo ut ea in primis Evan- gelii verbis, in quorum explicatione Origenes et Ambrofius ifta afFerunt, refpicere haud potuerit. Contra vero haud ell abfiraile, ifta fecundum Hebraeos et Aegyptios ante fuifle fcripta, atque ad ea, una cum aliis pluribus jam ignotis, Lu- cam intendiffg digitum, dum praefutus clh ^C. Gr. Spc, ?".
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 283
Bafilides, or 7howas, or fome others, men- tioned by Origen. For they were not pub- li(hed, till after St. Luke's death. But he thinks, that St. Luke might refer to the Gofpels according to the Egyptians^ and ac- cording to the Twelve J and fome others, now unknown.
That St. Luke might refer to the Gofpel according to the Egyptm?2S, be thinks for the following reafons, which I fiiall confider.
The firft is, that fk) St. Luke's Gofpel was writ in Egypt. To which I anfwer : That is faid without ground, as has been lately (i) fhewn.
Grabe's fecond argument is, that (m) Cle- ment of Rome^ or fome other, in the frag- ment of the fecond epiftle afcribed to him, has quoted the Gofpel according to the
Egyptians.
(k) Evangelium, de quo agitur, ab Aegyptlis editum fu- ifTe ante Lucae Evangelivim,*huncque iftud inter alia, fi non ^
praecipue, refpexifle, dum in prooemio plures hiftorias evan- gelicas memorat, ad quas emendandas, et defeftus eorum fupplendos, fuam literis confignafTe fe innuit, probabile red- ditur ex eo, quod Lucas Evangelium fcripfifle dicatur Alex-, andriae in Aegypto. Id. ib. />• 33. /«•
(I) See before />. 273 . . 277.
(tn) Accedit, quod jam Clemens Romanus, vel quifquis eft auilor ep. 2. ad Corinthios, certe antiquiflimus, ifto Evan- gelic ufus tjl^ ex fragmento mox rcckando, colligatur, Ilii!. t' 34-
2^4 Sf. Luh. Ch. VIIJ,
Egyptians, Which argument, as one would think, might have been fpared : iince Grabe himfelf allows, that (n) fecond cpiflle to be iupporitiouG, and not to have been compofed, till about the midle of the third centurie. If that be the true date of the epiftle, it is too late a thing, to warrant the fuppcfition, that St. Luke referred to the GofpJ, accord- ing to the Egyptia?is.
I fliall ' take no farther notice of Grahe. But I imagine, that the Gofpel according to the Egyptians was not compofed before the fecond centurie. Clement of Alexandria is the fiiil known Catholic author, that has cited it. And in his tim.e it was very ob- fcure and little known. This (o) was fhewn formerly.
Dr. Mil/ does not much differ fi'om Grabc. He thinks, that (p) of the many Narrations, to which. St. Luke re.^ers, the two principal
were
(n) Ceterum quaeras, quando epifiola ilia Clement! fup- pofita faerat, refpondeo, id feculo iii, et quidem medio, fac- tum efle. Ih. p. 269. i?2.
(o)'See Vol.ii.p. 527 . . . z^-ijO. feand edition. /. 526 . . 529. Jii-Ji edition, ' (p) Ex ditSlis autem hifce hiftoriolis . . duae prae ceteris
cekLratae erant, quae et ipfae Exangelia appellabantur, fecimdiim Hebraeos alterum, alterum Secundum Aegyptios^ ^roleg, n. 38. i}id. et n. 39 . . • 41 ■ ^/ '^' 1 1 -. ^■3'ft .
{
Ch. Vlil. St. Luke. 2S5
were the Gofpels according to the Hebrews, and according to the Egyptians,.
The general account, which Mill gives of thofe Memoirs or Narrations, Teems to be very jufl: and reafonable. And I intend to tranfcribe him here largely. " About *' (q) the year 58. or fomewhat fooner, " fays Mi'li vvere compofed by fome of the
*•' faithful
(q) Sub hoc quidem tempus, annum dico LVIII. fea etiani aliquamo ante, contextae fuere a fidelibus quibuf- dam illius aevi iaym&a evangelicae, feu hiftoriolae de rebus Chrifti. Patet hoc ex Evangelii D. Lucae prooe- mio : . . . Eiinde colligimus, in primis equidem, toAAm? hofce, qui hiftoriolas conficiebant, alios prorfus effe ab Evangeliftis noftris, ?v/Iatthaeo et Marco. Erat enim Mat- thaeus unus ex avToirTuti, ideoque neque ab iftorum tra- diiionibus pendebat, ficut hi quos memorat Lucas. Ne dicam, quod duos duntaxat nemo 'sroAAaj dixerit. Deinde vero notandum, eos narrationes fuas inftituifTe T«p< ray 'TTi'jKvi^oipo^y^lAvav kv Cfxlv 'TTfxyixa.Tuv, hoc eft, ut ego lu- bens interpretor, de rebus apud primos fidei profej/hres, quorum numero feipfum accenfet Lucas, a Chrifto impktis five geftis. Denique liquet ex verbis modo xitatis, tradudlas fuiile na- ratiunculas iftas feu proxime, feu mediate faltem, ab A- poftolis ipfis, eorumque in opere evangelico adjutoribus. Manifeftum eft igitur, fuiffe e primis Chriftianis nonnullcs qui ante Lucam, [addo etiam Matthuaem et Marcum,] res Chrifti, (feu Evangeha,) ex apoftoHcis traditionibus un- decunque acceptis, confcripfcrant : idque non ftudio aliquo maligno, feu haeretico, quod infmuant fere qui in hoc Lucae prooemium commentati funt : fed eodem plane fine, quo Evangelirtae noftri : ut haberet fcilicet Ecclefia rerum
a Domino
cc
286 St, Luke. ' Ch.VIII.
** faithful Evangelical Narrations, or fliort " hiftories of Chrift. This appears ' from *' St. Lukes introdudlion to his Gofpel. *' From which we learn, in the firft place, " that they were not our Evangelifls, Mat- " thew and Mark. For Matthew was an '* eye-witnefTe. Nor can two be called " maJiy, In the next place, it is to be ob- *' ferved, that thefe Narrations confided of *' things mojl fiirely believed among us, that ** is, as I underftand it, of the things fid[iiled and done by Chrift among the fir ft profejfors of the faith : of which number Luke reckons *' himfelf. Laftly^ from the words of that " introdudion it appears, that thofe Nar- " rations were received eidier from the A- " poftles themfelves, or from their affiftants " in the work of the gofpel. It is there-
" fore
a Domino iioflro geflarum qualem qualem notitiam. Ceterum cum in iis quae fequuntur apud Lucam, fingula Chriftianae rei hiftoriam fpedantia accurate fe aflecutum eKt dicat Evangelifta . . . baud obfcure quidem hinc colligi videtur, ticv 'zsQKXm iftorum S'tY^ynaaq minus accuratas fuifle, mi- Eufque pcrfedlas : ita quidem, ut in his, quae tradiderant, aliqua hinc inde occurrerint parum certa, ne dicam a vero aberrantia. Unde omnino vifum fit ipfi plenariam hif- tofiaehujus cognitionem confecuto, integrum jam et luculen- tum rerum a Chriflo geftarum Commentarium fcribere. Mill, Prolog, mm. 35 . . 37.
A
Ch. VIII. Sl Luke, 287
" fore manifeft, that there were fome of
" the firft Chriftians, who before Luke^
" (and alfo, as we may fuppofe, before
" Matthew and Mark^) wrote hiftories of
*« the things done by Chrift, and received
** from apoftoHcal traditions : and that not
" with a bad, or heretical defign, as many
*' infinuate, who comment upon this intro-
" dudtion of St. Lttkey but with the^ fame
" defign, as our Evangelifts : that Chriftians
" might have at left fome account in wri-
** ting of the Lord's adions. Neverthelefs
" it may be alfo inferred from what St. Luke
** here fays, that their hiftories were inac-
*' curate, and imperfecTt : there were in them
" fome things not certain, or well attefted,
** and poflibly, here and there,, fome mif-
" takes. For which caufe it feemed good
" to hioi, who had attained to full infor-
" mation, to write a compleat and copious
" hiilorie of the things done by Chrift."
If this account be right, fome confequences may be deduced, which will be of ufe to us.
And indeed, it feeras to me to be very right. There were feveral hiftories of Chrift, to which St. Luke here refers. They were compofed with a good view, like to that of
our
288 ^ . St. Luke, Ch.VIir.
our Evangellfts. But they were defedive,
• and inaccurate. If there were any mifi^kes, I would imaeine, that thev were not nu- merous, nor in things of the greatell: im- portance. Nor were the writers fufEciently qualified for the work, which they had un- dertaken. This, I think, to be intimated by St. Luke^ though modellly, and without cen- forioufneffe, in what he fays of himfelf, thi:t he had pcrjeSl underjlanding of all things from the 'very jirft. Which, probably, could not be faid of the compofers of the Narrations, to which he refers. They were men, who had an honefl: zeal. But they had^writtoo haftily, before they had obtained full in-
^ formation. For which reafon their hiftories could not anfwer the end aimed at.
Thefe things being allowed to be right, feveral confequences may be deduced by us. In the jirjt place, and in particular, we hence learn, that the Gofpel according to the Tivelvej or according to the Hebrews, was not one of thofe Narrations, or Me- moirs, to which St. Luke refers. For thefe
' were very fhort hiftories : [hijloriolae as Mi/I calls them :] that was a full Gofpel, or large hiilorie of Jefus Chrift. Many, in Jerome's time, fuppofed it to be -the authentic Gofpel
of
Ch.VIII. St. Luke. 289
of St. Matthew: which, certainly, is not a fliort and imperfcd: " Memoir. From the notice taken of that Gofpel by feveral an- cient writers, efpecialiy by yerome^ it ap- pears to me very probable, (and I fhouid think, muft: appear very probable to others likewife,) that the Gofpel according to the Twelve^ or according to the Hebrews, either was St. Matthew?, original Hebrew Gofpel, with a(]ditIons : or his original Greek Gofpel, tranilated into Hebrew^ with additions. Bat this laft feems to me mod likely, as has been, often faid already upon divers occafions.
Seccridly. Another thing to be deduced from Mill's account, if right, is, that (e) the Gofpel according to the Egyptians was cot one of the Narrations, to which St. Luke refers. For that Gofpel w^s not compofed - upon the fame principles with thofe of our Evangeliils. It w^as an heretical Gofpel, as
(h^ I am not fingular in fuppofing, that the Gofpel accord- ing to the Eojpiians is not intended by St. L^/ie. Btza fay3 the fame ftrongly. And, as I imagine, he jnfily afTertSj it not to have been writ, till at'ter St. Z^^^'s Gofpel. Quod iilos ait Lucas, non fatis commode pracftitifle : minime ta- men opinor, fubulofas, imo etiam impias narrationes intelli- gens, tandem Ecclefiae fub Nicodemi, Nazaraeorum, Tho- vnae, Aegyptlorumjnominibus irapudentiiTime ttbtrufas. Bez, ad Imc. cap, i. 'ver. I .
Vol. I. «- U
ap-
90 St. Luke. Ch. VIII.
appears from the fragments of it, colleded by Grabe^ ^iid (r) probably, it was compofed in the fecond centuric, bv Tome Rncratites,
enemies of marriage.
Thirdly. I add one thing more, whether it be a confequence from what has been al- ready faid, or not : that- nothing remains of the Narrations, to which St. Liike refers, not •fo much as any fragments, they not being quoted in any Chridian writings, now ex- iiant.
3. I flsall now tranfcribe a part of Dr. Doddridge s remarks upon St. Luke's intro- dudion. " This (s) muft refer to fome ** hiftories of the life of Chrift, now loft. *^ For Matthew and Mark, the only Evan- " gelifts that can be fuppofed to have writ- *' ten before Luke, could not with any pro- ** priety be called many. And of thefe *' two, Matthew at left wrote from per- " fonal knowledge, not from the tefli- " monie of others. I conclude, that the ** books referred to are loft : as I am well •' fatisfied, that none of the apocryphal ** Gofpels, now extant, publiihed, parti -
" cularly i|
(r) VU. Grahe Spic. 7*. z. />. 3 1 . . . 37. (i) See hii Famiij-Exfojitor, Vsl, i. p, \,
Ch. VII[. Sf. Luke.
" cwlirly, by Fabriciiis, and '^ones, can pre- *' tend to equal antiquity, with this of St. *' Luke. ... And St. Luke feems to allow ** thefe hillories, whatever they were, to " have been honeflly written, according *' to information received from capable *' judges."
4, Mr. Beaufobre, fpeaking of thefe Me* moirs, fays : " The (t) life of our Saviour " was fo beautiful, his character fo fublime " and divine, his dodrine fo excellent, and '' the miracles, by which he confirmed it, ** were f^ (hining, and fo numerous, that " it was impoffible, but many lliould under- " take to write Memoirs of them. This " produced many hidories of our Saviour, ** fome more, others icfs exad. It is great *' pity, that they are loft. For we tuight " have confulted them, and could have "judged for ourfelves concerning the cha- *' rader of the writers, and their compo- " Tition. St, Luke^ who fpeaks of Narra- " tions, or Gofpels, that had preceded his *' own, intimates indeed, that they were ^* defcdive, but he does not condemn them, *' as fabulous, or bad."
U 2 5. That
(t) H!J}, de Manich. Tmi. /. p, 449.
291
292 St. Luke. Ch.VIIL
5. That Is right. Thofe Memoirs were not bad, nor fabulous. But they were im- perfecft, as I apprehend, to a great degree. Nor do I lament the lofTe of them. I can pay fo much deference to the judgement of Chriflian Antiquity, efpecially, the earlieft of all, as to believe, that thofe J7'ia72y Nar- rations, to which St. Luke refers, did not deferve to be preferved, or to be much ta- ken notice of, after the publication of the Gofpels of our firfl three Evangelifts. I imagine, that when once thefe came abroad, the former appeared to the faithful fo low, and mean, and defeftive, that they could not bear to fee, or read them. Ohfei-nja- IX. I fhsll HOW make fome obfervations tl"\o7k"f upon the other work of our Evangelifl:. the Ms. J ^ "YhQ book of the Ads was writ, ac-
cording to (u) Mill, in the year 64. And from what has been argued by us in feveral places that mufl appear to be as likely a time, as any. It could not be writ, till after St. Paul's confinement at Rome was come to a period. I fuppofe, it to have ended in the former part of the year of
Chrift
(uj Prolegom. num. 1 21.
Ch. VIIL Sf. Luke,
Chrift 63. And I think it probable, that St. Luke linifhed this book the fame, or the next year, either at Kome^ or in Greece.
2. It cannot be difagreeable to recollect here fome of the obfervations of ancient wri- ters upon this book, the only book of the kind, which v/e have, containinoj a hiftorie of the preaching of Chrift's ApolUes after his refurredlion.
3. Terttillian (x) often fpeaks of the im- portance of this book, as lliewing Chrift's fulfilment of the promife of the Holy Ghofl: to his difciples.
4. " The (y) Afis of the Apoftles, fays " "Jerome J in his letter to Faulinus^ concern- " ing the ftudie of the Scriptures, feems to " promife a bdre hiftorie, and an account of *' the early infance of the Church : but if *' we confider, that the writer is hiike the *' Phyfician, we (hall at the fame time dif- " cern, that every word is fuited to heal the *' maladies of the foul/'
U 3 5. Says
(x) See Vol. a. p. 588. . . 590. or p. 587. . . 589.
(y) Adus Apoftolorum nudam quidem fonare videntiir hiftoriam, et nafcentis Ecclefiae infantiam texere. Scd li noverimus, fcriptorem eorum Lucam efte Medicum, cujiis laus eft in evangelio, arrimadvertemus pariter, omnia verba illius animae languentis efle msdicinam. J^ Paulin. ep. ro» al. 103. 7. 4. P. 2. p. 574.
293
294
St. Luke. , * Cb. VIII.
5. Says Augufiln : ^^ Luke(z) after having " writ a Gofpel, containing a hillorie of " Chrift's words and works to the time of " his refurredion and afcenfion, wrote fuch " an account of the A6ts of the Apoftlcs, as «' he judged to be fufficient for the edifi« *< cation of believers. And it is the only *' hiftorie of the Apoftles, which has been *' received by the Church : all other having *' been rejeded, as not to be relied upon.''
6. I beg leave to refer my readers to the paiTages cAChryfoJlom^ already [a) tranfcribed, relating to this book : and to the whole of his firft homilie upon it. I add now only one pafiage niore out of the fame homilie. '' The (b) Gofpelsj fays he, are the hif- *' torie of the things, which Chrift did, and " fpake. The xAds the hiftorie of the " things, which another Paraclet fpake and " did."
7. It is not needful for me to make a diftindl enumeration of the things contain- ed in this book. Every one who has
perufed
(2) See Vol. X. p. 237. 238.
{a) See Vol. x.p. 323. . . 330.
[b] To. /jAv Kf kvuyyiXicc h-v 0 ^f '5-&? liroimiv i^ U'ttiv iTopioi
Ja Act. kxtm. i, Tom, 9. p. 9. B*
Ch. Viir. « Sf. Luke, perufed it with care, cannot but know, that it contains an account of the choice of Mat' thias to be Apoftle in the room of the traitor, of the wonderful and plentiful pouring out of the gift of ihe Holy Gholl: upon the A- potlles, and other difciples of Jefus at Jeru- falem, at the Pentecofl: next fucceding his crucifixion, and of the teftimoniebore by the Apoftles to his refurredtion and afcenfioii in. their difcourfes, and by many miracles, and various fufferings : their preaching firft at Jerufalem, and in Judea, and afterwards by themfelves, or their affirtants, in Samaria : and then to Gentils in Judea, and afterwards out of it, as well as to Jews : and of the con- verfion of Paid, and his preaching, miracles, labours, fufferings, in many cities andcoun- treys, parts of the Roman Empire, and the polite world, and at length in Rofiie itfelf.
8. If we were to indulge ourfelves in ma- king remarks upon this ufeful and excellent performance, nothing, perhaps, would be more obfervable, than it's brevity and con- cifeneffe : by which means many things muil have been omitted, which happened during the period oif that hiftorie. For it is very true, which Chryfoflom faid, that [c) Luke leaves us thirfting for more. 9. Says
(c) Vol. AT. />, 327. u 4
295
296 St. Luke. Ch. VIII.
9 Says Le Clerc : *' Lio^-ie's (d) Apoftoli- •' Cell Hiftorie relates the beginings of' the *' preaching of the Gofpel among Jews and " Gentils, chiefly by the miniflrie of Peter *' and Paul. P"or of the other Apoftles he ^* is almoil: entirely filent. . . I wi(h, fays he, *' that fome other apoftolical man, of like *' judgement and integrity, had writ the hif- *' torie of the other Apoflles, and had under- ** taken to fuppiy what was wanting in Luke's ** hillorie,and that this work had come down '' to us." Bat, however dcfirable it may now appear to us, we cannot perceive from ecclefiallical hiilorie, that ever fach a work was publiflicd.
10. E/Iius imagined, " that (e) Luke, pof- *' fiblv, intended to write a third book, to
«' fupply,
(d) Flic vero cefmit Lucae Hiftoria Apoftolica, qua initia praedicationis evangelicae apud Judaeos^ Ethnicofque, et mj- nillerio quidem Petri et Pauli potiffimum fcribere adgrefius fell, De ceteris Apoftolis altum ubique apud eum eft filen- tium. . . Utinam vero, vir quifpiam apoftolicus, pari judicio et iide, celerorum res gefias literis mandaffet, quae narratio- ni Lucjie defunt fuppkre voIuifTet, idque opus ad nos perve- millet ! Cler. H. E. An. 61. n. i'u.
(e) Sed proculdubio multa aciorum Pauli a Luca funt 43- jDiffa. ... Ac fortafle Lucas meditabatur tertium librum, in quo repeteret ada illius biennii . . ficut Aft. i. quaedam expo- fait tacita ukimo capite Evangelii, EJi, ad A61. A^. xx^jiii. 30,
Ch. VIIT. St. Luke.
" furply, particularly, the omifTions of the " two years, which St. Paid fpent at KomeT But i verily believe, there is no ground at all for that conje6lural fuppofition.
11. Again: Le Chrc^ above mentioned, thinks, " that (f) Luke breaks off the hif- torie of St. Peter, of whom he had faid To much before, very abruptly, in thofe words, Ad:s xii. 17. And he departed, and went to another place.'' Nevenhejefs St. Luke after- wards drops St. Barnabas in a like manner, ch. XV. 39. And in the end he will take his leave of the Apoftle Paid himfelf without much more ceremonie.
12. Thofe omiffions are no reflexion upon the writer, nor any difparagement to his hif- torie. The proper deduction to be made by us is this : We hereby perceive, that it was not the defign of St. Luke, to aggrandize Pe- ter, or Paul, or any of the Apoftles, nor to write their lives : but to record the evidences of our Saviour's refurredlion, and to write a hiftorie of the firft preaching and planting the Chriftian Religion in the world. This
delign
(f) Mirum eft, Lucam, poftquam liberationem Petri e car- cere narravit cap. xii. 1 7. eumquc in nliu7H locum, hoc eft, ex- tra lerofolymam, ivifle dixit, no verbulum quidem de eo Jiabcre, de <^uo tarn multa alia dixerat. Id. ibid. <
297
298 St, Luke. Ch, VJII.
defign he has admirably executed. And ha- ving filled up his plan, he concluded.
13. However, undoubtedly, many things are omitted by St. Luke. Some of which we may learn from St. Pants epiftles. I fliall cbferve fome omiffions.
14. St. Z/Z^y^d'has not in the courfe of his hiftorie, mentioned the writing of any of St. Paul's epiftles. It is probable, that he was at Corifithj when the Apoftle wrote thence his large epiftle to the Ro'Ka?is. Neverthe- lefs he takes not any notice of it, nor of the epiilles writ by St. Paul at Rome, when he certainly was with him, nor indeed of any other. By comparing the epiftles themfelves, and St. Luke's hiftorie of the Apoftle in the A6ls, we are enabled to trace the time and place of divers of thofe epiftles. But they are no where particularly mentioned by the hiftorian.
^15. In Ads ix. 19. . . 26. St. Luke^ after the account of St. Paul's converfion, fpeaks of his being at Dauwfcus, and his preaching there, and of the oppofition, which he there met with from the Jews, and his efcape thence, and then going to Jerufalem, But St. Paul Gal. i. 17. 18. informs us, that after his converfion he went into Arabia^ and then
returned
Ch. VIII. Si. Luke, 299
returned to Dawajcus : and that three years
pafled between his converfion and his going
to yeru/akm. This is an inftrudlive inllance.
For the omiffion is certain, and undoubted.
I am of opinion, that St. Luke did not omit
the journey into Arabia^ becaufe he did not
know of it : but defignedly, and becaufe he
did not judge it ncceffarie to be mentioned. ^
yero?72e (g) has taken particular notice of the
omiffion of that journey into Arabia.
16. Like omiffions are in St. Luke's Gofpel, I diall take notice of two.
I.) Having given the hiftorie of our Lord's prefentation at the temple, he fays ch. ii. 39. And ijohcn they had fei'jormed all things ac- cording to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee^ to their own city, Na'zareth, Neverthelefs, I think, the holy family did not now go diredtly from yerujalem to Nazareth^ but to Bethlehem. There, as I fuppofe, our .Lord received the homage of the Magians, And afterwards, to avoid the pcrfecution of
Herod f
(g) Lucam vero idcirco de Arabia praeterifie, quia foifitan nihil dignnm apoftolatu in Arabia perpetrarat : et ea potius compendiofa narratione dixifle : quae digna Chrifti evangelio videbantur. Nee hoc fegnitiae Apoltoli deputandum, fi fruf- tra in Arabia fuerit : fed quod aliqua difpenfatlo et Dei prae- ceptum fuerit, ut tacgret. Hier. in £/>. ad Gal. cap. i. T. 4,
300 St. Luke. Ch. Vill.
Herod, tliey removed thence to Egypt ^ and then returned to Nazareth. All which is recorded Matth. ii. 1....13. The vifit of the Magians mufl have been after the prefen- tation at the temple. If it had been before, and if they had prefented their gifts^ gold, and franklncenjcy and myrrh : mentioned Matt. ii. II. Marie would not have made the leffer offering for her purification, men- tioned Luke ii. 23. 24. Nor could the ^child Jefus have been fafely brought to Jeru- Jalem, or fuch notice have been taken of him at the temple, as St. Lzike particularly relates, ch. ii. 25. ..38. \^ Herod y and all J erufalem, had been jufl before alarmed by the inquiries of tlie Magians : Where is he that is born King ofthejews^ Matth. ii. i. 2. Omitting there- fore all thofe things, St. Lz/z^^" fays, as above obferved, and afterwards they returned to Na- xarethy the place of their ufual abode. Which is a'greeable to Matth. ii. 22. 23.
2.) Another thing obfervable is, that all our Saviour's appearances to his difciples, af- ter his refurredion, recorded by St. huke ch. xxiv. were at Jeriifaletn^ or near it. He takes not any notice of our Saviour's meeting the difciples in Galilee^ fo particularly men- tioned Matth. xxviii. j. and Mark xvi. 7.
St,
Ch. VIII. Sf. Luke. 301
Si, John alfo ch. xxi. i. . . 23. fpeaks of our Saviour's fliewing himfelf to the difciples at the fea of Tiberias. And St. Paul afTures us, that our Lord was feen of above Jive hundred brethren at once, i Cor. xv. 6. Which, pro- bahly, was in the fame countrey. And though at i!i\^ begining of his book of the A6ls, St. Luke refumes the account of our Saviour's fliewing himfelf to the difciples af- ter his refurre^tion ; there is nothing more about Galilee, than in the former relation. Infomuch that, if we had St. Luke\ hiltories only, we might have been apt to conclude, that all the appearances of our Saviour to his difciples were at Jerufalern^ or near it, and no where elfe.
17. St. PauFs epiftles inform us of many things omitted by St. Luke. But we Ihould liave known many more, if we had had a pa- rallel hiftorian. A comparifon of St. Luke's hiftorie of our Saviour with that of the other Evangelirts may affure of this,
18. In the eleventh chapter of the fecond epiftle to the Ccrintbiansy St. Paul mentions divers vifions and revelations, with which he had been favored. But St. Luke has not taken notice of any of them. St. Paul in his fpeech to the people at Jerufalem, record- ed
302 St. Luke. Ch. VIII.
ed by St. Luke Ads xxii. 17. mentions a tranfe, which he had in the temple. But St. Luke has no where told us the exad time of it. Nor has he otherwife mentioned it.
19. 1 do not think, that thefe things were omitted by St. Luke, becaufe St. Pazi/ con- cealed them from him : or becaufe by fome other means he was unacquainted with the time and place of them. But it was a regard to brevity, that induced him to pafs them over. They were not neceffarie to be infert- ed in his hiftorie. Without them he has re- corded fufficientatteftationsof Ptfz^/'s apofto- iical authority, and of the truth, and divine original of the dodrine taught by him.
20, Says St. Ptfz//,- unwillingly, and con- ftrained by the difadvantageous infinuations and charges of felf-interefted and defigning men. 2 Cor. xi. 23. yire they minijicrs of ■Ckrijlt [1 [peak as a fool :^ 1 dm more. In labours more abundant ^ inflripes above meafure, in prifons more frequent^ in death ojt.
In prifons mere jrequent. Therefore before writing this epiftle, in the year 57. Faul had been imprifoned feveral times : though St. Luke has mentioned before this time one im- prifonment only, which was at Philippi. Ads
xvi.
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 303
xvi. 23. . . 40. Upon which Eflius (b) ob- ferves, that Paul did and fuffered many things, not mentioned in the Ads. And Rom. xvi. 7. Salute Andronicus and Junia^ my kinfmeriy and my fellcnv-prifoners . . . 'wbo alfo were in Chrift before me. Paul was not a piifoner, when he wrote the epiftle to the RomaJis^ in the begining of the year 58. But (i) he had been in priibn before with thofe two early Chriftians, his relations. But where, or when, we cannot exadly fay. 21. Ver. 24. of the Jews five times received I forty firipes fave one. Neverthelefs St. huke has not mentioned one of thofe times. Pfii" us conjedures, that (k) Luke omitted thefe,
and
(h) De Paulo autem incarcerato ante hanc epiftolam, in A6>is Apoftolorum non legiinus quideni, nifi cap. xvi. ubi a Philippenfibus in carcerem miflus legitur. Sed permulta Paulus et fecit et pafTus eft, quae in Aftis non fcribuntur. Eji. ad 2 Cor, xi. 23.
(i) Porro concaptivos intellige, quod aliquando commu- nia cum Paulo vincula pro Chriilo paffi fuilTent. Ubi tamen, aut quando fadluni fit, ignoratur. EJi. ad Rom. xnii. 7.'
(k) Sed cuj- Lucas in Aftis ne unius quidem flagillationis ex quinque meminit ? Ideo videlicet, quod de Paulo pene ea fola, quibus ipfe praefens fuit, figiUatim recenfeat : alia vero vel filentio pertranfeat, vel fummatim ac breviter referat, . . Qua in re notanda humilitas Pauli, qui fuas tot et tarn graves pro Chrifto paffiones Lycae comiti fuo non aperuerit, ne hie quidem recitaturus, nifi coegi/Tet eum amor falutis Corinthi- 01 u ra . Ifi, il> . adi/er, 24,
104 Sf.Liihe. ChVIIf.
and many other thing?, becaufe he was not with the Apoftle, when they happened, 'and Faid out of modeftie forbore to tell him of them. I rather think, that Luke was fully acquainted with PauFs hiftorie. But he aimed at brevity, and judged the things men- tioned by him to be fufficient.
22. Ver. 25, Thrice was 1 beaten with rods : meaning, I fuppofe, by Roman Magiflrates. But St. Luke has mentioned one inftance only of this : which was at Philippic when Fdul and Silas both underwent this hard ufage. Ads xvi. 19. . . 40. Of this (I) like- wife Eftius has taken notice in his Com- mentarie.
Once was 1 floncd : undoubtedly meaning at Lyflra in Lycaonia, as related by St. Luke Ads xiv. 19. 20.
Thrice I have fnffered fiipwreck, St. Luke
has recorded but one inftance, which was
not untill after this time, in the Apoftle's
• voyage from 'Judca to Rome, Ads xxvii.
Which therefore mufl have been the fourth.
A night
(I) Ter 'viigis coefus fum : a Gentilibus. Erat enim Ro- manis confuetudo, virgis coedere nocentes. . . Porro Lucas tantum femel meminit hujus contumeliae Paiilo illatae : icilicet Adt. xvi. ubi fcribit eum una cum Sila virgis caefum a Philippenfibus. Jijl. in loc.
Ch. VII r. Sr. Luke. ' 30^
yl flight and a day have I been in the deep.
At one of thofe times 1 efcaped with the ut-
moft difficulty, by getting on a plai^k, and
• floating in the fea a night and a day, or a
whole day of four and twenty hours.
23. Ver. 26. In journey if jgs J often, in perils cf waters, or rather rivers. Which (m) are fometimes very dangerous. But St. Luke has not recorded any dangers of the Apoftle up- on rivers, either in crolTing them, or failing upon them.
24. Says Tillemont in his life of St. Taid: ** The (n) greatefl part of interpreters think, '" that St. Faut made no voyages, but thofe, *' which are taken notice of in the Adls. . . . " Nevertheleis we mud neceflarily acknow- *' ledge, that befide what St. Luke informs us *' of the fufFi^rings of St. Paul, this Apoftle " was five times fcourged by the Jews, twice *^ beaten with rods, and thrice (hipwrecked. ** All this happened, before he wrote hisfe- " cond epiille to the Corinthians : that is, in " the time, of which St. Luke has writN^he " hiilorie. Neverthelefs St. L?^^-^ fays nothing
(fn) Peri cutis fumhium : quae interdiim non minv?s pericu- ' lofa funt navigantibus, quam mare. E^. in toe. (n) Mem. Ec, T, i. St. Paul, note xviii.
Vol. I. . * X o£
3o6 ^^. Luke, Ch. VIII.
" of all this. It is certain therefore, that •* either he has omitted the ciixumftances of *' ,the rnoft remarkable events, which he re- ** lates, or that St. PWmade leveral voyages, *^ of which he has taken no notice."
25. The reafon of St. Luke's filence here I take to be the fam^ that has been already af- figned of his fileince upon other occafions. It was not neceffarie, that thefe things (hould be related. To have writ an account of all the Apoftle's journeys, and dangers, would have rendered the work more voluminous and prolix, than was judged proper. When St. Luke fet about compofing and publifliing this book, he had all the materials before him, and his plan was formed. Agreeably to which, he determined to write at large the hiflorie of St. Paul's voyage from Judea to Rome^ in which are many remarkable inci- dents, and to omit fome other of the Apoflles journeys and voyages : though divers of them Jikewife were attended with atFeding circum- flances.
26. The chapter, from which I have juft now tranfcribed feveral things, concludes in this manner, ver. 31. . . . 33. The God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chriji, who is blejfed
Jor evermore ^ bwws that I lie not. In Da-
mafcus
Ch. VIIT. Sl Luke. 307
mufiii-s the Govcmour under Arefas, the King, ke^pt ihe city of doe Damafcem ivith a garri- jbn, Jcfirciis to apprehend me. And through a window in a baJJiet wm I let down hy the wall, 'and efcapcd Ins hands.
I have often refleded with great fatis fac- tion on St. Luke's not omitting this dangerous attempt upon the Apoftle's Hberty, and life : vM\ which himfelf was fo tiiuch afFecfled, and which he has here mentioned with ftidi foSem^nity. The hiftorie of it may be feert in A<5l8 ix. 23. . . 25.
I now proceed to fonie other things.
27. -St. Paui affures us Gal. ii. i. . . 3. tiiat when he went n p to yerufalem upon occafioa of the debate concerning the manner of re- ceiving Gentil converts, he took ^itus with him. Which is not faid by St. Luke Ads xv. though he gives a particular account of Paul's going from Antioch to Jerufiilem upon that occafion. Nor indeed lias St. Luke once mentioned Titus in his hidorie : though St. Paul wrote an epiftle to him, and has men- tioned him feverai times in his epiftles, fent to others.
28. Gal. ii. 1 1. . . 21. St. Paul fpeaks of Peter's be[ng at Antioch^ before he and Bar- nabas had feparated. But St. Luke fays no-
X 2 thing
3o8 St. Luke. Ch.Vlir.
thins of it. Jerome^ in his Commentaric upon the epiftle to the Galaiians, fays : ** We (o) are not to wonder, that Luke has *' taken no notice of this. For by the ufual " privilege of hiflorians he has omitted many ** things performed by Paid, and which we ** know from himfelf."
29. Rom. xvi. 3. 4. St. PW applauds an adion of great generofity in Aquila and Prif-
' ' cilia. But St. Luke has not informed us of
the place, or occafion of it. Doubtlefs he did not omit it, for v^ant of refped: to thofe excellent Chriftians, whom he has mention- ed more than once. ch. xviii. 18. and 26. But that particular did no: come within the compaffe of his defign.
30. Many things, not expreflly mention- ed by St. Luke^ may be argued, and con- cluded to have been done, from thofe which he has recorded.
I.) In Ads iv. 23 . . . 30. is recorded a prayer of the Apoftles, in which they re- queft, that they may be enabled to work miracles for farther confirming the dodrine taught by them. And unquef!:ionably, their
prayer
(0) Nee minim e/fe, fi Lucas Ivinc rem tacuerit, quum et alia multa, quae Paulus fuftinuiUbfe replicat, hiftoriographi licentia praettrmiferit. In Gal. cap. ii. T. 4. /. 244.
Ch. Vlir. St. Luke,
prayer was heard, and their reqnefl: granted, and they did work many miracles in the name of Chrift, more than are related by St. Luke.
2.) Ads V. 12. ^nd by the hafjd of the Apoftles 'were many /igns and wonders done a- ?nong the people . And what follows. Whence it may be concluded, that (p) many miracles were wrought, not only by Peter and yohn^ but alfo by the other Apofiles alfo, befide thofe, which are particularly recorded. See alfo ch. ii. 43.
3.} Says Mr. Bifcce: ** Many (q) and great " miracles are related in the hiilorie of the ** A6ts to be wrought by St. Patil^ and his *' fellow-laborers, in their preaching the gof- " pel to the Gentils. And agreeably hereto *' St. Paid fays, 2 Cor. xii. 12. Truly the ^^figns of an Apojlle were wrought amongfi ^^ you in all patience ^ in figns^ and wonder s^
X, 3 ** and
(p) Oecumen'ius fays, that Luke omitted many miracles wrought by the Apoftles for avoiding oftentation. Ils^Aav cTs Qctvfj.arav kTnih^sfAv&jV vtto t&v ol'ttot'oKccv, &•? }C) etvar ripa i/uWffSw o ravTa yfaoov A«>f«f, [cap. ii. 43.] tS'ivoe iiCeivuv oio//«S"i,/MHv//ou4i/«, aXX" eKei'.'o yp'j<pei fjLovov dcp a
'Ttjhrii imiiiQwav « J(J orj » x6//t7b %tfpii' ti avy-
ypef.pi cvicd uuTH iUTiiiS'id^iU Occum. in Ad, Cap, Hi, Tom, i,p. 25. A. B. . ' ,
(q) The H'Jiory of the Aili confrmed, ch, xi. §. 8. p. 407. 408.
309
St. Luke. Cla. VIIiL
*' ^nd fuighty deeds. And to the RomanSy,
** ch. XV. iB. 19 I make no doubt,
" fliys that learned writer, but the A.po(?cls3' *' wrought miracles in every city, where " they came with a view to preach, the gof- ** pel/ and make converts. St. Luke is fo " very fuccind: in his hifborie of the Ads, *^ that he often omits them. He gives an ac- *' count of only a miracle or two wrought at *' Philippi in his whole relation of St. Paul's " journey from Jntioch to the "Weil:^ when *' he converted a great part of Macedonia and *' Acbaia: though it is evident from St. PauH ** own epiftle, already quoted, that he at that ** time did manvfiens and wonders at Corinth. " And that he did the fame 2X"Ihc[jalomca^ is *' not obfcurely intimated' in his firfh epii^ie " to the Ihejfalonians. ch. i. 5. We r^ad' " nothing in the Ads of the Apofiks of *' wimfc Sfc. Paul did in Galatia the iirfl: time, " more than that he went through it. Ads " xvi. 6. And all that is added the fecond " time he was there is, that he 'went over all ^' the coiintrcy of Galatia^ firengthcning all «' the difciples. ch. xviii. 23. Which in- '* deedi is an intimation^ that the iirft time *' he was there he preached the gofpel a- *' mong them, and made converts. But
^* from
Ch. Vlir. Sf. Luke,
** from his eolftle to the Gahiiian churches It " is fully evident, that he wrought miracles *' among them, and conferred on them gifts ** of the Holy Spirit. For he afl^s tliem : " He that mintftreth to you the Spirit, and " worketh miracles among you, doth he it by " the works of the law, or by the hearing of ^^ faith F Gal. iii. 25. That he means ** himfelf, is manifeft from the whole tenour " of the epiftle. See ch. i. 6. iv. ir. 13.
There follow other like obfervations, which I may not tranfcribe.
4.) Mr. Bifcoe, as above, makes no doubt, hut the Apoftles wrought miracles in every city, where they came, %mth a 'view to preach the go/pel, and make converts. I am of opinion, that this may be truly fuppofed of Paul, par- ticularly, and that it may be concluded from what St. hiike has writ. For, according to him, Faul wrought miracles m Cyprus. Ads xiii. II. at Lyfira. xiv. 10. 2.t Philippi xvi. 16 . . 18, See alfo 25. 26. and very many at Ephefus. xix. 11 .. 17. And at Troas he raifed Eutychus to life. xix. 9 . . 12. In his voyage from Judea io Rome he wrought many miracles, xxviii. 3 ... 6. and 7 . . 10. From thefe miracles, recorded by St. Luke^
X 4 .it
311
12 St, Luke. Ch.VIIL
it may be well argued, that St. Fmd wrought miracles in all, or mcfl: other places, where he went, and made any ftay, preaching the go/pel. In particular, it may be aVg-Jcd'^ that Pmil wrougint miracles at Athens^ and at 'Ko7ne. What they were, we cannot fay, becaufe they have not been recorded by St. hukcy nor by.any other credible writer. But tjiat miracles were performed by the Apofile in'thofe cities, appears to me very probable. 5.) St. Luke (r) has not given any account pf St. Paul's appearing before the Emperour Nero at I^mej when he was fent thither by Fefius. Nevertlielefs, that Paul was brought before Nero fooa after his arrival at Rome, is highly probable. And though St. Luke has not expreflly faid fo, it may be con- cluded from what he has faid. For he has ggain and again fufficiently intimated, that Faul was certainly to appear before the, Emperour, to whom he had appealed. See Ads XXV. 10. II. 12. 21. xxvi. 32. xxvii. 24. xxviii. 9. The Apoftle therefore was brought before Nero^ and pleaded before
him.
(}■) Mirum, quod Lucas hk nullam faciat mentionem pri- ii]ae defeniionis Panli, de qua ipfe 2 Tim. iv. Quani fa£tam fuilTe primo anno, quo Roniam venit, non dubitandurq. Ef. (id Ad t xxviii. 30.
J
Cb. VIII. Si. Luke.
him. But St. Luke forbore to give a dlftinfl account of it, becaufe he had already given a particular account of Paul's pleadings be- fore Felix y and Fejius^ and /jgrippn. And from them may be conclucied, what was the .tetiour of his apologie before the Em- perour himfelf.
6 ) St, Paul, in his epiTile to the Chrif- tians at i?{5;;2^, fays, ch. i. ii. I long to fee you, that I may impart unto you Jbme jpritual gift,, io the end ye may be ejlablijhed. And ch. XV. 29. I am fure, that u-he?i I co??2e un- to you, I Jball come unto you in the fzilnejfe of the blefjing of the gofpel of Chrift. And un- queftionably, the event was agreeable to thefc wiihes and expectations.
7.) St. Luke has not particularly recorded tliofe things in his hiftorie. Bat from what he has faid they may be inferred. Says our hiftorian. Acts xxviii. 13 . . 16. And iioe came the next day io Puteoli. Where we found brethren, and were d fired io tarry with them feven days. And fo we went toward Rome. And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us, as far as Ajrpii Forum, and the Jhree l^averns. Whom when Paulfaw, he thanked God, and took courage. And when he came to Rome, the Centurion
delivered
ZU
314 ^t' Luh, Ch. VIIF.
delivered the pri [oners to the Captain of the Guard. But Paul was fiijfered to dwell by bimjl'lfy iiith a foldier that kept him. And" ver. 30, Paid divelled two whole years in his own hired houfe,
8.) From the things here faid it may be fairly concluded, that during the Apoftl'e's ftay at Rofne^ there was a very delightful communication of civil and religious offices between him and the believers there, ac- cording to the abilities, and the exigences of each. Before he left Rotne, the Philips plans feem to have fent him a fupplie by Epaphroditm. Philip, iv. 10 . . 18. But it! may be well fuppofcd, that the price of his lodging, and the expenfcs of his maintenance, were provided for, chiefly, by the Chriflians, whom he found at Rome^ when he came- thither, and by the converts, which he made afterwards. The foldiers likewife, who by turns attended upon him, would expedt to be confidered, If they carried it civilly toward their prifoner. All which, we mayfuppofe, was taken care of by the good Chriflians at Rome : who, as St. Luke aflures us, went out to meet him, and conduced him into the City.
C H A P.
3^5-
y-ct, ir)C% if^c^ (^).■^^ f^O\ ^ f^(X fr)Ct\ inct^, iTjCt, c;a\ f^ctt
' Tilb- rDbflvT' '^Af -*«»> rtii 7«r '^KlT' 'VVf 'Xhi^ '%3'**f '^«¥'.„£^
CHAP. IX.
St. John,
Apoftl'e, and Evangelift.
I. His Hiftorie from the N, T. II. His Age,
III. When he left Judea, to go to Ephejus,
IV. His Hiflorie from ecclefiajical Writers,
V. ^he Time^ ijohen he was banipjed into Tatmos. VI. How long he was there, VII. Tejii monies of ancient Writers to his Gofpel, VHI. Opinions of learned Mo- derns concerning the Time^ when this Gof- pel was writ. IX. An Argument^ to prove,, that it was writ before the DefiruBion cf Jerufalem. X. ObjeSiions confidered,_ XL Obfervations upon this GofpeL
l.^KW^,OHN was the fon of Zebedee, a HisHifiorie .0 J Q fiilierman upon the fea of Gali- /'-^'"t^e ^kM^A i^^i probably (a) of the town
of
(a) Zebedaeum gente Galllaeum fuifTe ex loco commo- racionis circa lacum Gennefarcth fufpicamur. Inccrtius
autem.
3i6 St. John. Ch. IX,
of Betbfaiday and (b) Salome, John was the younger brother. For jfames is always Y<^J mentioned firft, except in Luke ix. 28, And John is generally reckoned the youngeft of all Chrifl's difciples.
Though Zebedee was by trade a fifher- man, he needs not be reckoned poor. For, as St. Mark has particularly obferved, he was rot only mafter of a boat, and nets, but had hired Jerv ants. ch. i. 20. Moreover, w& may recolledt what Peter faid to Chrifl, who alfo had been a fiflierman upon the fame fea. We have left all, andjollowed thee. Matt. xix. 27. They left their employ inents, by which they gained a fubfiilence : and for the pre- fent there was felf-denial in tUeir attendence upon Jefus. ..
It is not unlikely, that Zebedee died not long after thefe two brothers were called
to
autem, Bethfaidenfem pronunciare, ut plerique faciunt : cum id nitatur tantum teflimonio Evangelii, fociis Andreae ac Pe- tro hoc oppidum adfignantis. Neque tamen argumenta ad manus fiint, quibus vulgatam hanc opinionem impugnemus. Latnpe Proiegatii. in 'Johan.
(h) Co-mpare Matt, xx'vii. 55. 1^2 th Mark xv. 40. and xvL I .
(c) So Matt, 2'v. 21. ;v. 2. Mari L 19. Hi. 17. x. 35. Luke V, 10. Aci. i. 13.
Ch. IX. St.yolm. 3^7
to be Apoflles. However, the circumftances
of the famiiie may be colleded from what
is faid of their mother, who is mentioned,
Matt, xxvii. 5^. and Mark xv. 41. among
thofe ivomen^ ijcho followed 'J efui out of Galilee^
and miniftred unto Urn. That miniflrie is
defcribed Luke viii. 3. To which might
be added, that (he is mentioned among
, thofe women that bought fweet fpices to
embalm the body of Jefus. Mark xvi. i.
Luke xxiii. ^^. And our Lord, having
recommended his mother to this difciple,
i '
it is faid, that he took her to his own home, John xix. 27.
li Salome was related to our Lord in the manner fjppofed by (d) TheophylaSly or fome other way, with which we are not diftiadly acquainted ; that may have been, in part, the ground and reafon of feveral things mentioned in the Gofpels : as the petition of thefe two brothers, difciples, for the firfl: two places in Chrift's kingdom : John's being the beloved difciple, and friend of Jefus, and being admitted to fome free- dom?, denied to the reft : and, poffibly,
per-
(iij See Vol, xi. p. 424, 425,
31^ St. John, Ch. IX.
(e) performing fome offices about his perfon : and, finally, our Lord's committing to hto the care of his mother, fo long as (he fliould iurvive him.
In Ads iv. 13. It is faid of Peter and yobn, that they were ignorant^ and unlearned men. Which, indeed, is nothing elfe, but that they were neither (f) Dodors, nor Ma- giftrates, but men of private ftations, who had not been educated in the fchools of the Rabbies : or, as Dr. Doddridge has happilv tranflated this text, illiterate men, and in private ftations of life. So Oecumeniiis fays,
that
(^e) Opus fcilicet erat ipii aliquo, quern interduni ad matrem mitteret, (quod non ita raro fadum effe, facile intelli»itur;) quo uteretur ad Javandos fibi pedes, ad in- duendos fibi et exuendos calceos- [vid. Matt. iii. ix, Pviarc. i. 8. Luc. iii. 16. Joan. i. 27.] qui fibi praefto efiet ad mandata fubita, qui in cubiculo fibi adjaceret dormienti, qui alia fibi praeitaret minuta oSiciola domef- tica, qui propterea perpetuus fibi efTet pediilequus, nee nifi jufliis ab ipfo re(;ederet. Heuman. Dijf. Syil, Totfi. 2. ;.. 338.
if) Ayfdiji.fj.a.ro!, fine Uteris: id eft, non verfati iji doc- trinis thalmudicis, quales illiterati Hebraeis. Nam fiiu-iptu- ras Apoftolietlegerant, etmemoriatenebant. Ka/ \St^O!.t. Idiotae funt Hebraeis, qui neque Mag^ilratus funt, neque Legifperiti. Grot, in loc.
Ch.IX. St. John. 319
that (i^J St. John in fendiug a letter to Caius liad Paul for an exa tuple, who wrote to T/- fjiothiey and 7///^.^, and to Philemon ^ an idiot : that is, a man of a private flation : wherea« Timotbie and Titus bad a public character in the Church, as they v/ere Evangel ifls,.
There can he no douht, rhat Zebedeet , ibns, as the children of all pious Jews at that time, were well acquainted v/ith the fcriptures of the Old Teftanient. They had read them, and had heard them read and explained in tlie fyiiagogues. They had ^Ifo been accuftomed to go to Jerufalem^ at the feafls, and had difcouried with many up- on the things of religion. They now were in exped:atIon of the appearing of the Mef- fiah, foretold in the Law and the Prophets. But, undoubtedly, were in the common pre- judice of the nation, that it would be, in part at left, a worldly kingdom. And it is very likely, that they had heard John preach : though they did not attend* ftatedly upon him, as his difciples. For all the people of Judea in general went to JoLm's baptifm.
Says
(g) rifcj cTi yi'iQV hct y^ii^tfov i)(^£i 'Tra.vXov r'lTu y^aipoVTX
606. c.
3'
o«
St. John. Ch. IX.
:ays St. Joh?i i. 35. 36. ^gain^ the next day cijier John ftood^ and two of his difcfples. And looking upon JefiiSy as he walked^ ht:Jaith : Behold I he lamb of God . . From ver. 40. we learn, that one of thefe two, which heard John fpeak, u'as Andrew^ Simon Peter s bro- ther. And (h) fome have fuppoied, that our Evangeliftj who writes this, was the o- ther. Which I do not look upon as certain, though I do not d^uy it.
"Whether the other was John, or not, it ought to be reckoned unqueftioned, that be- fore he was called to be an Apoflle, he had feen and heard the Lord Jefns, and had been -witnelTe of fome miracles wrought by him. It appears to me very probable, thatf'/j he was one of the difclples, who were prefent at the wedding in C.a7ia ofGalileey where water was made wine. John ii. i . . . . 11.
The call of James and John, to attend up- on Jefus ftatedly, is related Matt. iv. 21. 2i.
Mark i. 19. 20. Luke v. 1 . . 10.
St.
fh) Dviorum alter ver. 41. nominatur. Alter videtur ipfe EvangcIiHa noiler fuiffe, uti vifum in vita ejus. Lib. i. cap. 2. Lampe if. J oh. cap. i. I'er. 35. 36.
(i) However, 5^z<7g-^ difputes this. Neque probabile ad- 'iTsodum, Joannem his interfuiffe nuptiis. Quod fi conccdere* tur, &c. Bafr.. Ami. 30, num. Hfcx^iii.
Ch. IX. St. John. 321
St. Mark, putting down the names of the twelve Apoftles, when he mentions James and John, fays, that onvhovd. funiamedtbem Boa?2ergeSy ijohich is fo?is of thunder, ch. iii. 17. By which it feems unreafonable to fup- pofe, that our Lord intended td reproach them with fome fault in their natural temper, as if they were iierce and furious : though (k) a learned writer has intimated fo much. That (I) name muft have been very honor- able, prophetically reprefenting the refolution and courage, with which they would openly and boldly declare the great truths of the gofpel, when fully acquainted with them. How Johfi anfwered this charadler, we know from what is faid of him in the book of the Ads, and from his own writings, and from things recorded of him in ecclefiaftical hifto- rie. How well Jamesj' the other brother, anfwered that charadler, may be concluded from his being beheaded by Herod Jgrippa at Jeriifdlefn^ not many years after our Lord's
(k) " However it was, our Lord, I doubt not, herein had *' refpedl to the furious and refolute difpolltion of thofc two " brothers, who feem to have been of a more fierce and fiery " temper, than the reft of the Apoftles." Ca-ve's Life of St, Jnmes the Great, num. ^.p. 1 42.
(l)'Vid. Fr. Lamp. Prolegom. I. i. cap. 2. num. viz. . . x'v.
VoL.L * Y afcenfion.
322 ' St. John. Ch. IX.
afcenfion. Which, we cannot doubt, was owing to an open and fledfall teftimonie to the refurre(ftion of Jefus, and to other fervi- ces for the Church : whereby he had greatly fignalized himfelf in the fliort period of his Hfe after our Lord's afceniion. Poffibly, (m) he had, with a freedom, not a Httle ofFenfive, fpoke of the calamities coming upon the Jew- illi people, if they did not repent, and be- lieve in Jefus, as the Chrift : as alfo Jchn the Baptifi had declared in his preaching. Matt. iii. 7. . . 12. Luke iii. 17. and Stephen in his. Ads vi. 13. 14. James [a) was the firft
Martyr
^/-7,'y' Accedit altera ratio, quae eos adhuc proprlus fpefla- bat, nempe quod in fcopo rainifterii fui prae ceteris Apofto- lis Baptiftae fimiles futuri. Nempe ficut Baptifta in ea to- tus erat, ut per tonitru praeconii fui judicium jam turn Ju- daeis imminens indicaret et averteret ; ita et minifterium fratrum horum potiflimum ad Judaeos fpedaturum erat. Ja- cobus quidem ea fini pofl: adfcenfionem Domini nunquam, quod fcimus, ab Hierofolyma difcefiit, donee pro fide marty- rium fubiret. Hoc vero ei eveniffe, quam maxime proba- bile efi, quia invidiofa prae ceteris ejus concio fuit, pericu- lum inftans incredulorum ex Judaeis omni data occafione ingeminans. Sec. Lamp, ih, I. i. cap, 2. man. x-u.
(a) It has long been the general opinion of the people of Spain, that this "James, the fon of Zebedee, planted the gof- pel in that countrey. Cafpar Sandins, a learned Spanijb Je- fuit, wrote a treatife in defenfe of it, befide what he fays in his Commentarie upon the Adls of the Apollles. But it is
incon-
Ch.IX. St, John. 323
Martyr for Chrifl; among the Apoftles. And bids fair for obtaining his petition, in a higher fenfe, than it was at firft intended : o^ fitting on the right hand^ or the left hand of Chriji in his kingdom. And the other brother, fur- viving all the other Apoftles, bore the longed teflimonie to the truth of the gofpel.
This account of that name is agreeable to (n) what Grotiiis fays in his Annotations.
Y 2 But
inconfiftent with the hlHorie in the A£ls. None of the A- poftles left Judea fo foon. Nor is this opinion founded on the tefdmonie of any ancient writers, of good credit. And it is now generally given up, even by Popilh writers. Vid. Baron. A. D. 41. num. i. Tillemont S. Jacques Le Majeur, et note 'vi. Mem. Ec. Tom. i. I tranfcribe here the Judgement of Ejiius. Deinde, quando occifus eft, vixdum coeperat evangelium gentibus praedicari, ut ex praecedentibus et fe- quentibus patet. Nee dum Apofloli difperfi erant in re- motas gentes : fed ejus rei commodum tempus exfpeflabant. Denique nullus fcriptor antiquus certae fidei refert, Jacobum Hifpanias vidifle. Ejl. in Acl. Jp. Cap. xii. njer. 2. — — Hcf. et Bafn&g. Ann. 44. num. i'v. ij. et Didionalre de Moreri. S, Jacques le Majeur.
(n) Omnino inihi videtur Chriftus, in hujus nominis impo- fitione refpexiffe ad Aggaei vaticinium. cap. ii. 7. . . Quod de evangelii praedicatione exponit Scriptor ad Hebraeos. xii. 26. Ad banc ergo maximam rerum mutationem fig- niiicat Chrillus, zebedaei iilios eximios fibi minillros fore. Et certe deftinatam illis excellentiam quandam inter ipfos ApoHolos vel hoc ollendit, quod cum Petro feorfim a ceteris
St. 'John, Ch. IX,
But Dr. Heiimann (o) has another thought. He obferves, that Simon, to whom Jefus g^ve the name of Peter, is often fo called. But we do not read, that the two fons of Zebedee were any where elfe fpoken of by the name Boanerges^ either by themfelves or others. He thinks, that the words fliould be thus rend red : And he had furnamed them Boaner- ges : that is, upon a particular occafion he fo called them. That occafion fqj he fijppofes to be the hiftorie related Luke ix. 52. . . 56. That is an ingenious conjefture. But if this name had been given them in the way of re- proof and cenfure, as Chrift once called Pe- ter Satan. Mat. xvi. 23. Mark viii. 33. one would fcarcely expedt to fee it here. The place^as feems to me, leads us to think, the
name
multarum rernm telles Cant afTumti. AdJe, quod Jacobus primus Apoftolorum omnium fanguine fuo Chrifti dodrinam obfignavit, et quod Johannes omnibus Apollolis fuperftes diu- tilTime teftimonium perhibuit veritatis Grot, ad Marc. Hi. 17.
(0) Nova Sylloge DiJJert. Part. i. p. 254. . . 259.
(q) Legimus, et adverfus Pecrum indigne fe gerentem, in haec verba erupiffe Chriicum : Apage, Satana. Jam uti Sa- tanas non faftum efl ordinarium Petri cognomen, fic nee Zebedaci fratres nifi femel nominati funt Boanerges. Nee proinde laudis hoc nomen ell, (quae quidem inveterata eft opinio,) fed nomen vitii. Non eft, inquam, appellatio hono- rifica, fed invedliva. /^, />. 259.
Ch. IX. St. John. 325
name honorable, as well as Peter. Which has been the general opinion of all times.
In Sm'cers Thefaurus, at the word Bpoiri? may be feen the obfervations of many ancient writers upon this name. I take Tbeophy/aB's only. Who fays, that (rj when Chrift cal- led thefe two difciples fons of thunder, he intimated, that they would be great preach- ers, and eminent divines.
From the time they were called by Chriil:, they ftatedly attended upon him. They heard his difcourfes, and faw his miracles.
They were two of the Twelve, whom (s) Chrift fent forth upon a commiffion, to preach in the land of Ifrael. Which was of great ufe to them. Thereby (t) they learned to truft in God, and were prepared for the greater difficulties of their ApolUediip after- wards.
John addreffed himfelf to Chriil:, fiying : Majier^ we faw one cafting out demons i?i thy name. And we forbad him, becaufe he follow' eth not with its. . . So in Luke ix. 49. 50. And more at large in Mark ix. 38. . . 41. But it
Y 3 was
}\.o<yipv)iot,<: )y ^iohoynirv!;. In Marc. Tom, i. p.. 205. C, (s) See Matt. x. 46. Mark, li. 7. Luke ix. i. (t) See Luke xxii. 3 j .
326 Sf, John. Ch IX.
was a thing, in which feveral were concerned. For yokn fays : We jaw one cafting cut' de- mons^ in thy natm. And wefirbad him. The hiftorie, as recorded by the EvangeHflSj led me to think lo. And Mr. Lampe (u) was of the iame mind. Moreover, it might be done
fome while before.
Our Lord was going from Galilee^ to Je-
rufalem before ihQ. featl of Tabernacles, as fome think, or before the feail of the Dedi- cation, as (x) Dr, Doddridge argues. And, as he was to p?.fs through the countrey of iS*^- maria, he jent mefjeiigers before his face. And they went J and enired into a 'village of the Sa>' maritanSy to make ready for him. But they did not receive him^ becaufe his face *was, as though he would go unto Jerufalem. Whn his diJcipleSy James and John^ faw this, they faid : Lord, wilt thou, that we command f re to come down jro?n heaven, and cor fume them, even as Elias did. But he turned, and rebu- ked them, and faid: Te know not, what man' ner of fpirit ye are of. . , , And they went to another village. Luke ix. 51. . . 56. Some have been of opinion, that the meOengers
fent
(u) Ubifupr. I. i. cap. 2. vicm. i8. (x) Family -Expofitor. Vol. it. p. 183.
Ch. IX. St, John. 327
fent by our Lord, to prepare entertainment for him, were tliefe tw.o difciplcs. If fo, this propofal might be fufpedied to proceed as much from refentment of an injurious treatment of themielves, as of their mader. But to me that is not certain. I rather think, that thofe meflengers were different perfons. So (y) like wife argues Mr. Lampe,
The two brothers, James and John^ were ambitious of high poils of honour and dig- nity in Chrift's kingdom : which, with o- thers, they efleemed to be of a worldly na- ture. The petition was prefented by their mother, but at their inftigation. And they feem to have been prefent at the fame time. For our Lord's anfwer is diredled to them. Matt. XX. 20. . . 23. Mark x. 35. . . 40.
The two brothers, James and Joh72^ and Feter, were the only difciples that were ad- mitted to be prefent with our Lord at the
Y 4 raifmg
(y) Cui tamen in eo non accedimus, quod fiiios Zebcdaei ij fos illos legates putat fuilTe, quob lefus in vicuni Samarita- norum hofpitium rogaturos miferat. Unde ob illatam fibi iiijuriam videntur exacerbati cffe, fed textus legates illos a filiis Zebedaei fatis dare diftinguit. Accedit, qnod lefus ad illos TpajtA? converfus fuerit. Quod indicat, illos, cum Domino con fill uni proponerent, non fuiiTe Domino obvios, fed pone cum fequentes. Lampe Praleg. /. l. cap. 2. n. xix. not. (I).
3^8 St. John. Ch.IX.
ralfing of the daughter o^ Jairus. Mark v. 37. Luke viii. 5 1 . The fame three difciples were taken up by Chrift Into the Qiount, when he was transformed in a glorious man-
o
ner, and Mofes and EHas appeared, talking with him. Matt. xvii. i. Mark ix. 2. Luke ix. 28. The fame three were admitted to be prefent at our Lord's devotions in the garden, when he retired from the red. But they ail failed to watch with their Lord, as he had defired. Matt, xxvi, 36. . 45. Mark xiv. 32.
Says St. Mark xili. 1.2. j^nd as he ivcjit cut of the temple^ one of his difciples faith unto him : Maflcr, fee what manner of ftones^ and what buildings are here. And fejus anfwer- ingf aid unto him : Seejl thou thef'e great build - ings I There fiall not be left one Jlone upon another, that jh all not be thrown down. Com- pare Matt. xxiv. I. 2. It follows in Mark xiii. 3. 4. And as he fat on the mount of olii-eSy over againfi the tejfjple, Peter ^ and fames\ and ychny and Andrew, afked him privatly : Tell US, whenfimll thefe things be F and what fiall be the fign, when all thefe things flmll beful- Jilled f Whereby we perceive, that to tiiofe four difciples, efpecialiy, our Lord addreffed himfelf, when he delivered the predidions
con-
Ch. IX. St. John. 329
concerning the great defolation, coming upon the Jewifli People, recorded in that chapter, and in Matth. xxiv. and Luke xxi.
This Apodle.and Peter were the two dif- ciples, whom Jefus fent to prepare for eating his laft paflbvcr. Luke xxii. 8. Compare Matt. xxvi. 17. . . 19. Mark xiv. 13. . . 16.
Our Lord, fitting at' fupper with his dif- ciples, faid : One of you ivill betray me. Pe- ter beckoned to Joba, who leaned on the bo- fom of Jefus, that be isooiild ajk^ ivho it JJjonId be, of whom he [pake. Which he did. And our Lord gave him a fign, by which he might know, whom he intended. John xiii. 21. . .26. This is an inftance of the free- dom, which John might take, as the beloved difciple, and friend of Jefus.
When our Lord was apprehended by the Jewilh officers, we are informed by St, Mark. xiv. q I. 52. A?2d there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth caji about his naked body. And the young men laid hold of him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled jrom them. Some have thought, that this young man was fohn. Cave (zj gives a good deal
of
(z) " Indeed upon our Lord's firft apprehenfion, he fled after the other Apoftles : it not being without Tome proba- bilities
330 ' Sf. John. Ch. IX.
of countenance to that fuppofition. Others (a) have thought him to h^James^ the Lord's brother. But GrotiuSy and juilly, wonders, that (b) any fhould have been of opinion, that he was one of the Apoftles.
That Peter followed our Lord at a dif- tance, and was admitted into the Hall of the Jewifh High-Prieft, we are afTured from all the Gofpels. It has been fuppofed by ma- ny, that John fliewed the like teflimonie of affedion and refpedl for his Lord. For he fays ch. xviii. 15. And Simon Peter foUoiVed yefiis. And fo did another difciple. That difciple was known to the High-Priejl. And fpake to her thai kept the doory and brought in Peter,
Neverthelefs it may be queftioned, whe- ther St. John hereby intends himrdf. Chry-
fojiom
bilities of reafon, that the ancients conceive him to have been that young man, that followed after Chrill, ha'ving a linen cloth cajl about his naked body : whoin when the officers laid hold upon, he left the linen cloth, and fled naked away." CflwV Life of St. John, num. it. ?. 1 5 1 •
(a) See Whitby upon Mark xiv. 5 1 .
(b) Non de Apollolorum grege. Quod miror, veteribus in mentem venire potuifie. Nee e donio, in quam Chriftus in urbe diverterat, fed ex villa aliqua horto proxima, ftrepitu militum excitatus, et fubito accurrens, ut confpiceret, quid agerent. Grot, ad Marc. .xiv. 5 1 .
Ch. IX. St. John. 331
jofiom (c) fuppofeth him to be meant, and that St. "John concealed his name ont of hu^ mility and modeflie. To the Hke purpofe ahb {(l) "Ibeophylaci . Nor (e) had jeroma any doubt here. Bat Augufiin (f) was cautious in faying, who it was : though he thought it might be yohn.
Let us now obferve the fentiments of mo- derns. Whitby upon the place fays : " He " feems not to be John. For he being a Ga- *' liiean, as well as Peter, they might equally " have fufpedted him upon that account." >
However, to this it might be anfwered, that yohn being known to the High-Priefl, he
was
(c) T(? k/v 0 tfAXof iJ-A^yiTiu ; 'O Tavrsc y(>d'lcci. k. X. Chr. in Joan. horn. 83. al. 82. T. 8. f. 491.
(d) Tj? «v 0 rtAAo; //«?«TJK ; 'Auroj Q\j7<i<i 0 toxtx ypd- 4'iic' UTTOKfiVTrTei idtVTov S'lA 7a.'7re>vc^po(7mr<). k. A. Theoph. in Job. xnjiii. p. 809.
(e) Unde et lefus Joannem Evangeliftam amabat pluri- mum. Qui propter generis rtobilitatem erat notus Pontiiici, ct Judaeorum infidias non timebat : in tantum ut Peti-um in- troduceret in atrium, et flaret folus Apoftolorutn ante cru- cem, matremque Salvatoris in fua reciperet. Ad PriJicip, 'virg. ep. 96. al. 16. T. 4. p. 780.
(f) Quiinam ifte fit difcipulus, non temere affirmandum eft, quia tacetur. Solet autem fe idem Joannes ita llgniiicare, et addere, quern diligebat lefus. Fortaflis ergo hie ipfe eft. Quifquis tamen fit, fequentia videamus. In Joann. E-vang, Tr. 113. 7". 3. P. 2.
332 St. JcLn. Ch. IX.
was fafe. But then another difficulty will arife. For it may be faid : How came Jo/m to be fo well known to the High-Priefl, and his familie, as to be able to direcftthe fervant to admit a ftranger, as Peter was, and at that time of night ?
Grotius likewife thought, that (g) this other difiiple could not be 'John^ or any one of the Twelve, but rather Tome believer, an inhabi- tant of 'Jerufalem^ and, pofiibly, the perfon, at whofe houfe our Lord had eat the pafchal fupper.
Lampe (h) hefitates. And at length al-
legeth
(g) Et fane non efl probablle, aut ipfum Johannem hie intelligi : (cur enim Galilaeus cum effet, minus interroga- retur ab aditantibus, quam Petrus ?) aut aliquem ex Duode- cim, fed alium quendani Hierofolymitanum, non aeque ma- nifeftum fautorem lefu : quales multi erant in urbe, ut fu- pra didicimus. xii. 42. Valde niihi fe pfobat conjeflura exiftimantium, hunc efTe eum, in cujus domo lefus coenave- rat, ob id quod legitur. Matt. xxvi. 18. Grot, ad "Joh. x'viii. 15.
(/jj Scripferam haec, cum J. Cafp. Merhenil Obfervat. Crit. in Paff. J. C. confulens, novam ab eo hypothefin proponi deprehenderem, . . . quae notatu non indigna elL Ipfum fiquidem Judam proditorem pro hoc ^ifcipulo habct, quern Joannes norainatu port; turpiiTunum proditionis crimen indignum cenfuit. ... Id autem quod potiffimum in rem ftedlare videtur, neque a nofira fententia,, quam de confdio Judae in prodendo fervatore fovemus, abludit, ita habet :
Judarn
Ch. IX. St.Jobu 333
legetli the fentiment of a learned writer, who conjedured, that this other difciple was "Ju- daSj the traitor. For Judas, he thinks, was foon touched with remorfe for what he had done. And he might follow Jefus to the High-Prieft's, hoping, that by fooie means he might efcape out of the hands of thofe, to whom he had betrayed him. Judas be- ing there himfelf, might be very willing to let in Peter, Whether this conjedlure be fpecious, or not, I cannot fay. But it does not feem to me very likely, that St. John Ihould characterife Judas, by the title of an^ other difciple y after he had betrayed his Lord and Mafter.
After all, I am not able to determine this point. At firft reading this place of St. John^ we are naturally enough led to think, that by
the
yudam pojl commiJJ'um fcelus puJore fnffufum pedetentim cohortem fu'tjfe Jecutum, atque in Petrum ita incid'Jfe, cut Jcelus fuum ex~ cuj'are, quiti negare potuit, fe ea tuerde Ckrljio o/culum dedijfey lit Chrijium proderety fed ut periculum immtnens ei fubinduaret. Nos fane de eo vix dubitamus, Judam poenitentia fcelcris jam turn fuiflb tadlum, atque confcientiae llimulis ea prop- ter agitatum facile potuifxe eo confilio lefum captiim fequi, ut refciret, annon aliqua ratione, pro folito, Jefus manus captorum evafurus elTet. Liberam jam Icflori optionem re- linquimus. Lampe in E-van^, Joann. cap, xtiii, 'Tom, 3. p. 523. not. (f).
334 ^^' y^^^' Ch. IX.
the other difcipk (hould be meant himfelf. But upon farther confideratlon there arife'dif- iiculties, that may induce us to hefitate.
Whether he followed Jefus to the Hall of Caiaphas^ or not, we are afTured, that he attended the crucifixion, and feems to have been the only one of the Twelve, that did fo.
John xix. 25. . . 27. Now there flood by the crojje of Jejtis his mother. . . When jfe/us tberejore faw his mother , and the difcipk fiand- ing by^ whom he loved ^ he faith tin to his mo- ther : Woman J behold thy fon. Then faith he to the difcipk : Behold thy mother, Andjrom that hour that difcipk took her unto his oven home. There might be feveral reafons for that determination : as Jolm\ being a rela- tion, the fweetnefTe of his temper, and his having fomewhat of his own. He had been the beloved difciple, or friend of Jefus. And therefore was the mod; proper to be thus trufted. And doubtlefs this defignation was perfedly agreeable to our Lord's mother.
John faw his Lord expire on the crofTe.
And ftill farther. Ojje of the foldiers with a
fpear pierced his fide. And forthwith came
thereout blond and water. And he that faw
it
Ch. IX. St. John. 335
it bore 'witnejje. And his record is true. ch. xix. 34. 35.
And undoubtedly he alfo ftaid afterwards, and faw the body of Jefus laid in the fe- pulchre, and the flone placed at the mouth of it : as related by himfelf. xix. 38. . . "42. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 53. . . 60. Mark xv. 45. . . 47. Luke xxiii. 50. . . 56.
Early in the morning, on which our Lord rofe from the dead, Marie Magda^ leUy and other women, came to the fepul- chre, and faw that it was open, the ftone having been taken away. Marie Magdalen knowing where fl:ie could find the two A- poftles, Peter and John^ went back to the city, and told them, that they had taken away the Lord out of the fepukhre : and^ fays fhe, we know not where they have laid him. So they ran both together, to the fepukhre. And by what they faw there, they were led to the perfuafion, that Jefus was rifen from the dead. As related John xx. i. . . 10.
John was prefent with the other dlf- ciples, when Jefus (hewed himfelf to them in the evening of the day, on which he arofe, and likewife eight days after, ch. xx. 19. . . 29.
He
336 Sf. Johi, Ch. IX.
He has alfo particularly related the hif- torie of our Lord's Viewing himfelf" to'fe- veral difciples at the fea of Tiberius : when they had an extraordinarie draught of fillies, in number one hundred and fifty three. There were prefent at that time Simojz Peter ^ Thomas^ Nathanael, the Jons of Zebe- dee, and two other dijciples. ch. xxi. i . . 23* Eefide other things, which I omit, our Lord having had difcourfe with Peter, and having foretold his martyrdom : Peter put to him a queftion, concerning John, faying : Lord, ivhat fiall this man do ? 'Jefus faith unto him : If I will, that he tarry ^ till I come^ what is that to thee ? Folkw thou me. Then went this faying abroad among the brethren, that that difciple p,mdd not die, Tet Jefus faid not unto him : He fiall not die. Put if I will, that he tarry, till I come, what is that to thee f Thus checking, as I apprehend, Peter s curiofity. However, it has been fup- pofed by judicious Commentators, that here is an intimation, that John fhould not die before the deflrudion of Jerujalem. Nor is there any doubt, but he furvived that event, which few or none of the other Apoflles
did.
Ch.lX. Sf.yoJm. 33^
did. Though (i) our Lord's words may be underftood to contain only an oblcure inti- mation, that whereas Peter 'i days would be fhortened by martyrdom, this dilciple fliould be preferved, till he died in the ordinarie courfe of nature.
From all which we perceive, that (k) St. John was prefent at moft of the things re- lated by him in his Gofpel : and that he
was
(t) Ita obfciire fignificat, Johannem, non, ut Petruni morte violenta morituriim, fed tali, qua, fine hominum vi folveretur, ubi Chriflus tempus idoneum judicafiet. Qiiod et contigit, ut Veterurn plures confentiunt. Grot, ad Joan, xxi. 22.
(k) Ex ipfa hiftoria evangelica Joannis probabile fit, omnibus eventibus, itineribus, miraculis, concionibus fer- vatoris noftri ipfum interfuifle . . . cum probabile fit, ilium fuifie inter difcipulos duos Joannis Baptiftae, a quibus ccl- Icdionis difcipulorum initium Jefus fecit, uti L. i. cap. 2. §. ii. oHendimus, Lnde colligimus, Evangeliftam noftrum fia- tim ab initio rebus, quae fcribit, interfuiiTe, et hanc effe ve- ram rationem, cur non altius filum hiftoriae fuae inciperet. Ex omnibus quoque fequcntibus narrationibus nulla eft, in qua abfentem Evangeliftam noilrum ftatuamus fuiHe, nifi forte excipere velis ilia, quae in palatio Annae et Caiaphae accide- runt. Cap. xviii. 1 3 . . . 1 7 . De quibus tamen res eft dubia, quia definiri accurate nequit, annon difcipulus, qui Petrum in Pala- tium Caiaphae introduxerit, ipfe Evangelifta nofter fuerit, Sed licet ilia praefens non perceperit, a Petro tamen, focio intimo, ftatim proculdubio audivit. Et forte per ejus re-
Vol. I. » Z lationeaa
338 St. John. Ch.lX.
was an eye and ear-witne/Te of our Lord's labours, journeyings, difcourfes, miracles, his low abafement even to an ignominious death, and his being alive again, and then afcending to heaven. '
Having (I) been prefent with the reft of the Apoftles at the Lord's afcenfion, he (m) returned with them from mount Olivet to Jeriifakm^ and continued with them, joyn- jng with them in their devotions, and in the choice of another, to fupply the place of Judas : and (n) partook in the plentiful ef- fufion of the Holy Ghofl upon the Apoftles and their companie on the day of Pentecofl next enfuing.
Pete?' and John, who often accompanied each other, healed the lame man at the temple, and upon that occafion preached to the people, who aiTembled about them. For which they were brought before the
Jewifh
lationem excitatus eft, ut ad Praetorium Pilatl fummo mane advolaret, atque ita cum reliquis mulierlbus Jefum ad crucem fequsretur. . . Ex quo patet, quanta cum cmphafi prac ceteris Apollolis et Evangeliftis dicere potuit : Quae audivimus, quae vidimus, i Jo. i. i. 2. Lajnp. Proleg. I. 2. cap, 4. num. 'vi.
(I) Mark x'vi. 1 9. Luie xxi'V. 50. ... 53. A£isi,l. ... 12.
(m) Acls i. 12... 26.
(n) A^sii. I, ;. 13,
Ch. IX. Sf. John. 339
Jewidi Council, and after fome debates were difmifTed with orders, not to preach any more in the name of Jefus. ACcs iii. and iv.
J • • • 22t
1
Some while after this, the number of be- lievers flill encreafing in yerufakm^ 'John and the reft of the Apoftles v/ere apprehended, and put into the common prifon. But they were the fame night dehvered by an angel, who commanded them to go and [peak in the temple to the people. Which they did earlj In the morning. Whereupon they were a- gain taken uo, and brought before the Coun- cil, who confulted how they might put them to death. But by the advice of Gamaliel that defign was laid afide. And when they had beaten them, they commanded^ that they /IjQuld not fpeak in the name of Jefus^ and let them go. V/hereupon the Apoftles departed from the pre fence of the Council^ rejoycing. . . And daily in the temple, and from hoife to houfe^ they ceafed not to teach and preach fe- fis Chriji.
Afterwards, there being a violent perfe- cution at ferifalem^ many were fcattered abroad. Philipy one of the fcven, went down to Samaria^ and preached to them, and wrought many miracles, infbmuch that
Z 2 great
340 Sf. Jobn. Ch. IX.
great numbers believed. When the Apoftles, who were at yerufakm, heard of this, " they fent unto them Peter and "^ohn, that they might receive the Holy Ghofc. Having per- formed that fervice, they returned to Jeru- fakm. And in their way preached the gofpel in many villages of the Samaritans. A6ls viii.
From what St. Paul fays in the fecond chapter of the epiftle to the Galatia?is we perceive, that Jolm was pre lent at the Coun- cil of Jerufakm: of which an account is given Ads xv. Vv^hich Council was held in the year 49. or 50. or thereabout. And it may be reckoned probable, that till that tirae Jobi had (laid in the land of Ifrael^ and had not been abroad in any Gentil coun- treys.
I would add, that though no miracles are related to be done by St. Johuj befide thofe, which have been here taken notice of j I reckon it very probable, that many miracles, befide thofe particularly mentioned by the hiftorian, were wrought by him, and other Apofiles, during their flay in Judea. This may be inferred from general expreffions of St. Luke in feveral places. And many Jigns end wonder i were^done by the ApoJlles» Ads ii.
. 43-
Ch. IX. St. John, 341
43 . A}id with great power gave the Apojiles u-ttnejje of the refurredlion of the Lord f ejus. ch. iv. 33. J7id by the hands of the A- foftles were many figns and wonders wrought among the people, ch. v. 12. Comp, iv. 29.
'^ o
From the book of the Revelation, ch. i. 9. we learn, that St. fohn was for a while in the ifland called Patmos, where he was fa- vored with vifions and revelations.
Thus far we have endeavored to colleft the hiftorie of this Apoftle from the New Teftament.
II. From ecclefiaflical hiftorie we learn, His Jgf. that St. John lived to a great Age, and that in the later part of his life he refided in y^^, particularly at Ephefus, the chief city of that countrey.
Concerning his abode in AJja we have divers tefiimonies of good credit. Irenaens in (0) two places of his work againft Herefies, both (/)) cited by Eiifebe, fays, that Johfi the Apoftle lived in AJia till the time of Trajan. [Who fucceded AVt?^ in the year
Z 3 of
(0) Iren. ach. Haer. I. z. cap. 22. «. i/.p. 148, e^/, Majf, et I. 3. cap. 3. /. 178.
(p) Eufeb. H. E. 1.'^, cap. 23. /;;.
342 St. John. Ch. IK.
cf. Chrlft 98.] Eujebe (q) underftands Cle- ment of Alexandria to fpeak to the lik^ pur- pofe. Origen alfo fays, that (r) John having lived long in AJia, died at Epbcfus. Pcly- crates J Billiop of Ephefiis about 1 96. is an unexceptionable witnefie, that (s) john was buried in that city. Jerome (t) in his book of Iliuftrious Men, and in his books againft Jovinian^ fays, " that the Apoftle John lived in AJia^ to the time of Trajan. And dying at a great age, in the fixty-eighth year after our Lord's paffion, was buried near the city of Ephefus.'" Suppofing our Lord to have been crucified in the year 32. of the vulgar aera, which (u) feems to have been Jerome's opinion, fixty eight years will reach to the year 100. cr the third of Trajan. At v/hich year of that Emperour the death of St. John is placed by Jerome in lais (x) Chronicle.
What was Johns age, when called by Chrid, we are not informed. Baronim (y)
thought
{q) Vid. Eufeb. Ibid.
(r) Ap. Eujeb. I. 3. cap. l.
is) Ap. Eufeb. 1. 1/. eap. 24. in.
(/) See Credib. Vol. x. p. loo. and loi^
(a) Fid. Bafnag. Ann, 1 01 . num. ii.
[x) P. 1 65 . ex ed. Scalig.
(y) Ann. loi. nu}n. ix.
Ch. IX. St. John, 343
thought he might then be about 22 years of age. Having been with Chrift three years, he was about 25 years of age when our Lord was crucitied. Tiliemont (z) fuppofes St. John to have been about 25 or 26 years of age when called to be an Apoflle. Lampe (a) thinks, that he was about the fame age with our Saviour. For my part, I cannot perfuade my-felf, that any of Chrift's Apoftles, when called to attend upon him, that they might be bis witnefles to the world, were much under the age of thirty. If it hence follows, that Jolm v/as a hundred years of age, or thereabout, when he died, it is not at all incredible, nor un- likely.
III. As it is an allowed point, that yohn whenhe dwelt in Afia in the later part of his life ; we ^'*'
may be reafonably defirous to know, when he fettled in that countrey. And for deter- mining this, the books of the New Tefla- ment may afford good hints. For (b) in all
Z 4 St.
(k) 5. Jean. P E'vavgelzjie. art. x. et note xv. Mem Tom. i.
{a) Quare nihil inipedit, quo minus ejufdem fermc aetatis cum fervatore noftiO fuerit. Prolegom. in Jo. I. i. cap. 2. }?um. i. not. (a).
[b] •' In the divifion of provinces, which the Apoilles
made
344 ^f' Jo^-^"' Ch. IX.
St. Luke's hiftorie of the preaching and tra- vels o^ Paul, particularly in Jffia, no men- tion is made of John. Which may induce us to think, that he was not there at that time. Nor are there any faUuations fent to John in any of St. Pauh epillles, writ at Rome: feveral of which were fent to Ephefus, or other places, not very remote from it : as the epiftle to the Epbefians, the fecond epiftle to l^imothie, probably, at Ephefiis, the epiftle to the ColoJJianSf and the epiftle to Philemon^ at Colojfe.
I will now obferve the opinions of fome learned moderns. Baronius thought, that {c) this Apoftie did not come to refide in Afia, until after the death of St. Peter, and St. Paul. Du Pin fays : We (d) do not ex- actly know, when he came into Afia, Per- haps it was about the year 70. 'Tillemont was of opinion, that {e) Sx.Joh?i did not come
made among themfelves, Jfia fell to his ftiare, though he did not prefently enter into his charge. Otherwife, we muft have heard of him in the account, which St. Luke gives of St. PauVs feveral journeys into, and refidence in thofe parts," Caw'j Life of St. John, §. i'v. (c) A. d. 97. num. it. , (d) Du Pin Diff. Prel I. 2. ch. 2. §. w.
fe) St. jean art. iv.
Ch. IX. St. John. 345
to rcTide in Afia^ till about the year 66. But he fuppofeth, that upon fome occafionj he had before that been in that countrey, with- out making a ftay there. Which laft, as I apprehend, is faid without any good au- thority. Mr. Lampe was of opinion, that
(f) John did not leave Judca, till after the death of JameSy called the Lefs, and but a fliort time only, before the deftrudlion ofje- riifilem.
To me it feems not unlikely, that St. John came into AJiaj about the time that the war broke out in Jiidea^ in the year 66. or a fhort time before, when, probably, St. Feter and Paul h2id been before crowned with martyr- dom.
As St. John (laid a good while in Pale/iifje, it may be reafonably concluded, that the vir- gin Marie did not go with him to Ephefus, as
(g) Baronius, and fome others have thought, but died, before he went thither. Which
was
(f) Poft ejus (Jacobi Mhwris) exceflum neminem ex tSi> S'uS'tKA grege et conftantius et diutius Hierofolymis fub- ' ftitifle noftro Apoftolo : ita ut vix exiguo ante exordium in- tervallo, inde fe avelli pateretur. Proleg. Li, cap. z. n. xv.
p. 29.
(g) A. d. 44. «. xxix.
346 ^^- 'John, Ch. IX.
was the opinion of (h) Cave, and (ij Baf-
nage. KisHiprie IV. St. John having had a long life, many Writes!' things have been faid of him, fome true, others faUe. Mo ft of them have been al- ready taken notice of in feveral chapters of this work. It may not be improper to re- colle(5i: them here, with fome remarks.
1. JpoiloniuSj who wrote againft the Mon- tanijfsy and flouriihed about the year 211. fays, in a fragment, preferved by Eufebe, " That [k) by the divine power Jolm raifed lip a dead man to life at Ephefus'' Which miracle is alfo taken notice of by (/) Sozomen, and [m) Nicephorus^ and may have been re- ally done. But if we had had a more cir- cumftantialhiftorie of it, and if it had been mentioned by fome other early writers, be- iide Apollonius^ it would have been more credible.
2. There was a book forged with the title of the travels of Paul and Thecla by
a Pref-
(h) " Probable therefore it is, that he dwelt in his own houfe at Jerufalem, at left til! the death of the bleifed Virgin." Cave's Life of St. yohn, §. i'v.
(i) Vid. Bcfnag, An. 46. num. xxxmin.
(k) See ch. 31. num. iv. Vol, iii. p. 16.
(I) Soz. I. 7. cap. 27. p. 750. - (m) Niceph. /. 4. f^^. 25.
Ch. IX. St. John. 347
a Prefbyter, who was depofed for (o doing, as related by Tertuilian. Jerome fays, that he was a Prefbyter in Afia, and that he was convided before St. John of being the au- thor of it, and for that reafon was depofed. Of this matter we have already fpoken di- flindly aheady, and therefore refer to what was then {n) faid.
3. It is alfo related of our Apoftle, that going to bathe at Epkefus, and perceiving, that CerinthuSj or, as others fay, Ebion, was already in the bath, he came out again haftly, and would not make ufe of the bath. The probability of which account was examined (0) formerly.
4. It is faid, that by order of the Em- perour Domiiian St. John was cafl: into a cal- dron of boy ling oyl at Rome, and came out again, without being hurt. The (p) truth of which ftorie likevvife has been con/idred by us.
5. Poly-
(«) See ch. 27. 'vol. ii. p. 641. . . . 643. and ch. 29. f. 698. ^V.
{0) Sec ch. 6. I'ol.i. p. 190. 191. note (B) the fecand edition ^ and ch. 114. lol. x, p. 10^.
(/>) See ch. 27. 'vol. ii. p, 604. note (E) thifecond edition, and fbf n4' 'i'ol' •*■• P' 108,
34^ ' Sl Jobn. Ch IX.
5. PolycrafeSj Bifliop of Ephefus in the later part of the fecond centurie, fays, that y(?.67z was Chrifi's High-Prieft, wearing on his forehead a golden plate. Which ac- count (q) has been confidred, and the judgements of divers learned men upon it alleged.
6. Etifebe has a ftorie, from a work of Clement of Alexandria^ of a young man in a city of Afia^ not far from Ephefus^ who after having been inftru6led in the ChriQian Religion took to evil courfes, and became profligate : but neverthelefs was afterwards brought to repentance by our Apoftle. This account is inferted at large by Eufebe (r) in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie. It has been repeated in like manner by Simeoji Meta- pbrajles in his Life of St. '^ohn. Chryfoflom (s) has referred to it. It is alfo briefly told in the it) Pafchal Chronicle. I have already taken fome notice of this [u) ftorie. S. Baf- nage (x) thinks it to be a fable, or feigned
apologue,
[q) See ch. 114. vol. x. p. 104. . . 107. (;•) L. 3. cap. 23.
{/) j^d Theodor. Lap/. T. i. p. ^X. cd. Bened. [t] Chr. Pafch.p. 251. I>. («) See ch. 114. i/o/. x. p. 107. 108. [x] Apologo fjuam hiftoriae videtur efTe propior. . ." . ^
Ac
Ch. IX. Sf. John. 349
apologue, compofed to convey ufeful inftruc- tion. Mr. Lampe (y) is favorable to this hif- torie. And, perhaps, it may be true, aba- ting fome circumftances. Which are not feldom added to fuch accounts, to render them the more entertaining.
7. yerome has given an account of St. John's method of preaching, when he was of a great age, and was not able to make a long difcourfe. This {z) was taken notice of by us in a proper place. Nor is the truth of it, though related by Jerome only, difputed, either by (a) LamJ)e, or {b) Le Clerc.
8. It
Ac fane nefcimus, li vera hiftoria eft, cur Clemens /wJ9», fabulae, nomen ipfi primum impofuerit. Fabula fuit ratione rei fignificantis, veritafque refpedlu rei fignificatae, quae mentibus proponebatur, nempe exirnii paftoris officium, ac vis poenitentiae. Non infolens erat antiquis, uti apologis ejufmodi ad informandos mores. ... Si cui tamen placet de Joanne Clementis narrationem veram hifloriam eiTe, quia fie Veteribus vifum, de hac re quidem contendere nolumus. Bafn. ann. 97. num. x.
(y) Prolegom. I. i. cap. -v, num. Hi. . . . ix.
(z) Vol. x.p. 103.
(a) Licet enim Hieronymus folus hujus narrationis auftor fit, nihil tamen occurrit, quod non cum more Joannis, ut cum ratione Ecclefiae ejus temporis apprime convenit. Lamp, Proleg, I. i, cap. 'v, n, xi.
(b) H, E, ann. 99. num. i.
35© St. John, Ch. IX*
8. It is generally fuppofed, that (c) John is one of thofe Apoftles, who lived a fingie life. It is faid by (d) TeriulUaJi^ and Jerome. Which laft affirms, that (e) ecclefiaftical hif- torie afTures us of it. And he makes it the ground of all the peculiar privileges of this Apoftle.
9. Another thing, faid of John^ is, that he was banidied into Patmos, an illand of the Mediterranean Sea, not far from the coaft of Afta. And, if he is the writer of the book of the Revelation, which we do not now difpute, the thing is unqueftioned.
But
(c) Vid. Lamp. Proleg. I. i, cap. i. num. xui.
(d) Joannes Chriili fpado. De Monog. cap. ly.p. 68c?. (ej Talemfuifle eunuchum, quern Jelus amavit plurimum,
Evangeliftam Joannem, ecclefiailicae tradunt hiftoriae : qui recubuit fuper peAus Jefu : qui, Petro tardius ambulance, elatus virginitatis alis cucurrit ad Dominum : qui in fecreta divinae fe nativitatis immergens, aufus eft dicere : In prin- cipio erat Verbum. &-c. /■? If. cap. lvi. Tom. 3. p. 410.
Joannes vero nofter, quafi aquila, ad fuperna volat, et ad ipfum Patrem pervenit, dicens : In principio erat Verbum, &c. Expofuit virginitas, quod nuptiae fcire non poterant. Et ut brevi fermone multa coinprehendam, doceamque, cu- jus privilegii fit Joannes, imo in Joanne virginitas : a Domino virgine, mater virgo \'irgini difcipulo commendatur. y^d-v. Jo'vin. I. i. 7. 4. P. z. p. 1 69. Vid. et ad. Princip. mrg. ep. 96. al. 16. ih. p. /So./".
Ch. IX. St.John.^ 351
But I have deferred the condderation of this particular, till now, becaufe learned moderns are not agreed about the time of it.
V. I fliall therefore firfl put down the The "Time,
~ . , 111 'when he
accounts or ancient authors, and then ob- ^ujasha- (erve the opinions of learned men of later "^^^^^^
^ Patmos,
times.
Irenaem fays of the Revelation, '* that (f) it was feen no long time ago, but almofb in our age, at the end of the reign of Do- mitian.'' And though Ircnaeia does not fay, that St. 'John was then in Patmos, yet iince he fuppofeth him to be the perfon, who had the revelation, he muft have be- lieved him to be then in Patmos, as the book itfelf fays. ch. i. 9.
Clement, of Alexandria, m his book, en- tided. Who is the rich man that may be faved, as cited by Eufebe, fpeaks (g) of *' Johris returning from Patmos to Ephefus, after the death of the tyrant." By whom, it is probable, he rrkeans Domkiaii.
Tertullian^
(/) See cap. 1 7. Vol, i. p, 379.
(g) E'TreiS'ti yap t» Typ«vv» TiKZVTrKrcttToi, u-tto tmj 'varutt tm vwH fjETTiA^iv «; T«ii i^iffov. X. A. Jft Eufeh. H, E, I. z. c. 23./. 92,
352 Sf. John. Ch. IX.
TerfuIIia?ij In his Apologie, fpeaks of Do'- mitian, as (h) having banidied fome Chrif- tians, and afterwards giving them leave to return home : probably intending St. yohn, and fome others. In another work he fays, *' that (i) yolm having been fent for to Romey was cad into a vellel of boyling oyl, and then banidied into an ifland :" in the time of Do- mitian, as is mofb probable.
Origefiy explaining Matt. xx. 23. fays : ** James (k) the brother of John^ was killed ** with a fword by Herod. And a Roman " Emperour, as tradition teaches, banifhed " John into the ifland Patmos for the tefti- *'' monie, which he bore to the word of truth. ** And John himfelf bears witnefle to his ba- " nifhment, omitting the name of the Em- *' perour, by v*fhom he was banifhed, faying *' in the Revelation : / Johnj 'who alfo am " \oiir brother and companion in tribulation y *' and in the kingdom and patience of Jefus
'' Chrifly
(h) Tentaverat et Domitianus, portio Neronis de crudeli- tate. Sed qua et homo facile ceptum repreflit, reflitutis etiain quos relegaverat. Jpol. cap. 5.
(i) . . . habes Romam, . . . ubi Apoftolus Joannes, poftea- quam in oleum igneum demerfus, nihil paffus eft, in infulam relegatur. De Pr. Haer. cap. 36. p. 245.
(k) Comm. in Matt. T. i.p, 417. Huet,
Ch. IX. aS/. ''johu 353
*' Cbriff, was in the if.e ofPafmos^ fer the word ** of Godj and jor the te/iimo?ne of J ejus " ChrilL And (I) it feems, that the Reve- y lation was feen in that ifland."
ViBorin^ Birtiop of Pettaw about 290. again and again fays, that (m) John was ba- ni{]ied by DGmitia?!^ and in his reign faw the revelation.
Eiifebcj giving an account. oi Domitians periecution, fays : ** In fn) this perfecution, as it is faid) johj?, the Apoftle and Evange- lift, being ftill living, was banifhed into the ifland Patmos for the teftimonie of the word of God."
Epiphanius, as formerly (p) fliewn, fays : " John prophefied in the ifle of Patmos^ in the reign of Qlaudius," And in another place, then only referred to, he fays : *' Joh?: wrote *« his Gofpel in his old age, tvhen he was *' more than ninety years old, after his re- " turn from Patmo>, which fqj was in the *' time of Claudius Caefar."
(I) Kci/ £3ix« T«v a7roKiKv\.iv h rvi v'lffu nSek^fmiton. Ibid. C.
(m) See Vol. nj.p. 223.
(n) H. E. I. 3 cap. 1 8.
(p) Vol. 'viii.p. 311.
(q) . . -rnv iTt KActy/ia yivofj.my Kouffa^oi. Haer. 51. num. xii.
Vol. I. - A a Jerome ,
354 St. John. Ch. IX.
Jerome^ in his book of Illuftrious Men, as (r) formerly cited, fays : " Dojnitian in the fourteenth year of his reign railing the fecond perfecution after Nero, John was ba- niflied into the ifland PatmoSy where he wrote the Revelation." And in another work, alfo cited fs) formerly, he fays again : " John was a Prophet, as he faw the Revelation in the ifland PafmoSj where he was banifhed by Domitian." And 1 fhail now tranfcribe be- low (t) in his own words, without tranflating them, his comment upon Matt. xx. 23. where he fpeaks of St. yohn^ having been ba- nifhed into Patmos : but does not name the Emperour, by whom he was banilhed.
Sidpicius Severus fays, ** that (u) yohn^ the Apoftle and EvangeliU, was banifhed by Do- mittan into the ifland Patmos : where he had
vifions,
(r) See Vol. x. p. lOO. (s) P. 102.
(i) Quaeritur, quomodo calicem martyrii filii Zebedaei, Jacobus videlicet et Joannes, biberint : quum fcriptura narret Jacobum tantum Apoftolum ab Herode capite truncatum : Joannes autem propria morte vitam finierit. Sed fi legamus ecclefiafticas hiilorias, in quibus fertur, quod et ipfe propter martyrium lit mifTus in ferventis olei dolium, et inde ad fuf- cipiendam coronam Chrifti athleta procefTerit, ftatimque re- legatus in Patmon infulam fit, videbimus, martyrio animum non defuifTe, ec bibifTe Joannem calicem confeffionis. Omm, in Matt. Tom. 4. P. i. p. 92.
(n) See Vol. xi, p, II.
Ch.IX. Si. John. 35^
vifions, and where he wrote the book of the Revelation."
Arethasj in his Commentarie upon the Re- velation, fuppofed to be writ in the fixth cen- turie, fays, upon the authority of Eufebius, that (x) John was banifhed into Patmos by Domitian.
IJidore, of Seville^ near the end of the fixth centurie, fays : " Domitian (y) raifed a per- fecution againft the Chriftians. In his time the Apoftle John having been banillied into the ifland Patmos faw the Revelation/*
We may now make a remark or two.
I . All thefe teftimonies are of ufe, whether they name the ifland, where John was ba- nifhed, or the Emperour, by whom he was banifhed, or not. They all agree, that St. John was fent thither by way of punifhment, or reflraint, for bearing witnefle to the truth. Which confutes the opinion of Lightjoot^ ** that (z) John travelling in the miniftrie of ** the gofpel, up and down, from AJia weft- *' ward, comes into the ille Patmos^ in the
A a 2 " Ic avian
(x) 'E^opiTflV H awTou yevitrSxi h 7raT//.« t]! vfjo-a Ctto
vtx^r'i^iToci. Andr. in Apoc. ap. Occum. Tom. 2. p. 654. D. (y) Vol.xi.p. 377. (z) Harmonie of the N. T, VcL i. p. ^^1.
356 Sf. John. Ch. IX.
*« Icaria?! fea, an ifland about thirty miles <' compafs. And there on the Lord's-day he " has thefe vifions, and an angel interprets to " him ail he faw."
2. All thefe writers, who mention the time of the Revelation, and of the baniiliment, fay, it was in the time of Domitimtj and that he was the Emperour, by whom St. John was baniflied : except EpiphaniuSy who fays, it was in the time of Claudius. As he is fingu- lar, it fliould feem, that he cannot be of any great weight againfl; fo many others.
Neverthelefs, as fome learned men, parti- cularly GKOtiiis, have paid great regard to E- piphanim in this point -, it is fit, we fliould ■s confider, what they fay.
Says Grotius in a trafl, entitled A Com- ment upon divers texts of the NevvTefta- ment, relating to Antichrift : particularly, upon the tenth verfe of the xvii. chapter of the Revelation : " j'oh?i (a) began to be-il-
*' lumi-
(a) Coepit autem Joannes in Patmo eHb, et Dei vifis il- • luminari Claudii temporibus, quae veturiiffimorura Chriftia- norum eft fententia, non Domitiani, ut volunt alii. Vide E^iplianium in Kacrefi Alogoruni. Claudius Judaeos, fub quorum nomine tunc et Chriitiani cenfebantur, ut multis vi- ris dodis obfervatum eft, Roma pepulerat, Ad. xviii. 2.
Quod
-^f
Ch. IX. St. John . '^-^y
** liiminated with divine vifions in the ifland " Patmos^ in the time of Claudius. Which ** was the opinion of the mod ancient Chrif- *' tians. See Epiphanhis in the Herefie of " the Alogiam. Claudius^ as we learn from " Ads xviii. 2. commanded all 'J ews to depart ^^ from Rome. Under the name of Jews, " Chriftians alfo were comprehended, as has " been obferved by many learned men. And *' it cannot be doubted, but many Governours " of the Roman provinces followed that ex- ** ample. So therefore fobi was driven from " Ephefus."
That argument was long ago examined by (b) David Blondel, who fays i . It is not true, that the moft ancient writers faid, that St. yoh?i was fent into Fatinos by Claudius. It is Epiphanius only, who fays fo. He is altoge- ther lingular. There are no ancients, either before, or after him, who have faid this. 2. As Epiphanius is fingular, he ought not to be regarded. 3. There was no perfecution of
A a 3 the
Quod exemplum non dubium eft, quln imitati fmt multi Praefides Romanorum provinciarnm. Ita Ephefo expulfus Joannes. Grot. Commentatio ad loca qiiacdam N. T. quae de Ant'ichrijlo agunt, ant agere putanttir. 0pp. Tom. 3.
(b) Des Siiylks, /. 2. f^. ///./>. 145, ,. . i/j-Sw; Charentcn, 1649.
35B ^ St. John, Ch. IX.
the Chriftlans in the reign oi Claudius. There is no proof from any ancient monuments, that Chrillians, as fuch, fuffered banifliment under that Emperour. It is allowed, that (c) Nero was the firft Roman Emperour, who perfecuted the Chrlftians. 4. The editft of Claudius only baniflied the Jews from Rome. It did not afFe6l the Jews in the provinces, as appears from the New Teftament itfelf, par- ticularly, Ads xviii. and xix. It is manifeft from the hiftorie in the Ads, that in the reign of Claudius^ in other parts of the Empire, out of RomCy the Jews enjoyed as full liberty, as they did before. Paul and Silas , Aquila and Frifcilk^ dwelled quietly at Corinth : where the men of their nation had their fynagogue, and affembled in it according to cuftom^ without moleflation, 5. Nor could the Go- vernours of provinces banifli either Jews or
Chrif-
fc) Confulite commentarios veftros. Illic reperietis, prir mum Neronem in hanc feftam, cum maxime Romae orien- tem, Caefariano gladio ferociffe. Sed tali dedicatore dam- rationis noftrae etiam gloriamur. Teriu//. Jp. cap. 'v.
Islerone imperante. . . . Qui dignus exftitit, qui perfecutio- Jiem in Chriftianos primus inciperet. Su/p. Sev. Hiji. Sacr. I. 2. cap, 3g.
Nam primus Romae Chriftianos fuppliciis et mortibus af« fec^t. P. prof, I. 7. cap. 7.
Vid, et Eufeb. H. E. I, z, cap. 25. p. 67.
Ch. IX. St. John. 359
Chriftians out of their governments, without order from the Emperour. And that they had no fuch order, is apparent. Neither Jews nor Chriftians were molefted by them at Ephefus^ as may be perceived from the hiftorie in the nineteenth chapter of the Ads, That they were not molefled by them at Co- rinth^ appears from the preceding chapter. 6. St. 'John could not be banifhed from Ephe- fus by Claudius J or theGovernours under him. For he was not in that city during the reign of that Emperour, nor in the former part of the reign of Nero^ as has been (hewn. He did not come thither, till near the end of the reign of the lafl mentioned Emperour. Therefore he could not be fooner banifhed from Ephejus,
Thefe obfervations, if I am not miftaken, are fufficient to confute the" opinion of Grc- tlus.
Sir IJaac Newton was of opinion, that (b)
A a 4 St.
(b) ^\xlfaac Neivtoti's opinion is much the Hime with that of John Hentenius of Mechlin^ confuted by Dwvui Blondel in the fame work, and in the next chapter to that, in which he confuted Groiius. Hentenius and Nenxitoti argue much alike. It may be fufpecled, that Nenuton incautioufly borrowed fome of his weak arguments. Says Blonde/ : " Jean Hentenius en fa preface fur le Commentaire d'Arethas. . a Ic difcours, qui
fuit :
360 St. John. Ch.IX:.
St. John was banlfhed into Fatmos, and that the Revelation was feen in the reign oVNcro^ before the dertrudion of Jerufalem.
^^Eufebhis, fays (d) he, in his Chronicle, *' andEccleiiaftical Fliftorie follows Irenaeus: *' (who faidj the Apocalypfe was writ in the ** time o^ Dojnitian:) But afterwards in his ** Evangelical Demon ftration he conjoyns " the banifliment of yofm into Patmos, with " the deaths of Pefer and Pmi."
To which I aniwev J Jir/I, that fej the Ec- cleiiaftical Hiflorie was not writ before the Evangelical Demonftration, but after it. For the Demonftration is referred to at the end of the fecond chapter of the fiiil book of the Eccleiiaftical HKlorie. Secondly, Eujebiiis in
his
fuit ; // me femble, qu£ Jean . . . a ejic relegue par Neron en Pat??ws au mejme temps que celui la a tue dans Rome, . . . Pierie et Paul. Tertullien, I'oijin des temps des mejmes Jpoftres, aJJ'eure cela mefme en deux liev.x. Eujebe aujfi traitte la tne/me chofe an tivre de la Demonjlration Ei-angelique, cotnhien quen fes Chro' r.iques, et en riiijioire Ecclefiajliqiie il dit que cela eji arrinje fous Domitien : ce que cujji Saint Hierome et plujieurs autres fid'vent. Mais a ces li'vres cy, comme efcris is annees precedentes, Ji grande authorite nejl pas attribuee, qu a celui de la Demonjlration Eiati- gedque, meu- quil a cjie depuis, et plus corredetnent e labour e, Blondel des Sibylles. I. 2. ch. i^v, p. 148. 149.
(d) Neivtotfs Objcr'vattons upon the Apocalypfe of St. John, chap, /', p. 236.
(e) See in this ixork.Vol. 'viii. p. 47. Valef. Annot. in Eufeb* /. 8. 9. Fabric. Bib, Gr. I, 5. cap. i'v. Tom. b.p.^"]. . . 59.
Ch. IX. St. Job:?. 361
his Demondratlon is not different from him* fclf in his Ecclefiaftical HiPiorie. In his De- mondration, having fpoken of the imprifon- ment of all the Apofties at yeruJaleWy and of their being beaten, and of the ftoning of Stephen, the belieading of yame& the fon of Zebedee, and the imprifonment of Pcier, he adds : " James (f) the Lord's brother, v/as floned, Peter was crucified at Ro}?ie with his head downward, and Paul was beheaded, and yohn ba niched into an iiiand." But he does not fiy, that all thefe things happened in the time of one and the fame Emperour. It is plain, that it is not his defign to mention ex- actly the time of the fufferings of all thefe perfons. Nothing hinders our fuppofing, that the Apoftles Peter and Paul were put to death by order of Nero^ and Jo/m baniHi- ed by Dornitiany many years afterwards, a- greeably to what himfelf writes in his Chro- nicle and Hiftorie.
It follows in Sir Tfdac Neii'ton. " And " (Z,) ^^ ^^ Tertullian, and PJcudo-Prccho' *' rusy as well as the firft author, whoever he
'^ was.
'TtttvKoi re a.7ro7k[jMircLi, h::iivf\q n vfiffa 'jotfOiiiJ'oTAt. Dem, E'v.L 3,/>. 116.
(g) Ai before, p. 236.
362 Sf. John. Ch. IX.
«* was, of that very ancient fable, that St. " 'John was put by Nero into a veflel of hot « oyl."
I place below (h) the words of l^ertulUan^ to which Sir IJaac refers. And I anfwer : It is true, that Tertiillian fpeaks of the death of Veter and Taul^ and of Johns being caft into boyling oyl, and then banifhed, all to- gether. But he does not fay, that all hap- pened in the fame reign. St. Joh?!'^ banifh- ment is the laft thing mentioned by him. And, probably, it happened not, till after the death of Peter and Paul. It is likely, that Tertullian fuppofed it to have been done by the order oiDomitian. For in another place he fpeaks of the perfecution of that Empe- rour, as (i) confiding chiefly in banifliments. *' . . . and Pfeudo- Prochorus," What place of Prochorus, who pretended to be one of the
feven
(h) 10.3. quam felix ecclefia, ubi Petrus pafiioni Domini- cac adaequatur : ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur : ubi Apoftolus Joannes, pofteaquam in oleum igneum demerfus, nihil pafTus eft, in infulam relegatur. De Fraefcr. cap. 36. f. 245.
(i) Tentaverat et Domitianus ... fed qua et homo, facile ceptum repreilit, reftitutis etiam quos relegaverat. ApU
Ch.IX. St, John, 363
Teven deacons, and is called by Baronius (k) himfelf a great lyar, Sir Ifaac Newton refers , to, 1 do not know. But in his hiftorie of St. yohfi he is entirely againfb him. For (I) he particularly relates the fufFerii)gs, which St. yohi underwent in the fecond perfecution of the Chriftians, which was raifed by Domi- tian. That Emperour fent orders to the Pro- conful at Ephefusy to apprehend the Apodle. When the Proconful had got St. Jofm in his power, he informed Domitian of it. Who then commanded the Proconful to bring him to Rome, When (m) he was come, the Em- perour would not fee him, but ordered him to be caft into a veffel of fcalding oyl, and he came out unhurt. Then Domitian com- manded the Proconful to have St. John back again to Ephefus, Some time (n) after that,
by
(k) — in multls mendaciflimns hie auflor fuifie convincitiir. jln. 92. num. i.
(I) Secundam vero perfecutionem Domitianus excitarat, cujus temporibus Joannes Ephefi morabatur. Imperator au- tem Domitianus epiltolam milit Ephefum ad Pioconfulerti civitatis. . . Proch. de Vit. Joan. cap. 8. Ap. Bib. Patr. Ltigd. T. 2.
(m) Audiens autem Domitianus de adventu ejus, noluit impius Caefar videre faciem Apoftoli. Et juffit, ut Proconful duceret ad Portam Latinam, et in ferventis olei dolium ilium vivum dimitti. &c. lb. cap, 10.
(n) Ibid. cap. 14.
364 Si\ John, Ch. IX.
by order of the fame Domitian, Johriy and o- thers at EphefuSy were banifiied into Patmos, Do?nitian (0) being dead, they returned to Ejphefus with the leave of his fucceflbr, who did not perfecute the Chriflians. So Pfeudo- Prockorus,
Since the great Newton has been pleafed to refer to fuch a writer, I fliall take notice of another, of the hke fort. I mean Abdias^ who affumed the charader of the firft biiLop of Bahjlon, What he fays, is to this purpofe : that (p) Jobn^ who furvived the other Apof-
tles,
(0) Mortuo autem Doniitiano, qui nos tranfmiferat, in ex- ilium, fuccefibr ejus non prohibebat Chriftianos. Et cum audifTet de bonitate et fandimonia Joannis, quodque fuiflet injufte a praedecelTore fuo exiiio relegatus, per literas nos re- vocavit ab exiiio. lb. cap. 45.
(p) Eft igitur et hoc ipfum amoris Salvatoris in beatum Joannem indicium non vulgare, quod vita reliquos omnes fu- peraverit, et, ut diftum eft, ad Domitiani Imperatoris aeta- tem ufque in Afia vcrbum falutis populis adnunciarit, . . . Cui Proconful loci cum edidtum Imperatoris, ut Chriftum negaret, et a praedicatione cellaret, legilTet, Apoftolus in- trepide refpondit. . . Ad cujus refponfionem motus Procon-. fill juiTit eum velut rebellem in dolio ferventis olei demergi. Qui ftatirn ut conjedtus in aeneo eft, veluti athleta un£lus, non aduftus, de vafe exiit. Ad quod miraculum Proconful ftupefadus, voluit eum libertati fuae reddere. Et feciflet, nifi timuiflet edidum Caefaris. Mitiorem igitur poenam cogitans, in exilium eum relegavit, in infulam, quae di-
citur
Ch. IX. St. John. 365
ties, lived to the time of Domt'n'anj preach- ing the word to the people in ^fia. When Domiiian's edidl" for perfecuting theChriftlans was brought to EpbefuSj and Jo/m refufed to deny Chrift, or to give over preaching, the Proconful ordered, that he fliould be drown- ed in a veffel of boy ling oyl. But Jcbn pre- fently leaped out unhurt. The Proconful would then have fet him at liberty, if he had not feared to tranfgrefs the Emperour's edict. He therefore baniflied Jolm into Patmos, where he faw and wrote the Revelation. After the death of Domitian^ his edi(5ls hav- ing been abrogated by the Senate, they who had been baniflied, returned to their homes. And John came to Ephefus, where he had a ^welling, and many friends.
Then follows an account of St. John's vifit- ing the churches in the neighborhood of E- phefus* Where is inferted alfo the ftorie, for- merly taken notice of, concerning the young
man,
citur Patmos. In qua et Apocalypfin, quae ex nomine ejus legitur, et vidit, et fcripfit. Poll mortem autem Domitiani, quia omnia ejus decreta Senatus infringi ju/Terat, inter ce- teros, qui ab eo relegati fuerant, et ad propria remeabant, etiam funftus Joannes Ephefum rediit, ubi et hofpitiolum, et multoe amicos liabebat, AbJ. Hiji. A^cjIoL cap. <v. ap, Fabr, C:id. Jptcr.N, ?"./•. 533. ... 536.
366 Sf' "John. Ch. IX.
man, as related by Eufebius from Clement of Alexandria : and as happening, not after the death of NerOy but of Domitian.
Newton proceeds : " as well as the firfl; " author, whoever he was, of that very an- <' cient fable, that John was put by Nero into " a veffel of hot oyl, and coming out unhurt, " was banifhed by him into Patjnos. Though " this ftory bis no more than a fidlion, yet *' it was founded on a tradition of the firft " churches, that John was banifhed into Pat^ " mos in the days of Nero.''
Who was the firft author of that fable, I do not know. But it does not appear, that TertulUanj the firfl writer who has mention- ed it, thought it to be in the time of Nero, He might mean, and probably did mean, Domitian^ the fame, who baniOied John into ■ an iiland. As did alfo, the tvi^o writers juft taken notice of, Prochorus and Abdias^ to whom we were led by Sir Ifaac. Jerome^ who (q) in his books againft Jovi?iianj men- tions this ftorie, as from Tertulliany according
to
(q) Vidit enim in Patmos infula, in qua fuerat a Domiti- ano principe reldgatus, ApocalypHn. . . . Refert auteni Ter- tullianus, quod Romae, [al. a Nerone] miffus in ferventis olei dolium purior et vegetior exierit, quam iutravit. Jd-v. Jovi>u L 1. 107)1. if. p, i6g.
Ch.IX. St. John. 367
to fome copies, fays, it was done at Rome^ ac- cording to others, in the time oi Nero. How- ever in the fame place, as well as elfewhere, yerome exprefily fays, that John was banifh- ed into Pafmos by Domitian, And (r) in the other place, where he mentions the cafting St. John into boyling oyl, he fays : '* And prefently afterwards he was banifhed into the ifland PatmosJ' Therefore that other trials which St. yobti met with, was in the fame reign, that is, T>omitia}i^» And indeed Jerome always fuppofes St. Johris banifhment to have been in that reign : as he particularly relates in the ninth chapter of his book of illuftrious Men. Let me add, that if the ftorie of St. yohn's being put into a veffel of fcalding oyl be a fable, and a iidion, it mufi: be hazardous to build an argument upon it.
It follows in Newton : " Epiphanim repre- " fents the Gofpel of John as written in the ** time oi Dotnitian^ and the Apocalypfe even *' before that of Nero." I have already faid. enough of Epiphanius in confidering the opi- nion
(r)^ Sed fi legamus ecclefiafticas hiftorias, in quibus fertur, quod et ipfe propter martyrium fit mifTus in ferventis olei do- lium, et inde ad fufcipiendam coronam Chrifti athleta pro- cefTerit, ftatimque relegatus in Patmos infulam fit. ^c. Comm. in Matt, XX, 23. Tom, 4. P. i.p, 92.
363 Sf. Jo/m. Ch. IX.
nlon of Grotitis, However, as one would think. Sir IJ'aac Newton had little reafoh to mention Epiphaniusy when he does not fol- low him. He fiys, that St. John was ba- niOiedinto Patvios in the time of Claudius : Sir Ifaac^ not till near the end of the reign of Nero.
" J^rethas, fays (s) Sir Ifaac^ in the be- *' ginif'g of his Commentarie quotes tlie *' opinion of Irenaciis from EufebiuSj but *' does not follow it. For he afterwards af- *' firms, that the Apocalypfe was written be- *' fere the deftrudion of jerufakm, and thst *' former Commentators had expounded the *< fixth feal of that deftrudtion."
To which I anfwer. Arethas do^s indeed fay, that (t) fome iiiterpreters had explained tbine,s under the fixth feal, as relating to the deUrudion of Jerufalcm by Vefpafian. But they were fome only, not the molt. Yea, he prefently afterwards fays, that the moft interpreted it otherwife. Nor does he fay, that any of tHofe Commentators were of
opinion,
(j) Js he/ore. p. 236.
{t) Tiv'ii J'i 7uvrcc ti« TtiV VTTo oviffTTsifflxv^ yiVo/Anv 'TrcXwfKlciV l^iXocCov '^rdvra. ra. eifmiva. rp'^oXoyntJOiVTEi. 'Oi <fc. ^rAtiroi t*v if[/.mivTay. h- A. J^retb, cap. 18. p. yog. A,
Ch.lX. St. John, 369
opinion, that the Apocalypfe was Writ be- fore the deflrudion of yerufalem. Arethas feems to- have been of opinion, that things, wh'ch had come to pafs long before, might be reprefcnted in the Revelation. Therefore immediatly before that paffage, explaining Rev. vi. 12. 13. he fays : *' What {u) is the *' opening of the iixth feal ? It is the crolTe " and death of the Lord, followed by his " refurrection, deiirable to all faithful and " underPcanding men. A7id lo, there ''was a '''■ great earthquake. Manifeftly denoting, fays ** he, the figns that happened during the *' crucifixion, the (leaking of the earth, the *' darknefle of the fun, the turning the moon " into bloud. For when it was full moon, *' being the fourteenth day, how was it pof- ** fible, that the fun (liould be eclipfed by *' it's interpofition ? "
However, I mud not conceal what he fays afterwards, in another chapter of his (x) Commentarie. He is explaining Rev. vii. 4. ... 8. " Thefe, fays he, who inPcruds tho " Evangelift, will not partake in the calami-
dva^c'.iii. K. A. Cap. 18./. 708. CD. (x) Cap. KJx, 713. 714.
Vol. I. * B b "ties
370 St. John. Ch.IX.
*"« ties inflided by the RomanL For the de- " ftrudlion caufed by the Romans had not " fallen upon the Jews, when the Evange- " lift received thefe inftrudions. Nor was " he at Jeriifalem., but in Jonia, where is *' Ephefus. For he ftaid at Jerufalem no " more than fourteen years. . . And after the " death of our Lord's mother, he left Judea, '' and went to Ephefus, as (y) tradition fays : " where alfo, as is faid, he had the reve- ** lation of future things." But how can we rely upon a writer of the fixth centurie for thefe particulars ? that John did not ft ay at Jerufalem more than fourteen years : that he left Jtidea upon the death of our Lord's mother, and then went to Ephefus : when we can evidently perceive from the hiftorie in the Ads, that in the fourteenth year after our Lord's afcenfion, there were no Chrif- tian converts at Ephefus ? and that the church at Ephefus v/as not founded by St. Paul, till feveral years afterwards. What avails it, to refer to fuch pafiages as thefe ? Which when looked into, and examined, contain no certain aflurances of any thing. And Sir
Ifaac
(y) . . . tfAAtf '^sfli 'iipi7ov [j.ira.<;m'ot.i avrlv hoyoi. xaS' W) «; £/f>jT<t/. kX, Hid, />. 714.. in.
Ch. IX. St. Joh/h- 371
J/h^c Newton himfelf fays : " It fz) feems •' to me, that Peter and John ftaid with " their churches in Judea and Syria : till *' the Romans made war upon their nation, *' that is, till the twelfth year of Nero" or A. D. 66.
We proceed with this great man's argu- ments, who adds : ** With (a) the opinion "of the firft commentators agrees the tra- " dition of the churches of Syriaj preferved ** to this day in the title of the Syriac ver- " fion of the Apocalypfe, which title is *' this : ^he Reveiatiorty which was made to *' ^ohn the Evangelijl by God in the ijland *' FatmoSj itifo which he was banified by *' Nero CaejarT But how comes it to pafs, that the tradition of the churches of Syria is alleged here, when the Apocalypfe was not generally received by them ? Moreover in the titles of the books of the New Tefla- ment received by them, there are manifefi: errours. Nor (b) can we fay, when the Syriac verlion of the Apocalypfe was made.
B b 2 Nor
fz) As before, ^.243.
^fl) P. 236. 237.
(b) Ad Nercnis imperium hoc cxilium Syrus refert. Ve- rum incerta eft quam maxime hujus verfionis aetas, nulloque gaudet focio. Lamp, Prolegil, i. cap. 4. §. "jH.
Qiiapropter
372 Si. Job?2. Ch. IX".
Nor (c) is it impoffible, that the authors of that title might mean Domitian by Nero. It is not a greater errour, than that of fup- pofing the epiftle of James to have been writ by James the fon of Zebedee.
Again, fays the celebrated Newfo?i : " The ** (dj fame is confirmed by a ftory told by " Eufebius out of C/emens Alexandrinus^ and ** other ancient authors, concerning a youth, *' whom St. John fome time after his return " from Patrnos committed to the care of the " Bi(hop of a certain city. This is a ftory *' of many years, and requires, that Joh?i <' (liould have returned from Patrnos rather " at the death of Nero^ than at that of Do- " mitian''
But
I
Quapropter nihil in hifce eft, quod Syrum ab erroris culpa liberare poiTit: quemadmodum nee fupra erat, quod Epipha- nium in nomine Claudii tueretur. Iliud tantummodo adno- tatum volo, Syriacam Apocalypfeos verfionem haud aequalem ceteroiLim librorum interpretationi videri, uti nee primi co- dices in Europam adlati appofitam habuerunt, quam demum Ludovicus de Dieu MDCXXVII. in lucem primum pro- daxit. &c. Ch. Ccllarius de feptem ecckfiis AJiae num. xhjU. p. 428.
(c) Sed forfan aliquis, honoris interpretis Syri folicitus et cupidus, pofTet in illius gratiam afTerere, ilium non Nero- nem, fed Domitianurn, alteram Neronem, feu portionem Neronis, ut vocatur TertuUiano. &c. Ls Myne. Far, Sacr. ' 7om. 2. p. 1019.
(d) Ai abo've.p. 237.
Ch. IX. St. yohn: 37^
But, Jirp.^ if this be only a feigned ftorie, or apologue, as fome have thought, con- trived to convey moral inftrudion j circum- flances ought not to be ftrained, nor the truth of hiftorie be founded upon it. Secondly ^ we muft take the ftorie, as it is related by Clement, and other ancient authors. Clement placeth it after the death of the tyrant, by whom John had been banifhed. And Eu' febe (e) fuppofeth him to mean Domitian, thirdly y if St. John lived in jifia two, or three, or four years, after his return from Patmos, that is time enough for the events of this ftorie.
Sir Ifaac adds in the fame place : " And " John in his old age was fo infirm, as to " be carried to church, dying above ninety " years old : and therefore could not be " then fuppofed able to ride after the thief." Neverthelefs in the original account, which we have of this affair, St. yohn is exprefsly called (f) an old man. Sir Ifaac therefore has no right to make him young. For that
B b 3 would
(e} H. E. l. 'I,, cap. 23.
rlv yviMov, Tc'j yifoVTct i 'Tr^offiX^'ovra. /e tow yi^ovra. •a'SfiS" haQiV. K.X> Clm. ap. Eufeb. H. E. /. 3. c. 23. p. 93.
374 S^' J^^^^' Ch. IX,
would be making a new florle. If a man allows himfelf fo to do, and argues upon it i the neceflarie confequence is, that he de- ceives himfelf, and others.
Upon the whole, I fee not much weight in any of thefe arguments of Sir I/aac New* ion. And muft adhere to the common opinion, that St. jobn was bani(hed into P^t- f?JOSy in the reign of Domitia?tj and by vir- tue of his edids for perfecuting the Chri- flians, in the later part of his reign. Says Mr. Lanipe : " All fg) Antiquity is agreed, that St. Johns banifliment was by order of
Ho'wkng VI. We fhould now inquire, when St. thereT John was relcafed, or how long his banifh- ment laded.
According to TertuUiany Domitia?2's per- fecution (h) was very (hort, and the Empe- rour himfelf, before he died, recalled thofe, whom he had baniflied. IJegeJjppus like-
wifq
(g) Tota antiqukas in eo abunde confentit, quod Do- jnkianus exilii Joannis audlor fuerit. Lamp. Prokg. I. i. cap,
(h) . . ceptum repreflit, reftitutis etiam quos relegaverat. Jpo/. cap. 'V. nj'id. Supr. p. 355. mte (h).
Cb. IX. Sf. John. 375
wife fays, that (i) Domitiafi by an edl^ft put an end to the perfecution, which he had or- dered.
Eufebe fays, '* that (k) after the death of Domitia7U John returned from his banifli- ment." And before, in another chapter of the fame book, he faid more largely : " Af- " ter (I) 'Domitian had reigned fifteen years, <* Newa fucceded him, and the Roman " Senate decreed, that the honorable tides ** beftowed upon Domitian fhould be abro- " gated, and moreover, that they who had " been banifhed by him might return to " their homes, and repoflefs their goods, of *' which they had been unjuftly deprived. '' This we learn from fuch as have writ " the hiftorie of thofe times. Then there- " fore, as our anceftors fay, the Apoftle John " returned from his banifhment, and again " took up his abode at Ephefus'' v
B b 4 Jerome y
ey.y.T'.w'KfA J'tayiAOV- Ap. Eufeb. H,' E. I, 3, cap. 20. p. 90. B.
i-s^xvsK^a>v (fvyt)<;. Eu/. H. E.l. 3. cap. 23, //;, (l) H. E. I. 3. cap. 20. p. 90. B. C.
376 S^- ^ohn. Ch. IX.
Jerome^ in his book of lUuRrious Men, fays : '' When (m) Domitian had been killed, and his edids had been repealed, by the Se- nate, becaufe of their exceffive cruelty, John returned to Ephcfus in the time of the Em- perour Nerval
I place below a pafTage of (n) the Mar- tyrdom of 'Timothie in Photius, and another (o) of Suidas, faying, that after Domitiajis death, when Nerva was Emperour, St. John returned from his banilhment.
This is alfo agreeable to the general ac- counts in (p) Dion Cajim^ and (q) the Au- thor of the Deaths of Perfecutors.
Indeed, Hegefippus and Tertullian^ as be- fore obferved, intimate, that the perfecution of Domitian ended before his death. But it is very remarkable, that Eufebius (r) having quoted both of them, gives a different ac- count,
(a:) See Vol. x. p. lOO.
(fij NepCa di Tu peoy.oitKK Kpcnm to ffHU'WTpov dvocJ^tJ^iy- yivcv, 0 di'of^gyoi ''luavvm mm VTrs^o^'m (pvyiig ff^fSe^j netTuy^Tut -arf i? 'g?£3"or, «? kcLI -arpoTspov {{■aro (Poy.tTtM'n 'SFOpoyciJ'suTO' Ap^ ^hot.Cod. zl\.p.\i^o\.
(o) Vid, Suid. fvoce Ni.fCai.
(p) Ka/ 0 vifouai 7«j t« k^ivoiAvh \'V aaiQe.d. a(piiKi, J^ ^Kf oivycvTdi KdTiiyayi' K- A. Dio. I. 6z, in. p. yS^.
(q)De M,P.cap. 3.
fr) JJ. E. I. I. cap. 20.
Ch. IX. SL 'John, 377
count, as we faw juft now. And, as learned
men have obferved, it is a great prejudice to
their authority in this point, that Eufehiui
does not follow them, but prefently after- "^
wards differs from them.
It feems probable therefore, that St. 'John
and other exils, did not return from their ba- niOiment, untill after the death of Domitian, Which (s) is the opinion of Bafnage^ and likewife of (t) Cellarius.
Domitian (u) is computed to have died Sept. 18. A. D. 96. after having reigned fif- teen years, and fome days. JNerva (x) died the 27, day of Jan. 98. after having reigned one year four months, and nine days. There- fore Trajan began his reign Jan. 27. A. D, 98.
If
(s) Utrum Domitianus decretum revocarit, difficills quaef- tio eft. Sic enim antiquorum nonnullis vifum. Hegefippus . . . Hegefippo afTentitur et TertuUianus . . . Contra vero no- bilis hiftoricus Dio, qui rerum Romanaium Hegeiippo peri- tior erat, et Tertulliano, diiertiiTime teftatur, Nervae indul- gentia revocatos fuifie Chrillianos : Ncrnja autem eos qui dam- fiati eranf i?npietatis ahfolvit, exulefque rejlituit. Neque alia mens Ladantio de Mort. Perf. cap. 3. Bafnag. ann. 96, num. i'v.
(t) Cellar, de Septem. ecclejlis Afiae. cap. x'vii. . . xx,
(u) Bafnag. ann. 96. ». xiii.
frxj Bajn. A. D. 98. /. Fagi ann, 98. ii.
378 Sl Jo/m. Ch. IX.
If the perfecution of Bomitian began in the fourteenth year of his reign, and St. John was fent to Patmos that year, and reftored in the begining of the reign of Nerva, his (y) exile could not laft more than two years, perhaps not much above a year.
If St. John's life reached to the third year of the reign of Trajan, which is the opi- nion of Cave (z) and many others, he lived three years after his return from Patmos : if it reached to the fourth year o( Trajan y as (a) Bajhage thought, he mull have lived four
years after his return.
Or,
(y) In alterum tantnm annum ad fumnmm duravit, quando Nerva fuccedcns Domitiano exules revcxravit, et cum eis Jo- annem, uti ex vetuftiorum fide refert Eufebius. 1. 3. H. E. cap. 20. . . Quae quid em eo majorem fidcm merentur, quia ipfe Dio, feu ex eo Xipliilinus, revocationem exulum Chrif- tianoium Nervae tribuit. Lampe Prol. I. i. cap. 4. §. ix, Vid, et Cellar, uhifupra cap. x-vii.
(z) Interfedo Domitiano Ephefum redlit ann. chr. 97. in
qua, ut et in regionibus circumvicinis, reliquum vitae tranf-
egit, et . . . anno Chr. 100. Trajani 3. juxta Eufebium et
Hieronymum, anno uno aut altero centenario major ... in
1 Domino placide obdormivit. Cau. H. L.T, i. p. 16.
(a) Ceterum cum ex antiqua traditione hauftum videatur, Joannem fenio confeflum, 68, pofl: pafiionem anno mortuum efTe, quae in 33, aerae noftrae incidit,probabilis efl: conjeclura, Joannem anno labente finem hujus lucis invenifle. Ba/n, A^ 101. K. iL
Ch. IX. St. 'John, " 379
Or, in other v/ords : if St. John returned about the end of the year 96. or the begin- ing of 97. and did not die, till the year loi. he lived four years in Alia, after his return from Patmos, If he died in the year 100. he lived three years after his return.
VII. Having novv' faid of St. John all that ^ .. . is needful by way of hificrie, we come to tohiiGof- his writings, of which there are five ge- nerally afcribed to him : a Gofpel, three Epiftles, and the Revelation : two of which, the Gofpel, and the firft Epiftle, are univer- lally received as genuine.
Now I fpeak of the Gofpel only. And here in the firft place I fhall recite the ac- counts of the ancients, but chiefly fuch, as concern the time when it was writ. Omitting many other teftimonies, as not neceflarie to be mentioned now, though very valuable in themfelves. After which we will obferve the judgements of learned moderns concerning the fame point : 1 mean, the time, when it was writ.
Irej2aeus\\zv\:\g fpoken of the Gofpels of Matthew^ Mark, and Luke, adds : *' Afrer- " wards (b) John the difciple of the Lord,
" who
(b) S(z Vol, i. p. 354,
380 St. John. Ch IX.
** who alfo leaned upon his breadj he like- '* wife publiflied a Gofpe!, whilft he dwelled *' at Epkefus in JJa,'"
In another place he fays : *' ydm (c) the " difciple of the Lord declaring this faith, " and by the publication of the Gofpel de- ** figning to root out the errour, which had " been fown among men by Cerinthus^ and " long before by thofe who are called A/V- *' colaitam . . . thus began in the doctrine, " which is according to the gofpel : In the ** begining was the Wordy
In another place of the fame ancient wri- ter are thefe expreffions : '* As (d) 'John the " difciple of the Lord aiTures us, faying : *' But thefe are written, that ye might believe,
'-'that
(c) Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes Domini difcipulus, vo- lens per Evangelii annuntiationem auierre eum, qui a Cerin- tho inieminatus erat hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaitae, qui funt vulfio ejus, quae falfo cog- nominatur fcientia .... Sic inchoavit in ea quae ell fecundum evangelium doclrina. In pi-iucipio erat 'verbum. l^c. Ad-v. Haer. I. 3. cap. xi. p. 188. Bencd.
(d) . . . quemadmodum Joannes Domini difcipulus con- firmat, dicens : Haec autem fcripta funt, ut credatis, quoniam. "Jefus eji Filius Dei, et ut credentes 'vitam aeterr.am habeatis in nomine ejus : providens has blafphemas regulas, quae divi- dant Dominum, quantum ex ipfis attinet, ex altera et altera fubftantia dicentes eum fadum. Jdv. Haer, I, 3. cap, \6. ft, z.p. Z06.
Ch. IX. Sl Jo/m. 381
" that 'Jefiii is the Chriji^ the fin of Gody mid *' that believing ye might have life through his •' 77ame. [ch. xx. 30.] Forefeeing thefe blaf- " phemous notions, that divide the Lord, *' To far as it is in their power."
In the preceding padage Irenaeus fpeaks, as if St. Johu'i, Gofpel was writ after the rife of Ceriuthiis, and other herefies. Bat here he feems to fay^ that it was writ before them, and forefeeing them. In like manner after- wards, in the fame chapter, he fays of Paul: ** as (e) he fays : // is Chriji that died] yea " rather that is rifen, who is at the right ** hand of God, Rom. viii. 34. And again, " Knowing that Chriji being rai fed from the " deadj dies no more. vi. 9. For he alfo " forefeeing by the Spirit the divifions of " evil teachers, and being dedrous to cut off ** from them all occafion of dilTenfion, fays " what has been jud quoted.
Clemeiit, of jllexaiidria^ fpeaking of the order of the Gofpels, according to what he
had
(e) .... quemadmodum ipfe ait : ^Imul aiticm Chrifius mortinis eft^ immo et rejurrexit . . Et iterum : Scienies quonlam Chrijius refurgens a mortuis, jam tion moritur. Praevidens enim et ipfe per Spiritum fubdivifiones malorum magillrorum, et omnem ipforum occanonem diflenfionis volcns abltindere, ait quae praedi€la funC. U>U. n,. 9./. 207.
382 Sf. Jolm. Ch. IX.
had received from Preibyters of more ancient times, fays : " Lad ffj of all Jcbn obferving, " that in the other Gofpels thofe things were *' related, which concern the humanity of *' Chrift, and being perfuadcd by his friends, ** and alfo moved by the fpirit of God, he " wrote a fpiritual Gofpel." Here it is fup- pofed, not only, that St. jo/m wrote the lad of the four, but likewife, that he had (ccn the Gofpels of the other three Evangelifts.
Origen (g) fpeaks of all the four Gofpels in our prefent order, that is, Matthews firft, and yohis lafb.
A long pafTage of Eiifebe concerning St. yohns Gofpel may be feen vol. viii. p. go. . . 96. It cannot be omitted here. But it fhall be abridged. " And that it has been juftly " placed by the ancients the fourth in order, *' nnd after the other three, may be made evi- " dent. . . . For Matthew delivered his Gof- ** pel to the Hebrews. . . . And when Mark *' and Luke alfo had publiflicd the Gofpels " according to them, it is faid, that John <' who all this while had preached byword *• of mouth, was at length induced to write
" for
(f) See Vol. a. p. ij;.
(g) See Vol. Hi. p. 235. 236,
Ch. IX. St. John. 3S3
*' for this reafon. The three firfl: written " Gofpels being now delivered to all men, " and to John himfelf, it is faid, that he ap- " proved them, and confirmed the truth of ** their narration by his own teftimonie, fay- " ing : There was only wanting a written ac- " count of the things donfe by Chrift, in the *' former part, and near the begining of his " preaching. . . And, certainly, that oblerva- " tion is true. . . ."
EpipJoaniits (h) fpeaks of St. yofms Gofpel, as the laft of the four. He alfo fays, that St. John wrote it, after he had long declined fo doing through humility, when he was ninety years of age, and when he had lived in A/ia many years, after his return thither from Pat- \ moSy in the time of the Emperour Claudius. He moreover fays in feveral places, that this Gofpel was occaiioned by the errours of the Ebionites^ the CcrinthianSy and other heretics.
According to (i) the Syrian churches, St. ^ohn wrote his Gofpel at Ephefus,
My readers are again referred to the noble paiTage {k) of T^hcodore, Bifhop of MopfueJUay
con-
(h) See Vol. <vni.p. 306. 307.
(i) See Fol. ix. p. 2 1 7.
(k) Vol. ix.p. 403, . . . 407.
3^4 St, John. Ch. IX,
conceoning the four Gofpels, and to the re- marks upon it.
Jerofne^ in his book of lUuftrious Men^ fays : " John (I) the ApoQIe wrote a Gofpel *' at the defire of the Bi(hops of AJia, againft *^ Cerinthus^ and other heretics, and efpecially *' the dodrine of the EhioniteSj then fpring- " ing up, who fay, that ChriH: did not exid " before his birth of Marie. For which rea- " fon he was obliged to declare his Divine ** nativity. Another reafon of his writing " is alfo mentioned. Which is, that after " having read the volumes of MattheWy " Marky and Ldilie^ he expreffed his approba- " tion of their hiftorie, as true : but obferved, " that they had recorded an account of but " one year of our Lord's miniftrie, even the •* iaft, after the imprifonment of John^ in " which alfo he fuilTered. Omitting there- " fore [very much] that year, the hiilorie of *' which had been writ by the other three, ** he related the A£][s of the preceding time, " before John was fliut up in prifon. As may *' appear to thofe, who read the four Evan- " gehfts. Which may be of ufe, to account •* for the feeming difference between John " and the red."
According
(I) Vol, X. p.<)S.
C]]. IX. S/. Johi, 385
According to {m) Augnjlini St. John is the lad: of the four Evangelills.
Chryfofiom {n) affigning the reafons of St, ^yohn% writing his Gofpel, fuppofeth, that he did not write till after the deftrudiion of 'Jerufalem.
PauU?2us fays : '* it {p) had been handed " down by tradition, that Jobi furvlved all
the other Apoftles, and wrote the laft of ' the four Evangelifls, and fo as to confirm *' their mofc certain hiftorie." And he ob- ferves, *' that (p) in the begining of St. Johft^ Gofpel all heretics are confuted, particularly, iritis, Sabelliusy Marcion and the Mani" cbea?2S.
Cofmas oi Alexandria^ fays, ** that (q) when ** Jobt dwelled at EphefiiSy there were deli- *' vered to him by the faithfull the writings ** of the other three Evaneelifts. Receiviri'r " them he faid, that what they had writ was *' well writ : but fome things were omitted ** by them, which were needfull to be related. *• And being defired by the faithfull, he alfo " publiihed his writing, as a kind of fupple-
[m) Vol. x.p. 228. {«) ^oAAr./. 315. 320. 321. (o)Vol.xi.p.^li (p)P.i4.
{^) Vol.xi. p. 268. 269.
Vol. L ^ C c "ment
386 ^t.yhn, Ch. IX.
*' ment to the reft, containing fuch things as *' thefe : the wedding at Cana^ the hiftorie of ** Nicodemus^ the woman oi Samaria, the no- " bleman, [or Courtier, John iv. 46. . . 54.] ** the man blind from his hixih, Lazarus, the " indignation of Judas, at the woman that " anointed the Lord with ointment, the <* Greeks that came to Jefus, his wafhing the " difciples feet, and fuitable inftrudions upon " feverM occalions, and the promife of the " Comforter, and concerning the Deity of «' Chrift, expreiHy, and clearly, at the begin- *' ing, and premifmg that, as the foundation " of his work. All which things had been " omitted by the reft."
IJidore of Seville, fays, that (r) John wrote the laft in j^fia,
TheophylaB computed, that [s) St. John wrote about two and thirty years after Chrift's afcenfion.
Euthymius, that (^) it was not wrif, untill many years after the deftrudion of Jeru- falem.
ISicephorus CalHJli fays, that [u) John
wrote
(/•) Vol. xi. p. 367. (s) P. 424,
(OP. 438. («)i'. 442.
Ch. IX. Si. John, 387
wrote lad of all, about fix and thirty years af- ter the Lord's afcenfion to heaven.
Vlll. Having feen thefe teftimonies of Judgments the ancients to St. 'John\ Gofpel, and the time ^^^^^ \jje of it, I would now obferve the judgements of '^''■"^ "-/''• learned moderns.
According to (x) MilH computation St. ^ohn wrote his Gofpel at Ephefus, in the year of Chrift 97. about one year before his death .
Fabricim (y) fpeaks to the like purpofe.
Le Clerc (s) likewife placeth the writing of this Gofpel in the year 97.
Mr. yones argues, that [a) it was writ a- bout the year 98. and not before 97,
The late Mr. JVetftein thought, that [b) this
C c 2 Gofpel
(z) Et quidem Ephefum ab rxilio reverfus Joannes iino ante mortem anno fcni)fit Evangelium. Mill. Prol.num. i8i.
(y) Evangelium Graece edidit Epliefi, omnium poilrenius, jam nonagenario major, cum e Patmo reverfus e/Tet poll Do- mitiani necem, quae anno 96. contigit. Bib. Gr. I. 4. cap. <v. T.^.p. 139.
(z) Hiji. E. An. 97. num. i. '
(a) Ne-T-j and Full Method, Vol. 3. /• I 39.
(b) Hinc etiam confequitur, Evangelium Joannis non ab CO decrepito, et fere centenarlo, et poll mortem Clementis, fed diu antea fuifle editum, adeoque infcriptionem Codicum Graecornm, qui illud Evangelium anno tricefuno fecundo port afcenfionem Chriili, fcriptum fuiffe teilantur, ad varum proprius accedere : praccipue cum ratio nulla fit, cur Joan- nes fcriftlonem in tam longum tempus dilFerre debuerit. IFetJ}. Pro/eg. ad duas Ckmtlitt. Ep, fub Jin.
388 Sl John. Ch. IX.
Gofpel might be writ about the year 32. after our Lord's afcenfion : and dillikes the fuppo- fition, that it was writ by St. jfobn in decrepit old age.
Baf?2age (c) was inclined to think, that this Gofpel was writ before the deftrudlion of yeriifalem. His reafons will be alleged, and confidered by and by.
Mr. Lampe was of opinion, that (d) this Gofpel was writ in the later part of the reign of Nero^ before the deftrudion of Je- rujalem,
That it IX. I fhali now propofe an argument con-
T^lrT'tL cerning the date of this Gofpel.
Dejhuaion There are two confiderations, principally,
of jeyuuz- . i i /
Urn. which lead me to think, that St. JohrC% Gof-
pel was writ before the deflrudlion of Jeru- JaleiUy or about the time of that event. Thefe I (hall firfi: mention, and then take notice of divers others, obfervable in learned moderns. I . It is likely, that St. John wrote in a \hoxt time after the other Evangehfts. Their Gof-
pels
(c) Ann. 97, num. xli.
(d) Putem ergo non contemnandas effe rationes, quae ante excidium JrJitrorolyn'itanum Evangelium noflrum fub ex- tremis foite Nero, lis teniporibus confcriptum efie perfuadent. Proleg, /. 2. cap. z. num. ix.
Ch. IX. St. 'John, • 389
pels were foon brought to him. And if he thought fit to confirm them, or to write any thing by way of fijpplement, he would do it in a fhort time. The firft three Gofpels, very probably, were writ and publiflied be- fore the end of the year 64. or in 65. at the fartheft. If they were brought to St. John in 65. or 66. he would not defer more, or not much more, than a year, or two, to pub- li(h his hiftorie of Jefus, and make the ac- count compleat.
I do not prefume to fay exadly the year, in which this Gofpel was writ. But I think, it might be writ, and publifhed, in the year 68.
This argument off^ered itfelf to Mr. ^hif- ton\ thoughts, and is thus exprefied by him : ** That (e) occafion of yohns writing his " Gofpel, mentioned by the ancients, viz. the *' bringing the other three Gofpels to him, " and his obferving their deficience, as to the " a(5ts of Chrift before the Baptifl's imprifon- '' ment, does much better agree with this " time, jull: after the publication of thofe *' Gofpels, than with that above thirty years
C c 3 *' later,
(e) EJfay on the Apojlolical Confiltutions, f. 38. 39,
390 • •5'/. John, Ch. IX.
" later, to which it's writing is now ordinarily *' afcribed."
And is it not a (Irange fuppofition, that all the other three Gofpels fhould have been writ by the year 60. or thereabout, and St. Johns not till the year 97. or 98. that is, more than thirty years after the others ? When likewife he muft have been of a very great age, and fcarcely fit for fuch a work as this.
2. The fecond confideration is the fuitable- nelTe of St. yoZ;;2'sGofpel to the circumftances of things before the overthrow of the Jews, or about that time.
Mr. Lampe has obferved, that (f) the great defign of St. John in writing his Gofpel fcems to have been, to fliew, how inexcufable the Jews were in not receiving Jefus as theChrift, and to vindicate the Providence of God in the calamities already befallen, or now com-
ing
(f) Totam porro oeconomiam hujus Evangelii ita efle di- geftam, ut ad convincendos ac avawoKoyniHi reddendos Ju- daeos fpedaret, capite fequenti ollendemus. Prolegom. in 'Joan, I. 2. cap.' 3. §. //.
Imminens etiatn Judaeae pernicies occafionem maxime opportunam confcribcndo llhro dabat, in quo Joannis animus erat hujus ipfius judicii imminentis aequitatem defenderc, et tentare, an Judaei ex hoc Reipublicae naufragio magno agmine in Afxam enatantes, ad recipiendum unicum mundi Salvatorem hoc medio permoveri poffint. Ibid, I. 2. cap, z, §. :w. Fid. et It 2, cap, 3. imtn. Hi. not, (I? J,
Ch.IX. St. John, 391
ing upon them. If that appear to be the de- fign of St. John in writing his Gofpel, it will very much ftrengtben the luppofitionj that it was writ, before the deftrudion of yeriijalem was compleated.
St. JoJm fays ch. xx. 31. l^hefe things are written^ that ye might believe^ that 'Jefus is the Chrijiy the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. That is, *' This hidorie has been writ, that they who " believe, may be confirmed in their faith, ** and that all others, who yet believe not, " may believe in Jefus, as the Chrift, the Son " of God, and obtain that life, which he pro- ** mifeth to thofe, who believe in him, and " obey him."
That is the defign of all the Evangelifts. And their hiilories are a fufficient ground and reafon of this belief. But St. Johns Gofpel contains an ample confirmation of all that they have faid, with valuable additions, and more plain and frequent afl'urances, that Je- fus is not only a Prophet, and ineficnger of God, but the Chrifl, the Son of God, or that great Prophet, that fliould come into the world : whereby all are rendred inexcufable in rejecting him, and efpeciaily the Jev/s, among whom he preached, and wrought
C c 4 many
392 Sf.JShn. Ch.IX.
many miracles, and whom he often called to receive him, as the Clirift. This (^^jruns through St. Jofm?, Gofpel from the beglning to the end, or near the end, of the twelfth chapter.
Even in the introdudion he fays. ch. i. 7. yolm came for a witfiejje^ to bear witnefje of the light y that all men through him might believe. S. He was jwt that light. But was fent to bear ivitnefje of that light, 9. T^hat was the true lights which lighteth every man, that cometh into the world. " That is, he was defigned • ?' to be an univerfal bleffing: And he has
?' doneallthatwasfit to be done, to enlighten
^«aU
(g) Priora duodecim capita evidentiffime ea commcmo- rant, quae feverum et tremendum illud Dei in Judaeos ju- dicium defendunt. Talia enim fadia et dicla continue or- dine proponunt, quae non in obfcuro angulo, fed coram tota gente Judaica edita funt, nullamque exceptionem pati- untur. . . . Atque haec eft ratio, cur Joannes fecundum fefta Judaeorum hiftoriam evangelicam digerat. Inde enim in- notefcit, lefum ea diligenter frequentafie, atque in iis publice poram toto populo Judaico fe fatis fuperque manifeftafle. Iftud enim Evangeliftae noftro plane privum eft, ut ea potif- fimum narret, quae a Domino noftro Hierofolymis, quin in iipfo tempio gefta atque dida funt : paucis tantum interjec- tis, quae eum etiarn Judaeam, Samariam, Galilaeam, radii* gloriae fuae coeleftis abunde illuftraffe, atque ita nuUam par- tem regionis Judaeorum vacuani reliquifTe, probant. Lampe, Ibid, L 2. cap. 4. nuTTi. xxxiii. xxxii'.
Ch. IX. Sl JgIj.'!.
** all men in the knowledge of God, and true *' religion." Ver. i^. And we beheld his glo- rie, we his difciplcs, and all who impartially attended, beheld his glorie, the glorie, as of the only begotten of the Father : that is, theglorie, peculiar to the promiied Mefiiah. Again, at Ver. 1 8. he fliles him the only begotten fin. Here St. John may be fLippofed to declare his prefent faith, or to make a profeffion of the faith, which he had at the time of his wri- ting. Having fo done, he proceeds in the hiftorie. Ver. 19. 20. And this is there- cord of John, when the Jews fent Priefls and Levitesfrofn Jeriifalern^ to ask him^ Who art thou. He anfwered, that he was not the Chrift, but his harbinger, or fore-runner, the perfon fpoken of by Ifaiah. And he declares the tranfcendent greatnelTe of him, who was about to appear, and was already among them. Ver. 21.... 28. Then at ver. 29. The next day John feet h Jcfus coiring unto him, and faith : Behold the lamb oj God, that taketh away the fin of the world. Undoubtedly, by that charader meaning the Meffiah, and un- derftood by all, fo to mean. See alfo ver. 30. 31. 32. 33. Then at ver. 34. And I Jaw J and bare record, that this is the Son of God : or the Chrifi:. And ver. 35. 36. A-
gain.
393
St. Jo/m. Ch. IX.
gt?in, the next day after John jioody and two. cf his difcipks. And looking upon Jefits^ as he walked J he faith : Behold the lamb of God, He tells every body, that Jefus is the Chrift, though not always in the fame terms. And, to finifli our account oijohn the Baptift. In ch. iii. 25. . . 36. is the laft teftimonie, bore by him to Jefus. And it is very ftrong, and full. He declares, he was not himfelf the Chrift, but was fent before him. To him, fays he, Godgiveth not the Spirit by meafure. The Father loveth the Son^ and hath put all things into his hands. . . He that believeth on the Son, hath e^cerlafiing life. And he that belie'veth not the Son J fiall not fee life. But the wrath of God abideth on him.
Having gone through the Baptift's tefti- monie, as here recorded, we look back to ch. i. 4. . . 42. where Andrew finds his brother Simon, and fays to him: We have Joimd the Mefjiah. Then ver. 45. ..51. Philip find- eth Nathanael, and faith to him : We have found him, of whom Mojes in the Law, and the Prophets did write, Jefus of Na-zareth, ISfathanael likewife is convinced, and fays : Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King ofljrael. So writes St. John, fliew- ing, that the pious, and well difpofed among
the
Ch. IX. SL John. 395
the Jews, readily received Jefus as the Chrid;. And thereby (hewing likewife the great un- rearonablenefie, and extreme perverfnefTe of thofe who did not believe in him after all the proofs, which he fet before them in the courfe of his moft powerful miniftric. As the EvangeliO: moft jaftly fays, near the con- clufion of this part of his Gofpel. Ch. xii, 37. But fhugh be had done fo many miracles amo?ig them, yet they believed not o?2 him. And fee what follows there.
Chi ii. II. After the account of the mira- cle at Cana. This begining of miracles did jfefus in Cana of Galileey and ?nanifejled forth hisglorie : that is, the glorie of the Meffiah. And his dijcipks believed on him : or were confirmed in their belief, that he was the Chrift.
Soon after this Jefus went up to yernjd" km, at a PaiTover, and cleanfed the temple, faying : Make 720t my Father's hoiife an houfe cf merchdndife, ch. ii. 13. . . 17. By the work itfelf, and by his words, maniftfting himfelf to be the Meffiah. I omit other things in the remaining part of that chapter, which an attentive reader will take notice of.
Then,
396 St, John. Ch. IX.
Then, ch. iil. i. .. 21. is the hlftorie of Nicodemus, who, whilft Jefus was this time at yerufalem^ made him a private viiit. He immediath^ profefieth faith in him, as a Pro- phet. But our Lord tells him plainly, that he was the Mefiiah, and demands a fuitable regard from him. Ke likevv'ife fets before Nicode?mis the nature of his defign, for pre- venting, or for removing all worldly expeda- tions from him. He likewife intimates the pall of the Gentils, and the judgements com- ing upon the Jewitn People, if they (hould perfift in unbelief For, fays he, as Mofes lift up the Jer pent in the wildernejfe^ fo mufi the Son of man be lifted up : that wkcfoever believeth in him might not peri (Jo ^ but have ever-- lajiing life. . . . For God fent not his Son, the Meffiah, into the ivorldy to condemn the world: but that through him the 'world, Gentils as well as Jews, jjtight be faved. And what there follows.
Jefus going through Samaria from Jerufa- km, in his way to Galike, meets with a wo- man of that countrey. Ch. iv. 19. The wo- man faith unto him : Sir, I perceive, that thou art a Prophet, . . . And ver. 25. 26. The woman faith unto him : I know, that the Mef fiah cometh, or is foon to appear ^ . . . Jefus
faith
Ch. IX. St. John, 397
faith unto her : I that jpcak unto thee am he. . . ^
The woman left himj and went into the city, and faith unto the men : Come., fee a man that has told me all things that ever I did. Is not this the Chriji? Afterwards, ver. 42. Mafjy of that place faid unto the woman : Now we be- lieve, not becaufe oj thy faying. For we have feen him ourfehes, and know^ that this is indeed the Chrijl, the Saviour of the world. Here is another inftance of our Lord's freely decla- ring himfelf to be the Chrift, and of his ac- cepting a profeffion of faith in himfelf, as fuch. And the ready faith of thefe Samari- tans aggravates the continued unbelief of the Jews, on whom more culture had been be- ftowed.
Ch. V. I . After this there was a feafl of the yews. And fefus went up to ferufalem. By many this is thought to be PalTover. By others it is reckoned fome other feait between the laft mentioned and the next Paflbver of our Lord's miniftrie. However that may be, at this feafon our Lord healed the lame man at the pool of Bethefda, on the Sabbath-day, and bid him carry his bed, and go home. therefore did the Jews perfecute ^efus, and fought to flay him^ becaufe he had done thefe things on the Sabbath Das. But Jefus anfwer-
ed
39^ ^t.'Jobn. Ch.IX.
ed them : My Father worketh hitherto. And I work. ver. i6. 17. The Jews charge him with blarphemie. Our Lord vindicates him- felf, and claims the charader of the Meffiah in high terms. And afTures them, that all judgement had been committed unto the Son^ meaning himfelf, the Meffiah: that all men might honor the Son^ eveji as they honor the Fa- ther, ver. 2 1... 23. And, for proof, he refers to their .fcriptures, the teftimonie of yohn, and the works, which he had wrought among them, in the Father's name. ver. 24. • . . 47*
Ch. vi. I- . . 3. We perceive, our Lord to be in Galilee^ whither he had gone from Ju- dea. Then at ver. 4. And the Pajfover^ a feajl of the Jeivs, was nigh. After which follows the miracle of the five loaves and two fiQ}es, for feeding five thou fan d. Tben^ thofe »7(?«, when they had feen the miracle, which Jefus did, /aid: This is of a truth that Pro- phety which Jhould come into the world: or, the expected Meffiah. Their notion of the kingdom, belonging to that character, being worldly and carnal, and they looking for worldly advantages, would have come, and ' taken him by force ^ to make him a King. So that our Lord found it needful to depart into
a mouu'
Ch. IX. St. John. 099
a mountain himjelf alofie. The difclples in the mean time took fliipping, and he came to them walking upon the fea. When they had received him, immediatly thefiip was at the land, whither they were going, ver. 14... 21. The people having been difuppointed, came to him as foon as they could at Caper- naum, Where our Lord takes an opportu- nity to reprove their carnal temper, and in- ftrui5ts them in the delign of the MePiiah, and the nature of his kingdom. And ftiil taking upon himfelf that charatlier, and requiring faith in him as fach, he fays : lam the bread of life. . . And ibis is the will of him that fent me^ that every one which feeth the Son, and be- Ue'veth on him, may have e'verlafiijig life. . . . / am the living bread, which came down from heaven. If any man eat this bread, he Jkall live for ever. And the bread that I will give him is my jlepi, which 1 will give for the life of the world. . . Many therefore of his difciples went backy and walked no more with him. But Peter, in the name of the Twelve, and pof- fibly, in the name alfo of fome others, fol- lowers of Jefus, faid : To whom flmll we go ^ Thou haft the words of eternal life. And we believe, and are fure, that thou art the Chrift, the Son of tke Uvi?ig God, ven 22. . . 69.
Ch.
40O Sl Jo/m. 'Ch. IX.
Ch. vli. I. 2. y^fter thefe things J ejus walk- ed in Galilee, For he would not walk in ^ ti- de a, becaufe the Jews fought to kill him. Now the Jewsfeaji of Tabernacles was at hand. . . 14. Now about the midji of the feaji, Jefus went up into the temple^ and taught. Ver. 2 5. 26. Then Jaid fome of them of feriifalem . . , Do the rulers know indeed^ that this is the very Chrift^ Vtv. 1^1. And tnaJiy of the people be- lieved on him., and faid : When Cbriji comcth^ will he do more miracles than thefe^ which this man has done"^ Ver. 37. 38. In the laft daVy the great day of the feaft, fefus floods and cried : If any man thirji^ let him come to me 3 and drink. . . He fpeaks of himfelf in the charader of the Meffiah, and calls on all men to come to him, as fuch, and receive the great bleiTings, which he is able to beftow. And at ver. 40. 41. Many of the people there - fore^ when they heard this faying., faid : ' This is the Prophet. Others faid: This is the
i i.
Ch. viii. 12. . . 23. Our Lord is flill at je- rufdlem. And at ver. 12. Then fpake Jefus unto them J faying : I am the light of the world : claiming the charader of the Meffiah, and declaring alfo the advantages of believing in him, and the fad confequence of not receiv- ing
Ch.lX. Sf.yobn, 401
ing him. Ver. 21. Tbenfiid Jefus again mi" to them. I go jjiy way, and ye flail fcek me, and f: all die in your fins. Ver. 24, I J aid therefore unto you, that ye fiall die in your fins. For, if ye believe not, that I am he, the Mti- fiah, yeJJjalldie in your fins : that is, ye will bring upon yourfelves heavie judgements and calamities. Ver. 47. He that is of God, hear- eth God's words, Te therefore hear them not, hecauie ye are not of God. , , Ver. 56. your fa^ tber Abraham rejoyced to fee my day. . . . Does not our Lord in all this propofe himfelf to them, as the Meffiah, require their faith in him, as fuch, and plainly intimate the cala- mities, that would befall them, if they (liould continue to rejc(5t him ?
Nor is there any inconfifience In what is ' here obferved, and the accounts of the other Evangelifls. After Peter had made a pro- feffion of his faith, it is faid Matt. xvi. 20. 'Jhen charged he his difciples, that they fiould tell 720 man, that he was the Chr if. And com- pare Mark viii. 30. and Luke ix. 21. Ne- verthelefSjhe was not unwilling to be thought of in that charaCrer. When Simon Peter had faid by way of anfwer to the queftion that had been put to the difciples, thou art the Chr if, the Son oj the living God : our Lord
Vol. L * D d was
402 St. John. Ch.IX.
was greatly pleafed, and pronounced him bleiled upon that account. And he was de- firous, that all fhould receive him, as the Meffiah. It was the defign of his own, and his fore-runner's preaching, as recorded in all the Evangelifts, the firfl three, as well as St. yohn. They called upon all men to repent y Jor the kingdom of heaven^ or of God, by the Meffiah, is at hand. So Mark i. 14. 15. And himfelf fays : Matt. xii. 28. If 1 caft out demons by the Spirit of Godj then is the kingdom of God come unto you. And Luke xvii. 21. Beholdj the kingdom of God is among you^ or in the midft of you, not within you, as we ren- der it. Bat he tells them, that the kingdom of the Meffiah was already begun to be fet up among them. When our Lord was bap- tized, there came a 'ooice from heaven, faying : *This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleafed. Or, this is the Meffiah. As record- ed by all the firfl: three Evangelifts. Matt. iii. 17. Mark 1. 1 1. Luke iii. 22. And in them ourLord accepts applications to him, and con- feffions of faith in him, in the charad:er oithe , So?i of David, and the Son of God, both which are the fame as. the Meffiah. Of the former there are many inftances. Of the later I mention one. Matt. xiv. 33. Ihen they that
were
Ch. IX. Sf, "John. 403
*were in the Jljip, came^ and worfiiped hlm^ faying : Thou art the Son of God. And when he entred into feritfalem^ he apcepted the acclamations of the multitude, which cried : Hcfanna to the Son of David : BleJJ'ed is he that Cometh in the Jiame of the Lord : Bleffed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord, Matth. xxi. i . . . 1 6. Mark xi. i . . . 11. Luke xix. 28. . . 40. He fometimes laments the fmall fuccelTe of his preaching, and that fo few received him. But acquiefceth in the event. As in Luke vii. 31. . . . 35. Matth, xi. lb, . . 26. Luke x. 21. . . 24. And he even exprelTeth a furprize, that the Pharifees, and others, did not difcern the figns of the time. Matt. xvi. i. . . 4. Mark viii. 1 1. . . 13. Luke xii. 54. . . t^j. And every one may eafily perceive the reafon, why he did not al- low the difciples, or fome others, to fay pub- licly, that he was the Mefliah. For conli- dering that the Jewifh People in general, and the difciples themfelves, expeded a worldly kingdom, and worldly advantages from the Meffiah ; there needed fome difcretion, leaft men {hould have been led to make tumults and difturbances, which might have been of- fenfive to the magiftratc. But when our Lord fpoke of himfelf, as the Meffiah, he al-
D d 2 ways
404 St.Jchn. Ch. IX.
ways inculcated the true defign of his coming, and gave alTurances of fpiritual and heavenly bleflings, and fuch only.
Our Lord ftill continues at Jerufalenh Ch. ix. I.. .41. is the hiflorie of the man blind from his birth, whom our Lord healed, anointing his eyes with clay, moiftened with his fpittle. And it ivas the Sabbath- day ^ when Jefus made the clay, and opened his eyes. The man being brought before the Pharifees, and examined by them, faid, that he who had opened his eyes was a Prophet. A?id they cafi him out, Jefus heard, that they had caft him out. And when he had found him, he faid unto him : Doefi thou believe on the Son of God? He anfwered, and faid : Who is he. Lord, that I might believe on him ? Jefusfaid unto him : *Thou hajl both feen him, and it is he that talk- eth with thee. And he faid: Lord, I believe, and he worfhiped him. All this needs no comment. Afterwards at ver. 39. . . 41. are intimations given to the Pharifees of the fad confequences of rejeding him. And indeed in this hiftoriethe bad temper of the Jewifli Rulers is very manifeft.
Ch. X. Our Lord fpeaks of himfelf as the true ffoepherd, or the Meiriiih.. Ver. 1 1. I am the goodfiepherd. T^he goodJJjepherd giveth his
life
Ch. IX. St. jfobm 40 c
life for the Jheep, Ver. 16. And other fie ep 1 have, isohich are not of this fold. Ver. 22. . . 24. And it was at feriifalem the feaft of the Dedication. And it was ivinter. Andfefus walked in the te?Jtple, in Solomon s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and [aid unto hi?n : Hoiv long doefi thou make lis to doubt I If thou be the Chrifl, tell us plainly. 'J ejus an^ fwered them : I told you, and ye believed not, The works that I do in my Father's name bear witnejje of me. A very proper anfwer, cer- tainly. And v/hat follows to ver. 38. deferves to be confidted.
Ch.x.39...42. Therefore they fought again to take him, but he efcaped out of their hand. And went away beyond for dan, imto the place, where fohn at fr/t baptized. And there ^- bode. And many reforted unto him, andfaid : fohn did no miracles. But all things, that fohnfpake of this man, were true. And many believed on him there.
I fuppofe this retreat of our Lord to a place • beyond Jordan, to be the fame that is mention- ed Matt. xlx. I. and Mark x. i. upon which fome remarks were made (h) many years ago.
D d 3 What
(h) See the Vindication of our Saviour's three Miracles of rat' fmg the dead. Ch. i. p. l8, . . 2Z» firfi ed. p. 32. . . 37. 2d edit.
to6 Sf. John. Cli. IX.
What paffed during that Interval in that countrey, is recorded Matt. xix. i. . .-. . to -XX. I. . . . 1 6. and Mark x. i. . . 31. Nor was St. Luke unacquainted with this retreat. For he has inferted in his Gofpel at ch. xviii. 15. . . 30. fome of the fame difcourfes, which are in the other two Evangelifts, whilft our Lord was there. I fay, I fuppofe, that St. yohn and the other Evangelifts fpeak of one and the fame recefle. But St. John feems to mention more particularly the occafion of it, in the verfes juft recited.
In this place, and interval, our Lord lived fome what more privatly, than he had done before. He received all who came to him, either for inftrudion, or to be healed by him. But he did not go about the cities and villa- ges of Judea^ preaching publicly, as he had done for fome while before.
I always fuppofed, that our Lord's living thus, in that place, at no great diftance from yeriifulemi had in it a kind defign. He in- tended thereby to afford to the Jewifh People, efpecially, their Priefts and Rulers at Jeru- falem, an opportunity to confider, and calmly refle6l upon all the wonderful things that had happened among them in the fpace of a few years, the preaching and baptifm oi John^ and
all
Ch. IX. ' St. John. 407
all the things faid and done by himfelf in the courfe of his minillrie, particularly, the mi- racles which he had wrought among them, the claims, which he had made of being the promifed Meliiah, whom all ought to receive, and the intimations that had been given of impending ruin and miferie.
Here our Lord waited, willing to reft the proof of his miffion upon the teftimonies, that had been given to it. And if the Rulers of the Jewifh People had now come, and fo- lemnly owned him in the character, he bore, and with which God had clothed him, how joyfully would they have been received ! But they vi^ere not fo difpofed. Great multitudes of the people came to him there, and he healed them. The Pharifees alfo came unto hm. But it was tempting him, Matth. xix. I. 2. 3. Mark x. i. 2.
But befide what is recorded by the other Evangelifts, St. '^ohn afTures us, that in this interval our Lord came to Bcthanie, about fif- teen furlongs, or two miles, from Jenifalem, and there raifed Lazarus to life. ch. xi. r. . . . 44. Then many of the Jews^ which came to Marie ^ and hadfeen the things which Jefus did, believed on him : that is, that he was the Chrift. But fome of them wei2t their way to the
D d 4 Pha^
4o8 Si. John. Ch. IX.
PbarifeeSy and told theniy what things Jefus had done, ver. 45'. 46. Then gathered they a CoimciL . . . Then from that day forth^ they took CGimfel together, for to put him to death. ver. 47. . . 53« This fhews, that they were inflexiblej and not to be gained by any confi- derations.
It follows in v£r. 54. Jefus therefore walked no viore openly among the Jews : but went thence into a coiintrey near the wtlderneffe, into a city called Ephraim. And there continued with his difciples. Which (*) I fuppofe, was not far from the place, from which our Lord came laft. And from this city, called E- phfaim, our Lord came to Bethanie again, by the way of Jerichoy a (hort time before the next Palibver, as related by the other Evan-r gelifls. We proceed.
Says St. jobn ch. ?ii. ^^. . . ^j. And the Jews Pajfover was now at hand. . . ISJow Both the Chief' Priefis and the Pharifees hadgii:en a commandment y that if any knew where-he nsoas^ Joe fiould fiew it, that they might take him. That is a proof of a determined purpofe to accomplidi their evil deligns againft Jefus.
The
(*) Fid. Retard. Palaeft. I. i. cap. 56. 7om. i. p. 377. et hen- f ant fur S. Jean, ch. xi. 'ver, 54.
Ch. IX. St. yohn, 409
The wlicle following xii. chapter of this Gofpel deferves attentive regard. 1 mud tranfcribe a part, though it adds to the length of thefe extrads. Tbeii "Jefus^ fix days before the PaJJbver^ came to Betbanie^ where Lazarus wasy who had been dead^ whom he rai fed from the dead. xii. i. Much people of the Jews ' therefore knew^ that he was there. And they came^ notforjefusfake only^ but that they might fee Lazarus alfo^ whom he had ralfedfrom the dead. But theChief-PrieJls confultedy that they might put Lazarus alfo to death : hecaufe that by reafon of him many of the 'Jews went away^ and believed on Jefus. ver. 9. . . 1 1. And here is an account of fome Greeks^ or Gentils, who were defirous to fee Jefus. ver. 20. . . .22. Whofe readinelTe, accompanied with humili- ty, may be reafgnably underftood to caft a re- flexion upon the pride and obftinacie of thofe, who were unmoved by the moft povv'erful arguments, and the mod gracious invitations. The remainder of that chapter, from ver. 35. to 50. is a moft proper conciufion of this part of the Gofpel, in which are thefe things very obfervable. 1he?i Jejus faid ii?tto them : TeC a little while the light is with you. Walk while ye have the light, Icaft darhiefje come upon you, f , . While ye have the light j believe in the light,
that
4IO Sl John. ~ Ch. IX.
that ye may be the children of light. , . . But
though he had done Jo many miracles before them,
yet they believed not on him : that the faying of
Efaias might be julfdled. . . . Jefus cried, and
/aid : He that bclieveth on jne, believeth not on
me, but on him that fent me. lam come a light
into the worlds that whojoever believeth on me,
JJjoiild not abide in darknejj'e. . . I have notfpoken
oj my-felf. But the Father which fent me^ he
gave me a commandment, what I fiould fpeak.
And I know, that his commandment is life ever-
lajling. Whatfoever Ifpeak therefore, even as
the Father f aid unto me^fo I f peak.
Then in the xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. and xvil. chapters our Lord inflruds and comforts, prays with and for his difciples : (hewing (i) tokens of the tendered affeftion, and the mod faithful concern for thofe, who had paid a due regard to the evidences of his miffion, and adhered to him under difficulties and difcou- ragements. So begins the next, that is, the
thir-
(i) Sicut vero haftenus feveritatem Domini in Judaeos de- fendit Evangelifta, ita in fequentibus a capite xiii. ad finem iifque fidelitatem Chrifti illibatam, quam difcipulis fuis ad- dixit, ex ultimis verbis adferit. Haec intentio haud obfcure addifcitur ex nova, quae alteri hujus Evangelii parte praefigi- tur, praefatiuncula, cap. xiii. i. . . . Lam^. Prol. I. 2, c. 4. »«w, xxxvi.
Ch. IX. St. John. 411
thirteenth chapter: Now before the fenft of the PciJJover^ when Jefus knew, that his hour ivas come, that he fhould depart out of the world unto the Father : having loved his own, which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
And indeed it was very natural for the E- vangeHft, who had largely fliewn the unrea- jfonableneffe, and the aggravated guilt of the Jews, who did not believe in Jefus, but re- jeded him, to give alfo a particular account of our Lord's kind acceptance of thofe who believed in him, and perfevered In their faith.
So that the defign of fliewing, how inex- cufable the JewiQi People were, in rejeding Jefus, and of vindicating Divine Providence in the calamities brought upon them, is what produced the whole order and economie of this Gofpel.
The tv^^o following chapters, the xviii. and xlx. contain the account of our Lord's profe- cution, condemnation, death, and interment. In the two laft chapters the xx. and the xxi. are the accounts of our Lord's refurredion, and the evidences of it, with many tokens of kind regard for his difciples, who had follow- ed him in the time of his abode on this earth, axid were now to be his witnelTes in the world,
and
412 Sf. yoh2. Ch. IX.
and to preach, under many difficulties, the fame dodrine, which he had taught.
There is another thing, which may induce us to think, that one great defign of St. jfobfz in writing his Gofpel was to (hew the unrea- fonableneiTe, and the great giiilt of the Jews, in rejecting Jefus : that in his Gofpel are in- ferted more indances of their attempts upon our Lord's life, than in the other Gofpels. Some facli things there are in them. Ac- counts of the Pharifees confulting, how they might dePtroy Jefus, may be feen in Matt. xii. 14. Mark iii. 6. Luke vi. 11. befide their laft attempt : when they v/ere permitted to ac- complifh their evil defign. But there are more fuch inflances in St. Jo/m's, than in any of the other Gofpels. As John vii. i. y^/fer ihefe things Jefus 'walked in Galilee. For he imuld 7ict walk in Jiidea^ hecaufe the yews fought to kill him. However, he came up to Jerufalem at the next feaftof Tabernacles, ver. 2. And their defigns were renewed. Ch. vii. 25. Then f aid fome of them at Jerufalem : Is not this he^ whom they feek to kill? . . . Ver. 31.32. And many cf the people believed on himy andfaid : When the Chriji cometh^ will he do more miracles^ than thefe, which this man has done ^ The Pharifees heard ^ that they murmured
fuch
Ch. IX. Sl John. 413
fuch things concerning him. And the Thari' fees and Cljicf-Prieji fcnt officers to take him. But the officers, overcome by the excellence of his difcourfes, could not perfuade them- felves to apprehend him. For which they were reproached by the Council in a mod outrageous manner. But Nicodemns drove to allay their refentment. ver. 45. . . 52. And ch. viii. 20. Jhefe words /pake Jefus, in the treafurie^ as he taught in the temple. And no 7nan laid hands on him, hecaiife his time was not yet come. . . Ver. 37. 1 know, that ye are A' braham's feed. But yefeek to kill me, a man which has told you the truth, which 1 have heard of God. This did not Abraham, Ver 59. T^hen took they up jlones to caft at him. ... And ch. X. 39. 40. Therefore they fought again to take him : but he efcaped out of their hand. And went away beyond Jordan. And when our Lord propofed to go to Bethanie, upon occaiion of the ficknefle and death of Laza- rus, the difciples go unwillingly, and would have diffuaded him from that journey, be- ing apprehenfive of the imminent danger therein both to him and themfelves. ch. xi. 7. ... 16. See likewife ver. 45. . . ^y. All thefe are things quite omitted by the other Evangelids. As is alfo what is faid. ch. xii.
10.
414 ' 'S'/. 'John. Ch. IX.
10. 1 1. And in their lafl: perfecution of Je- fus before Pilate there are fome very aggra- vating particulars mentioned by St. John, which the other Evangelifts have not taken notice of. Seech, xviii. 29. ... 32. xix. i. . .15.
, Our blefTed Lord, preparing his difciples for afflictions, reconciling their minds to them, and encouraging them to endure them pa- tiently, fays, ch. xv. 21. . . . 24. All ihefe things will they do unto you for my name's fake, becaufe they know not him that fent me. If I had not come, and fpoken unto them, they had not had fin. But now they have no exciife for their fin. He that hatetb me, hateth my Fa- ther alfo. If I had not done among them the works, which no other man did, they had not had fin. But now have they both feen, and hated both me and my Father, That is a flrong, but juft and true reprefentation of the heinouf- neffe of the guilt of the Jewifli People. For which reafon I could not forbear to allege it here, though it (liould be thought out of place.
And now having, as I fuppofe, fhewn this defign of the Evangelift, let me mention an obfervation, or two, by way of corollarie.
Firfi,
Ch.IX. St. John. 415
Firji. We fee the reafon of St. Johtis re- cording the miracle of railing Lazarus^ omit- ted by th€ other Evangelifts. There was no neceffity, that they fhould mention it. For without it they have recorded fufficient evi- dences of our Lord's miffion and charadler. Nor was it poffible, without an improper pro- lixity to record all our Saviour's difcourfes and miracles, as St. Johfi himfelf has obferved. Moreover the firft three Evangeliflis have chiefly mfifted upon the moft public part of our Lord's miniftrie. For which reafon this miracle did not come fo diredly in their way. But St. Johfj could not omit it. His defign neceflarily led him to relate this great miracle, done fo near Jerufakm^ and with all it's cir- cumftances. For it manifeftly (hews the per- verfe and incorrigible temper of the Jewifh Priefts and Rulers.
Secondly. None ought any more to make a queftion, whether our Lord twice cleanfed the temple, or once only. It was cleanfed by him at the time of his lafl: Paflbver, as re- lated by the firfc three Evangelifls. But it was very proper for St. yoh?2 to record that done at the firfl: Paflover of our Lord's mi- niftrie : it affording an alarming evidence of his being the expedled Meffiah, which fliould
have
41 6 St. John. Ch. IX.
hnve been taken notice of by the Jewl(h Ru- leis at Jerufalem. It was an early and open claim of the charader of the MelTiah. And their negleding that, and fo many other claims and evidences of the fame great trnth afterwards, manifefis the obftinacie of their unbelief. Which was fitly flievyn by this Evangelid.
I now proceed to feme other arguments.
3. One argument, that St. John's Gofpel was writ before the deftruflion of Jenifalem^ is taken from ch. v. 2. Now there is at Je- rufalem^ by the fieep-market^ or Sheep-Gate, a pool^ which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethejcla, bavi7Jg Jive porches.
On this patfage infift both (k) Bafnage and (I) hampe. St John does not fay, as
they
(h) Porro quod tani fero fcriptum Joannis Evangeliuih tradamus, id ex fententia potius vcterum, quam ex rei veritata fecimus. .Ex ipfo quippc Evangelio nafcitur argumentum ad exitlimanduni, lucem prius aipexiile, quam Hierofolyma ever- teretiir. £/?, inquit, Hierofolymis ad portent oi'inm fifcina. StetifTe ergo videtur urbs fanda, Joanne ea verba fcribente. Secus, non praefens, eji, Wi, fed praeteiitum adhibuiil'et. Bafn. An. 97. n. xii.
(I) Habetur igitur hie non tantum mentio portae o-vium, tanquam tunc adhuc exilantisj cnm fcriberet Evangelifca, fed etiam aedilicii ex quinqiie porticibus conftantis, quales iiruc- turae port dirutam a Romanis Hierofolymam illic fruftra ef- fent quaefitae. Licet cnim plfcinam fuperefie velint itinera-
ria.
ch. IX. Sf. joU
they obferve, There ivas, but fbere is, And though the pool might remahi, it could not be faid after the ruin of the city, that the^i;^ f'orches ftill fubfifled.
Mr. Whijicn argues in this manner. " St. ** Jolm's (m) fpeaking of the Poolof Bethefda ** in the prefent tenfe better agrees to the *' time here affigned, A. D. 63. before the " dedrucftion of "Jerujalemy when that Pool *' and Porch were certainly in being, than to " the time afterwards, when probably both ** were deflroyed."
Dr. Wbithy likewife was fomewhat afFeded by this text, and fays : ''If there is be the " true reading, as the confent of almofl all " the Greek copies argues, it feems to inti- " mate, that ^eriifalem and this Pool were ** {landing, when St. "John wrote his Gofpel : " and therefore, that it was written, as Theo- phyhB, and others fay, before the deftruc-
tion of yeriijalemi and not, as the more an- *' cient Fathers thought, long after."
ri:i, portae tamen ac rauri folo aequata erant. Inde igitur colligimus, ftetifTe urbem fanftam, Joanne ca verba fcribente. Secus non praefens ej, fed praeteritum adhibuiilet, Lampi Prol. I. 2. cap, 2. num. xi,
(tn) Effay on the Conjiituiionf. ch* /. /. 38,
Vot. I. * E e But
4'7
cc cc
41 8 Sf.John. Ch. IX.
But Mr. Jones, befide other things, fays, " that (n) in all probability the Pool was not *' filled up, but was ftill in the fame ftate, af- *' ter the deftrudtion oijenifalem, as before." To which, however, it might be anfwered, that fuppofing the Pool not to have been filled up, it would not be reafonable to think, that the porches and the gate flill fubfifted, after the deftrudion of the city. But then Mr. Jones adds : " Suppofing the Pool was def- " troyed, and St. John to have known it, there " is no impropriety in ufing the verb is : «* nothing being more common among wri- " ters, than to ufe verbs in the prefent tenfe, " to denote the preterperfedl."
Having reprcfented this argument, as it has appeared to divers learned men, I leave every one to judge of it.
4. in ch. xxi. 18. 19. Chrift foretells, that Peter would die by martyrdom. Then it is
added : This /pake he, Jig^ify^f^S^ h 'z^'^^^ death he JJjould glorify God. Some may hence argue, that (0) Peter was not yet dead, when
this
(n) Nenv and Full Method, 'vol, 3 . />. 141.
(a) Poll Petri martyriuni editum effe Joannis Evangelium confenfus eft Patrum omnium. Fit tamen in ea re fcrupulus. Petro Chrirtus mortem -diferte portendit, cap. xxi. .18. . . .
Quae
Ch. IX. St.yoh?2. ^ig
this was writ : or that St. John did not then know of it. But others may be of opinion, that (p) though Peter had fufFered maityr- dom a good while before, and St. John knew it very well ; yet he was not obliged to take notice of it, but might write as he does.
Indeed, 1 am of opinion, that Si^John could not take notice of Peters death. It v/as not a thing within his province. As an Evange- lift, he wrote the hiftorie of our Saviour, not of his Apoftles.
5. A like argument may be taken from the following verfes. 20. 21. 22. Peter feeing yohtty jaith to Jefus : Lord, and what fiall this man do? J ejus faith unto him : If I will, that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? Follow thcu me. T^hen went this faying abroad, that this difciple fmdd not die. Tet Jefiisfaid not unto him, he Jhall not die : but if I will,
E e 2 that
Quae fi fcfipta funt, jam mifib ad mortem Petro, injici de ea re mentio debebat, ut et completi oraculi cognitio caperetur, et martyri Chriiti laus fua concederetur, Bcfnag. Exercit p.
384-
(p) Locus ex Joh. xxi. 18. non magni in hac caufTa mo^ menti eft. Nullam enim video neceffitatem, cur mortem Pe- tri commemoraret, fi vel aftu notitiam ejus habuifTet, qyia fic per fe fatis Veritas praedi«5lionis lefu innotuiflet. kc. Lampi ib. I. 2, c. 2. §. xin'.
420 Sf. John. Ch. IX.
thaf he tarry ^ till I come^ what is that to thee ? If by Chrift's coming be here intended the overthrow of Jerufaie?n, as many think, it may be fuppofed reafonable by fome to ex- pedt, that St. John fliould have taken fome notice of it here, if he v^^rote after that event. Neverthelffs 1 humbly apprehend, that this is not an ar«^omeDt of much weight. I do noi: think, that as an EvangeUft he was obhged lo eJve an account of the fulfilment of Chrift's predidion, though he had been a.witneffe
of it.
6. This is the difciple, that tejlijieth thefe things^ and wrote thefe things. And we know, that his t^ftimonie is true. By thefe laft words Mr. Lani^e (q) fuppofeth, to be meant fome , Jews, then living in Afia, who were eye-wit- ' neffes of our Lord, and his miniftrie : which might well be, if St. Jcbi\ Gofpel was writ before the deftrudion of Jerufalem : but would not be reckoned likely, if it was writ not before the year of the vulgar epoch 97. or 98. They who confirm the teftimonie of another, ought to have the fame certain know- le'dge of the thing teftified, as he who fpeaks, or writes. But after the deftrudion of jfe-
rufalem,
(q) Ibid. 1, z.cap. 2. mm. ix.
Ch. IX. St,yoJm, 421
riifalem^ it is not reafonable to think, there were many to bear witnefTe to things done forty or fiity years before. Thcfe Jews, eye- witnefles of our Lord, Mr. Lampe fuppofeth to have been believers of that nation, who accompanied Johii into JJiay when he left yudea.
I have thought it proper, not to omit this argument of that learned writer. But it de- pends upon his interpretation of this verfe. Which is not certain. For fome have fup- pofed, that (r) it is the church of Ephefus, which here fpeaks. And others think it to be (s) St, yo/m himfelf. The change of num- ber and perfon, of we for I, is no valid ob- jection. So I. John i. I. ... 5. Tbat ivhicb we have heardy which we have feen with our eyes. . . . 3. ^/'. 1 2. Tea^ and we alfo bear re- cord. And ye know^ that our record is true. And St. Fatd i. ThefT. ii. 18. Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once
E e 3 and
(r) Et fcimus.'] Loquitur ecclefia Ephefina, Scimus, aiunt, fde dignutn, ex vitae fcilicet puritate, et miraculis ab eo editis. Grot, in loc. ^
(s) " The Evangelift had faid before ch. xix. 35. He knonv- ethy that he fays true. Here in this place he changeth the perfon, faying : We kno'w, that his tejlinionie is triieT Light- foot upon John xxi. 24. 'vol. 2. /. 627. 5ee likenvife Whitby, Lenfautf and Doddridge upon the place.
422 Sf. 'John. Ch. IX.
and again. But Satan hindred us. Chryfof- tom (t) and Jheophyla5i (u) underftood St. yohn to fpeak here of himfelf, as an eye- wit- neflcj wA^o had been prefent at almoft every thing, related by him in his hiflorie.
7. It is faid : " The three epiftles of St. *' John do ever fuppofe, the Gofpel of St. " John to have been written long before, and <* to be well known by thofe, to whom he /' wrote. And they are written with a con- ** (lant view and regard to the contents of the " fame Gofpel." That is an argument (x) of Mv, Whijiony which, with what he adds by way of confirmation^ is referred to the read- er's confideration.
8. Some have argued for an early date of this Gofpel, or at left, that it was writ before the Revelation, which was fecn in PatmoSi
becaufe
(t) Ts.ai oiXd, (pmtv, on ahUjii er/v « Ae^-ei. . .' . K«/ 'sract
X«?ie«. C^O'A ^■">»^- 88. «/. 87. T. 8. p. 588. C. D. E.
(u) \i(U oiJ^d, ipmiv, oTi d?\.iiS'ii Xiye>, t«t«V/. tsrAnpo^opn-
fiiA; iyp(x.'\'Oi, a s^/fc^ot, &.7B 'sta.ai <srapa)V, sy Toli 'i^yoi?, )^
joii hoyoii, n^ To7? "zrciSfjr/, x] to7? luru rm dvd^ao'iv. Aya.-
^ w«Ti; ydp tium, ^ ovk d'^iXtij.zirccv'oum, ccn i^ixppmid^oy.oct,
39 'Tnp] i/y.avr'ti Xkya, or/ aM^ivi-). Theophyl. in jfo. Tom. i. p.
.847-
(x) See his Commentarie upon St. Johns three Catholic Epijiles, p. 8. ^'c.
Ch. IX. Sl John. 423
becaufe (y) it is faid at the begining of that book, ch. i. I. 2. . . Who bare record of the word of God J and of the tefiimonie of J ejus Chriji, and of all things^ which he faw. They fuppofe, that therein St. John refers to his Gofpel, and what he had writ in it. But to me themofi: reafonable account of thofe words appears to be that, which (z) was given for- merly : That they are mo ft properly under- flood of that very book, the Revelation, and the things contained in it. The writer there fays, very pertinently, in his introduction, that in that book he had difcharged the office, af- iigned him: having therein faithfully recorded the word of God, received from Jefus Chrifl:, and all the vilions, which he had feen.
9. Once more, it is argued from infcrip- tlons, at the end of this Gofpel, in divers ma- nufcripts, that it was writ before the deftruc- tion of Jenifalem : it being there faid, that
E e 4 this
(y) Ipfum porro audiamus Evangeliftam Idem non obfcure, uti nobis videtur, fubindicantem, quando Apoc. i. 2. fe ita circumfcribit : «? l{^.apTVf>Mi tIv h'oyov Ta SfK. . . Et verfu 9. . . . Plurimi optinii interpretes in eo confentiimt, quod in his verbis ad Evangelium refpiciatur, licet in modo demonftrandi differant &c. Lamp. Prol. I. 2, (a^, 2. ^. 'viii,
(zj See VoJ. iv, p. 703.
.424 St. John, Ch.IX.
this Gofpel was writ in the time of Nero, at thirty years, or about two and thirty years after our Saviour's afcenfion. Upon thefe iniifted (a) Mr. Wetjlein in a paffige quoted from him fome while ago. Upon them like wile infifts (b) Mr. hampe.
For my own part, I lay not any ftrefle at all upon thefe inlcriptions, at the end of Greeks or Arabic^ or other manufcripts of the New Teftament, writ in the ninth, or tenth centurie, or later. They (c) are of no au- thority. For there is no proof, that this account was derived from the teftimonie, or tradition of ancient authors. The early date of the Gofpels was popular. Some having
without
(a) See before p. 387.
(b) Accedit multarum gloflarum et verfionum in id con- fenfus, quod fub Ncrone Evangel! um fit exaratiim. Licet enim authoritates hae fequioris aevi fait, ob earum tamen frequentiam et harmoniam valde ell credibile, quod in an- tiquiori traditione fundatae fint. ... Id tamen obfervavi dif- crinien, ut quaedam numero rotundo XXX poft Chrifli ad- fcenfionem, aliae XXXII nominent. Lampe ibid. I. 2. cap. 2. num. xii. Vid. et num. xi'v.
(c) Neque ordo, qui nunc receptus eft epiilolarum, fequi- tur ordinem temporis, neque antiqua funt ilia, quae fub finem funt addita, ad fignificandum, unde et per quos niifTae funt. . . et illae in fine annotatiunculae ferae funt, ex conjedlura, aut tenui fama. Grot, Ccmm. in loca quaedam N. T./ub in. Totji, 3r/>- 457'
Ch. IX. Sf. Job;?. 425
without reafon determined the time of writln<r the other Gofpels at eight, or ten^ or fifteen years after our Lord's afcenfion, pitched upon the year 30. or 32. for the time of St. yoktis Gofpel. But it was done upon no other ground and foundation, but mere fanfie and conjedure.
X. It is upon the two firfl mentioned ar- oijeaicns, guments, that I chiefly relye. However, there are objedions, which deferve to be con- fidered.
1. Obj. Chryfojiom was of opinion, that St. John did not write, till after the deliruction of Jerufalem. For in a homilie upon Matth. xxiv. he fays : " John (d) writes not of any ** of thefe things, leafl: it (hould be thought, *' that he took an advantage from the event. " For he was living a good whilt after the *' defirudion of 'Jerufalem. But the other " Evangelifts, who died before the deftruc- " tion of Jerufalem^ and faw none of thofe *' things, record thefe predidions."
To which I anfwer, that St. John's omit- ting our Saviour's predictions concerning the deftrudion oi Jenifalem, which are recorded by the other Evangelifts, is no proof, that he
did
(d) See Vol. x.p, 321,
426 iSV. 'John, Ch. IX.
did not write, untill after they were fulfilled. For if he wrote at the time fuppofed by \is, when that event was near j it is very likely, that he would omit thefe predidions : efpe- cially, having obferved, that they were fuffi- ciently recorded already. And we plainly fee, that it is not St. Johns method, to repeat what had been recorded before. However, he has inferted in his Gofpel divers expreffi- ons, containing warnings and intimations of the miferies coming upon the Jewifh People, if they did not receive the Lord Jefus as the Meffiah. John the Baptift may be fuppofed to intend this in words, recorded John iii. 36. Our Lord intimates it in his difcourfe with JSlicodemus.m, 18. 19. and upon divers other occafions, already taken notice of by us, in this Gofpel. ch. viii. 12. 21. 24. ix. 39. . . . 4i.xii. 35. 36.
2. Obj. Mr. Whijion in (e) his Short View of the Harmonic of the Evangelifts, fays, ** that St. John ufeth the Roman or Julian be- gining of the day in his Gofpel, the fame that we ufe at prefent,and reckons the hours from midnight and noon. He refers to John i. 3 9. xix. 14. and xx. 19. Which he reckons an
argument,
(e)?. 115, 116.
Ch. IX". St. Jobn, 427
argument, that Si.yGtrn wrote his Gofpel long after the deftrudlion of 'Jerufakm, and the period of the Jewifh polity, at Ephefiis^ a place remote from Judcdj and under the Roman government."
To which I anfvver i . It does not appear to me, that St. John computes the hours of the day after the Roman, but rather after the Jew- i(h manner. 2. Suppofing St. John to have ufed the Roman method of computation, it does not follow, that he wrote after the de- ftrudion of Jerufalem^ and the period of the Jewiih polity. We allov/, that St. Johns Gofpel was writ at EphefiiSy at a diftance from Judea. And, if he thought fit, he might ufe the Roman way of reckoning, efpecially, when the period of the JewKh commonwealth was near, though not quite accompli(hed.
Thus I have endeavoured to folve this ob- je£lion. What was Mr. Whijlons own folu- tion, I do not know. But I fuppofe, that he afterwards overcame this difficulty. For in his later writings he maintains a very different fentiment concerning the date of St. Jobjs Gofpel, pleading, that it was writ about the year of Chrifl 63. a good while before the deftru(!tiou of Jenijakm. So he argues in
his
428 St. 'John, Ch. IX.
his Edliy upon the Apoftolical Conftltutions, publiihed, in 171 1. and in his Commentarie upon St. John^ Epiftles, publifhed in 17 19. His Harmonic of the four Evangehfls was printed at Cambridge in the year 1702.
3. Obj. It is farther cbjeded, that many an- cient writers fpeak of a late date of St. yA's Gofpel, and that he wrote with a defign to confute divers heretics : who cannot be fup- pofed to have appeared, till after the deflruc- tion of yerufakm^ and the overthrow of the Jewlfli People.
To which I anfwer, that this may have been owing to a miftaken apprehenfion. Many heretics, they faw, might be confuted by St. yohi's Gofpel. Therefore they con- cluded, that he did not write, till after they had appeared in the world : whilft the truth might be no more than this, that fuch and fuch heretics might be confuted out of his Gofpel : though they had not appeared in the world, till long after. Paulimis fays, ** that " (f) m the begining of St. Jolm^ Gofpel all ** heretics are confuted, particularly, AyhiSy " SabelliuSi Fhotinus, Marciofi, and the Ma- *' nicheans." And in Mr. U'^etjleinh preface
to
{f) See Vol, xi. p. 44.
/
Ch. IX. St. John, 429
to St. yA's Gofpel, writ not long ago, in our time, are thefe expreflions. Having before quoted Ire?iaeus, he adds : " Which (g) if " they be compared v/ith thofe things, Vv'hich *' Carpocrates, Menajider, Cerdo, Saturninus^ " Bafilides, Valentin, and Marcion^ have faid " of angels, and aeons : among whom were " Charis Grace, Alethea Truth, Monogenes *« Only begotten. Logos Word, Zoe Life: it " mufl be manifeft, that 'John fo oppofed his ** dodlrlne to them, as to ufe the forms of ex- " preffion, received by them." Surely, this is very incautious, and inaccurate. Mufl: it not be fo, to fay, that St. 'John oppofed thofe heretics, mod of which are heretics of the fecond centurie ? If St. John^ gofpel be ge- nuine, it muft have been writ before the end of the firfl centurie. Yea, Mr. Wetjlein fays, it was writ at about two and thirty years after Chrifl's afceniion. How then could St. John oppofe them, or write againft them, but in the way of prophecie, or prevention \ But to
fay,
^^j Quae fi comparentur cum as, quae Carpocrates, Me- nander, Cerdo, Saturninus, Bafilides, V'alcntinus, et Mar- cion de angelis et aeonibus, inter quos erant Charis, Alethea, Monogenes, Logos, Zoe, item de Chrifto, non vere, fed cTaxtWei pafTo, tradiderunt : fatis raanifeilum erit, Joannem dodtrinam fuam illis ita opponere, ut loquendi formulis apud 4I0S receptis utatur. Weiji, Teji, Gr, Tom. i.p, 832.
45*^ 'S'/. 'john. . Ch. IX.
fay, he oppofed his doSlrine to them, or wrote £gainft them, does not feem very proper. And if" the ancient writers fpeak not mere ac- curatiy, than this learned modern i an argu- ment taken from them, upon this head, can- not be of much weight.
It is the teflimonie of Irenaem^ which ought principally to be regarded by us, upon account of his antiquity, and his having been acquainted with Poljcarp in the early part of his life. He fays, as before tranfcribed, " that " by the publication of his Gofpel John de- " figned to root out the errour, that had been " fown among men by Ctrinthiisy But it is obfervabie, that in another place, alfo tran- fcribed above, he fays : " "John forefeeing ** thofe blafphemous notions, that divide the *' Lord, fo far as it is in their power," wrote his Gofpel. For this paflage I am indebted to Mr. Whiftofi, who argues, that St. Johiis Gofpel was writ about the year 63. and before this Apoftle's three epi files. '' Nor, fays (h) " he, fhail I need to fupport this obfervation " from any other argument, than that from ** Irenaeus^ who fuppofeth this Gofpel, and " St. Pmirs, epiftle to the Roma?iS, ancienter,
" and
(h) Commentarie upon St. John's epijlks. p. 8.
Ch.IX. St. John. 431
" and thefe epiflles later, than the rife of the ** hereiie of Ceriiithus." Referring to the palTage of Irenaeus, before taken notice of Dy us.
If then we put together the feveral paflages of Ire?2aeus, he does not contradid; the fup- polition of an early date of St. yob?2's Gofpel : or, that it was writ before the rife of thofe herefies, which may be confuted by it.
It may be judged prefumptuous to oppofe the prevailing opinion of learned men, who have fuppofed, that fome heretics were par- ticularly flruck at in the begining of this Gof- pel. Neverthelefs Mx.Lampe (i) whom I have often quoted, has prefumed to oppofe this opinion, and has largely argued, that St. John did not write againfl: Cerinthus, or other here- tics
(i) Nos ut falva, quam viris magnis, . . . debemus. exifti- matione, libere animi fenfa proferamus, an Evangelic fuo Jo- annes Gontrovcrfiamtradlare, haereticofque in Ecclefia fui aevi ullos refutare voluerit, dubitamus admodum. Neque enim id titulus generalis E-vangelii libro praefixus admittit, neque id commode per librum ad methodum hiftoriae compofitum fieri potuit, neque illius rei vel vola vel veftigium ullum apparet : quod tamen et fcriptoribus elenchticis in more conftanti pofi- tum eft, et e re admodum erat, ut eo certius tela ferirent, et eo evidentius argumentorum patefccret robur. Lampe Prole- gom, in Joafin, I. 2. cap. 3, num. xiii. Fid. ib. num.xi'V, xv. fivi, et feq.
432 Sf. ^John, Ch. IX.
tics In his Gofpel. And though another learned German (k) has fince Vwiit againft Mr. LanipCj 1 cannot fay, ihat he has ccn- futed him.
I (hall therefore take the liberty to men- tion fome thoughts relating to this matter, which offer themfelves to my mind.
Firjl : To me it feems below an Evange- lld, to write againft heretics in the hiftorie of his Lord and Maftcr. Nor do any of the Evangelifls enter into a particular account of things after our Lord's afcenfion. St. John proceeds no farther than his refurre(flion, and the evidences of it, without particularly men- tioning his afcenfion. Nor has St. Matthew proceeded any farther. However, undoubt- edly, it is implied in what they write, ihat our Lord was raifed up to an endlefs life, and to univerfal power in heaven and on earth. St. Mark ch.xvi, 19. and St. Luke xxiv. 50, CI. relate our Saviour's afcenfion to heaven. This has oftentimes appeared to me ex- ceeding remarkable, that none of the Evange- lifts fhould in thei;- Gofpels give an account
of
(k) G. L. Oederus de fcopo E'vangelii S.Jo. Ap, certljjime Hae- reft Cerinthi et Ebionis oppojtti, Ad'verfui V, C. Fr. Ad, Lampc hipfiae 1732.
Ch. IX. St, Joki. 43 3
of the preaching of the Apoflles after our Lord's afcenfion, and the defcentof the Holy Ghoft upon them. Take the earlieft date of the Gofpels, that can be thought of, or affign- ed by any : all muft allow, that before any of them were writ, many miracles had been performed by the Apoftles, and many con- verts mud have been made from among Jews, if not alfo from among Gentils : and many promifes of our Lord muft have been accom- plifhed. And we can perceive from their Gofpels, that they had a knowledge of fuch things. Neverthelefs there is no particular account of them in any of the Gofpels. St. Mark is the only Evangelifl:, that has faid any thing in his Gofpel of the minifirie of the Apoftles. And he enters not into any de- tail. His whole account is in a few words only, the lad: verfe of his Gofpel.
Confidering this method of all the Evan- gelifts in their hiflories of our Lord and Sa- viour, it appears to me probable, that though St. John had not writ his Gofpel before the year 96. or 97. as fome have fuppofed; he would not have taken notice of heretics, or vouchfafed to argue with them. St. Jobn did not write the hifiorie of the Apoftles, as
Vol. L * F f is
434 St. John. Ch.IX:
is evident. How then could he take notice ' of heretics.
Secondly, Another thing of no fmall mo- ment is this. I fee nothing of this kind in the reft of St. JoJm^ Gofpel. Why (I) then ihould v/e imagine, that there is any fuch thing in the introdudion ? If St. John's Gof- pel is not writ agalnft heretics, why (liould the begining of it be fo ? What St. John fays in the introdudion, appears to me agreeable to the main defign of his Gofpel, as it has been before largely reprefented. He therein fliews, that Jefus came, and aded by the authority of God, the Creator of the world, the God, and fupreme Lawgiver of the Jewifli People. The (m) eternal word, reafon, wifdom, power
of
(I) Ex quibiis clare, ut putamus, patet, in prologo com- pendium ccntineri rerum, quas Evangelifla toto Evangelio demonllirare volebat, nempe lefum nontantum efie Filium Dei et redemtorem mundi. Ver. i. . .4. Sed etiam qua talem ita plene in mundo demonftratum e/Te, ut ab una parte Judaei plane rediti fuerint dvcfTraXoy-ino]. ver. 4. . . 11. ab altera autem fideles fufEciens fidei firmamentum acceperint. ver. 1 2. . . , l8. Lamp. Prol. 1. 2. cap. 4. num. xx<v.
(m) Quaeris veramhujus nominis interpretationem, de qua variae exflant eruditorum virorum fententiae ? Non vindico mihi ejus rei arbitrium : tantum, quod hie fentio, modefte, falva difTentientium exiftimatione et amicitia, profero. Ver- tenduni elTe hoc nomen Ratio ^ vel Sapientia Dei : etli recep-
tara
Ch. IX. Sf. John,
of God, which is God himfelf, by which the world had been made, by which he dwelled among the Jews in the tabernacle, and the temple, (n) dwelled, and refided in Jefus, in the fullefl: manner : fo (o) that we his difciples, and others who believed in him, faw, and clearly difcerned him to be the pro- miied MeiHah, the great Prophet, that fliould come into the world.
The Apoftles in their addrefles to the Jew- i(li People never fail to give alTurances, that Jefus Chrift had ad:cd by the authority of the one true God, the God of their anceflors.
F f 2 So
tarn phrafim Sermonls Dei, m vcrfione retinendam cenfuerim. . . . Conllat cuiqae, prologum Evangelii legend, alludere Joannem in toto illo prologo . . ad caput oftavum Proverbi- orum Salomonis, . . . ut proinde talem ellgere oporteat inter- pretationem, quae affinis fit voci Sapientiae. Vitring. in Jpoc, cap, xix. 'uer. i^-p. I109.
(uj Ut celebratiffimo loco legitur : Kai 0 Aoyo<; o-«j?^ lyi' »«To. Quod refte redditur : Ei Verbwn, five fermo, hmnofaC' tus eft, five humanam naturam induit. Et «^ 2^yaM y'oijM i tTiKdHco^creTcii niasa. cap^ : i. e. homo quifquam. Rom. iii. 20. ut Pf. cxliv. 22. al, cxlv. zi. ;^ euAo^«Tfi> niasx fUf.^ 70 oyoy.Oi uv7<i. Pearfon. Prolegom. ad I'erjion. Ixx. Cantab, p. 1 3,
(0) " We faw his glorie, as what became the only begotten Son of God. He did not glitter in any worldly pomp and grandeur, according to what the Jevvilh nation fondly dream- ed their Mefliah would do : but he v/as decked with the glo- rie of holineffe, grace, truth, and the power of miracles.'' Lightfoots Exsrdtations upon St. John, 'vol, 2, p. 521.
436 St. John. Ch. IX.
So Ads ii. 22. Te men of Ifrael^ hear fhefe words : Jefus of Nazareth^ a man approved , of God among you by miracles . . . which God did by him in the midji of you. And iii. 13. The God of Abraham, of Ifaac, and facob^ The God of our father s, has glorified his Son^ yefus. . .. See alio ver. 22. . . 26. ch. v. 30. The God of our fathers has raifed up fefus. . . . The epiftle to the Hebrews begins in this manner : God, who at fundry times, and in divers manners, (pake in tifne pa ft unto the fa- thers by the Prophet s, has in thefe laji days fpo • ken unto us by his Son,
Indeed, this is neceflarie for the fatisfadion of all men, both Jews and Gentils. For there is no other God, but one, even the God of the Patriarchs and Prophets. Nor can any true revelation come from any, but him.
In all the Gofpels our Lord afcribes all his miracles, and all his authority, to the one God, his Father^ who is in heaven. Matt, xii, 28. If I caji out demons by the Spirit of God y then is the ki?2gdom of God come unto you. Luke xi. 20. If I by the finger of God caft out de- mons y no doubt the kijigdofn of God is come unto youi Matt. xi. 27. All things are delivered unto me by my Father. . . Comp. Luke x. 22. Matt. xii. 13. Every plant y which my hea- venly
Ch. IX. Sf. John. 437
venly Father has not planted^ fiall be rooted up. Matt. xvi. 27. For the Son of man fiall come in the glorie oj his Father. . . . Conip. Mark viii. 38. And the like In many other places. But in none of the Gofpels does our Lord fo frequently, and expreflly, afcribe all his authority to God the Father, as in St. John's Gofpel : thereby plainly fhewing the guilt of thofe, who did not receive him. John v. 19. The Son can do nothing oj himfelfy but ui^hat he
feeth the Father do Ver. 30. 7 feek not
my own will, but the will of the Father, who hath fent me. Ver. 36. 37. But I have greater witnejfe, than that of John, For the works, which the Father hath given me to finijh^ the fame works that I do, bear witnefje oj me, that the Father hath fent me. . . . I am come in mj
Father's name. And ye receive me not
And at ver. 45. . . 47. our Lord appeals to Mofes and his writings, which were allowed to be of divine original, as bearing teftimonie to him. Then ch. vi. 27. . . . him hath God the Father fealed. vii. 16. 1 am not alone. But J, and the Father, that fent me. x. 36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath fanSlifed, and fent into the world : 'Jbou blajphemeji : be- caiife Ifaid, I am the Son of God ? And, to add no more. Ch. xi. 41. 42. When he
F f 3 wrought
438 Sf. John. Ch. IX.
UTought that great miracle of raifing Lazarus from the dead, Jefus lijt up his e'yes^ andjaid: Father^ I thank thee^ that thou haft heard me^ And 1 kne'Wy that thou heare/i me always. But becaufe of the people which ft and by^ I faid it, that they may believe^ that thou haft fent me,
Agreeable to all this is the introdudion, where, befide other, are thefe expreflions : He came to his own. And his own received him net. . . . The Word was made ftefto^ and dwelled amotig us. . . . And we faw his glorie^ the glorie, as of the only begotten of the Father, '. . The law was given by Mofes. But grace and truth came by fefus Chrifi, No man hath Jeen God at any time. The only begotten Son^ who is in the bofom of the Father^ he 1ms de- clared him. So ends the introdudion. And it is what St. John has largely and fully fhewn in his Gofpel.
But it will be a&ed : Whence came it to pafs, that St. John made ufe of that term, the Word ?
1 anfwer : I am of opinion, that it was not out of regard to Philoy or any Platonic writers. But I fuppofe, this (p) way of
fpeak-
(p) Plerique obfervant, fimilem locutionem frequenter OC' currere in Paraphrafibus Chaldaicis, quae veterum Hebraeo-
rum
Ch. IX. 6V. John. ' 439
fpeaking to have been very common with the Jewifli People, and, perhaps, more efpecial- ly with thofe of them, who were moft zea- lous for the law, and moft exempt from fo- reign, and philofophical fpeculations. Who by the Word, or the Word of God, underftood, not a fpirit, feparate from God, and inferior to him, but God himfelf, as St. john (q) does.
Numb.
rum catechefin, et ar.tiquas loquendi formulas, exhibent. Quoties de Deo nobiicum converfante fermo eft, toties vero Targumiflae, pro Deo, vel Jehova, fubftituenint 'verbum Je- ho'vae. Pro exemplo haec paucula ex innumeris funto. Gen. xxi. 20. Deusfuit CU771 lllo. Onkelos. Verbum Domini fu\t ilU auxilio. lb. comm. 22. J)eus eft tecum. Onkelos. Verbum Domini enim tibi fubfidio. Dent. xx. i. JV^ timeto ah eis. Nam Deus tuns tecum eji. Onkelos. . . eo quod Jehova Dens tuusy Verbum ejus auxilio tibi eft, quod eduxit te ex terra ^egypti. Num. xi. 22. Eo quod reprobafti "Jeho'vam. Onkelos. Eo quod faftidiftis Vcrbtiin Domini, cijus Skechiiiah Di'vina Majeflas ha- bitat in niobis. Exod. xvi. 8. Nou centra nos murmurationes 'vef- trae, fed contra Jeho'vam. Onkelos. . . fed contra Verbum Je- <vae. Infinita funt fimilia. Unde colligitur, receptum eo tempore Hebraeis fuiftcj ut Deum, quatenus cum populo fuo agit, Verbum vocaverint : cui ea attribuerunt, quae Dei funt. Witf. Mijcell. Sacr. Tom. 2. />. 88. 89. Exercita. iii. ^ep/ t» Ao^8. §. ii.
(q) Omnia igitur talia confcribere volens difcipulus Domini, et regulam veritatis conftitucrc in Ecclefia quia eft unus Deus Omnipotens, qui per Verbum fuum omnia fecit, e^ vifibilia, et invifibilia : fignificans quo que, quoniam per
F f 4 Verbum,
440 ' Sf. Joht. Gh. IX.
Numb, xxiii. 8. Hozv fiall I curfe, whom God has not cur fed? or, how pjall I defy , whom the Lord has net defied? Upon which verfe Patrick lays : " In the Jerufalem Targum *' this verfe is thus paraphrafed : How fi a II I " curfe the boufe of Ifrael^ when the Word of *' the Lord has blejjed them? Or, how JJ: all I " diminijh thejamilie of Ifrael, when the Word *' of the Lord has multiplied them ?"
It is well known, that in the Chaldee Pa- raphrafes, it is very common, to put Mimra Jehovah^ the Word of the Lord, for Jehovah^ or God, When thofe Parnphrafes were made, is not certain.: whether before, or after the time of our Saviour. But their great antiquity is generally allowed. And it
is
Verbum, per quod Deus perfecit conditionem, in hoc et falti- tem his qui in conditione funt, praeftitit hominibus : fic in- choavit in ea, quae eft fecundum Evangelium, do<Srina : I/: frinczpio erat Verbum. Iren. /. 3. cap, xi. in Majj'uet.
Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Afia, non a primo Deo fadum effe munduni docuit, fed a Virtute quadam valde fe- parata, et diftante ab ea Principalitate, quae eft fuper omnia. Id. I, I. cap. xx'V. at. 26. in.
Deus autem totus exiftens mens, et totus exiftens logos, quod cogitat, hoc et loquitur : et quod loquitur, id et cogi- tat. Cogitatio enim ejus logos, et logos mens, et omnia concludens mens, ipfe et Pater. Id. I. 2. cap. xx'viii. n. ^. p.
iS7'
Ch. IX. Sl Jobfi. 441
is very probable, that this way of fpeaking was common, and much ufed before. " It " is likely, fays a learned friend, that Mimra ** Jehovah was ufed before the Paraphrafes ** were committed to writing, becaufe it ** would be an unreafonable thing to ufe a '' phrafe, which the common people did not " underftand. For it is fuppofed, that the " Paraphrafes were chiefly made for them."
Let me add, that the ufe of this phrafe, the Word of Gody or the Word of the Lord^ as • equivalent to Go^himfelf, feems to be found- ed in the original language of the Old Tefla- ment. In behalf of which I would allege the following texts. Gen. i. i. In the begining God created the hea^cem and the earth, Ver. 3. God f aid : Let there be light. And there 'was light. Comp. Pf. xxxiii. 6. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hojl of them by the breath of his mouth. And Pf. cv. 19. Untill the time that his word came : the Word of the Lord tried him.
When St. fohn fays ch. i. i. 2.3. In the be- gining was the Word^ and the Word was with God. And the Word was God. The fame was in the begining with God. All things were fnade by him. And without him was not any
thing
etd
443 St: John, ' Ch. IX.
thing made that was made. He fecms to al- lude to (r) what Solomon fays of Wifdom in the book of Proverbs, particularly, the eighth chapter. And how Wifdom ought to be underftood, as fpoken of by Solomon, was (hewn formerly, if I may be allowed to fay fo, in (s) a difcourfe upon Prov. viii. 17. Moreover the begin ing of St. Johns Gofpel fhould be compared with the begining of his firft Epiftle, particularly, ch. i. ver. i. 2.
According to the account now given, what St. John fays at the begining, is a very proper introdudion to his Gofpel : where he largely {hews the guilt of thofe, who rejeded the manifeftation (t) of the Wifdom, the Word, the Will of God, in the perfon of Jefus.
Upon the whole, I fee no reafon to think, that, in the introdudion to his Gofpel, St. John oppofed any Chriftian herefies, or had any regard to them.
Confequently, the foregoing argument, that St. John2, Gofpel was writ before the
deflruc-
(r) See the paffage of Vitringa quoted juji nonv, at noti (m)
f' 434-
(s) See Sermons upon <various JuhjeSis, p. 113. ^V.
(t) See ch. xliii. "uol, 4. p. 602. . . 604.
Ch. IX. St. John, .443
deftrudion of Jerufalem^ or about the time of that event, remains entire.
XI. I Hiall now mention fome obfervations ohfewa-
.1 • r^ r 1 tions upon
upon this Gofpel. thisGofi.eL
I . There is no need to flaew here, particu- larly, from the Gofpel itfelf, as we did of the former Evangeliftsjihat St. yA did not write his Gofpel, till after converts had been made from, among Gentils : becaufe it is allowed by all, that St. John did not write, till after the other Evangelifts, about the time of the de- flirudion of Jerufalem, or afterwards : before which time the ApoPdes mufl have left Ju~ de.a^ to go abroad, and preach to Gentils. Ne- verthelefs one fignal paffage may be here ta- ken notice of, which is not far from the be- gining of this Gofpel. Ch. i. 11. 12. 13. He came to his own^ and his own received him not : but as tnany as received him^ to them gave he power to become the Jons of God ^ even to them that believe on his name. Which were horn not of bkud, nor of the will of the feJJj, nor of the will of man, but of God, That is, ** he came to the Jews, and firft appeared, " and taught among them, and they generally " rejeded him. But upon all who believed " in him, whether Jews or Gentils, of what- ** ever countrey, or nation, or people, they
5' were.
444 '^^- 7^-^'^^- ^'h IX.
" were, he beftov/ed the privilege of being *' the people of God, and all the bleffingsap- *• pertaining to them."
2. Eufebe fays : " The (t) other three E- " vangelifts have recorded the actions of our ** Saviour for one year only, after the impri- " fonment of John the Baptift." Jerome fpeaks to the like purpofe in his book of II- luftrious Men,jufi: now (^z/J tranfcribed. But it fliould have been faid : '' one year, and fomewhat more :" meaning the time and ac- tions of our Lord's moft public miniftrie. For it fcems to me, that the ancients fuppofed our Lord's miniftrie, to have lailed, in the whole, fomewhat more than two years. As was fliewn Vol. ili. p. 136. . . 138. Evfcbe indeed computed (x) our Lord's miniftrie to have confifted of three years and a half: and fup- pofed St, Johns Gofpel to have in it four Paflovers. He feems to have been the firft: Chriftian, who advanced that opinion. And he is now generally followed by harmonizers of the Gofpels, and by ecclefiaftical hiftorians. Sir Ifaac ISewton (y) however computes five
Pailovers
(t) See iwl. 'viii. /. 93-
(u) See before p. 384.
(x) See vol. 'viii.p. 138.
(y) Objervatio7is u^on Daniel, p. 156. 157.
Ch. IX. Sf. John. 445
Eaflbvers in our Saviour's miniftrie : as does likewife Dr. Edward Wells m his Hiftorical Geographic of the New Teftament. And others may be of the fame opinion, or make more. But none of thefe opinions appear to me, to have any foundation in the Gofpels. The opinion oiEiifebc, and thofe who follow him, is much more probable, than theirs, who yet farther enlarge the number of the PalTovers of our Saviour's miniftrie. The firft Paflbver in St. 'John is that mentioned by him ch. ii. 13. At ch. v. i. it is faid : After this there was afeaft of the feivs. And Jefus went up to ferufalem. They who follow Ku- jsbe^ and make four PafTovers in our Lord's miniftrie, reckon this feaft to be a FafTover.. But they who compute his miniftrie to have lafted only two years, and fomewhat more, fuppofe this to be fome other feaft, poffibly, the feaft of Tabernacles, next fucceding the Paflbver, mentioned ch. ii. 13. At ch. vi. 4. And the Pafover, a feafl of the Jews was 7iigh. This, according to different computa- tions, is either the fecond, or the third Paflb- ver in our Lord's miniftrie. The third, or, according to others, the fourth, is that men- tioned by all the Evangelifts, at which our
Lord
446 ^f' "John. Ch. IX.
Lord fuflfered. It is mentioned by St. ^John ch. xi. 55. and xii. i.
3. St. 'John has omitted the greateft part of thofe things, v/hich are recorded by the other Evangelifts. Which much confirms the tef- timonie of ancient writers, that the firft three Gofpels were written, and pubHfhed among the faithful, before St. 'John wrote : that they were brought to him, and that he affirmed the truth of their relations, but faid, that fome difcourfes and miracles of our Saviour were omitted by them, which might be ufefully recorded.
Indeed, there is little or nothing in his Gof- pel, which is not new and additional, except the account of our Saviour's profecution, death, and refurrection, where all four coin- cide in many particulars : though even here alfo St. 'John has divers things peculiar, to himfelf. In St. 'Johns Gofpel is no account of our Saviour's nativity, nor of bis baptifin by John : though, undoubtedly, it is there fuppofed, and referred to. He takes no no- tice of our Saviour's temptation in the wilder* nefle, nor of the call, or names of the tv^'elve Apoftles, nor of their miffion, in our Sa- viour's life time, nor of our Lord's parables, or other difcourfes of his, recorded by them,
nor
Ch. IX. Sf. "jchn. 447
nor of our Saviour's journeys, of which they give an account, nor any of thole predidlions, relating to the defolations o^ yerufaletn^ which are in Matthew^ Mark, and Luke. Nor has he any miracles recorded by them, excepting only, that one of the multiplication of fmall provifion for feeding five thoufand, with the extraordinarie circumftances of the return to Capernawn from the countrey, where that miracle had been wrought, ch. vi. 4. ... 21. And it is likely, that this miracle was record- ed by him, for the fake of the difcourfes, to which it gave occaiion, and which follow there, ver. 22. . . 71.
However, it fhould be obferved, that he has one thing recorded by all the Evangelifts, Vetera ftriking a fervant of the High-Priefl, and cutting off his ear. ch. xviii. 10. T^hen Simon Peter having a fword^ drew it^ and fmote the High-Prieji's ferva?2ty and ait off his right ear, I'he Jerva?ii's name was Malchus, Which, as St. Luke informs us, Jefus touched, and healed, ch. xxii. 51. Peters adion is mentioned by all the three Evangelifts. Matt. xxvi. 51. Mark xiii. 47. Luke xxii. 51. But St. John alone mentions Peter by name, and the name of the fervant. I thought pro- per to take notice of chi?, though St. John
does
44^ Sf. Jokn. Ch. IX.
does not particularly mention the miracle of healing.
St. John likewife ch. ii. 14. . . 22. gives an account of our Lord's cleanfing the temple at his firft Paffover, when he went to Jenifa- km. All the other Evangelifts have a like account of our Lord's cleaniiing the temple at his laft Paffover. Matt, xxi. 12. 13. Markxi. 15. 16. Luke xix. 45. 46. But I fuppofe them to be quite different adtions, and that our bleffed Lord twice cleanfed the temple, as already fhewn.
4. Though the iirfl three Evangelifls have not particularly recorded our Saviour's feve- ral journeys io Jerufdlefn, as St. John has done, but have only given a particular account of his preaching there at his laft Paffover, they were not unacquainted with them.
This may be concluded from divers things in their hiftories. To thofe, who came to apprehend him, our Lord faid : I fat daily with you teaching iti the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. Matt. xxvi. ^^. And compare Mark xiv. 49. Luke xxii. 53. And among the accufations brought againft him by the JewiQi Rulers before Pilate^ tliey fay : He ftirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, begining from Galilee to this place,
Luke
Cli.IX. St. John. 449
Luke xxiii. 5. Peter preaching at yerlifalem, foon after our Lord's afcenfion, fays : yefiis of Naznreih, a man approved of God among yen by miracles^ and wonders^ and figns : which God did by him in the midji of you^ as yourjehes alfo know. Ads ii. 32. And at the houfe of Cornelius, in Cefarea : That word, you biow, which was publified throughout aWJudea, and began from Galilee. Ads x. 37. . . . And we are witnejjes of all things, which he did, both in the land of the fews, and at ferufalem. ver. 39. And it appears from their hiftories, that our Lord's fame had early reached ferufalem. Many attended him in Galilee, from thence, and from other parts. Says St. Matthew : And there followed him great multitudes of peo- ple from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from fudea, a fid from beyond for dan. iv. 25. Comp. Mark iii. 7. 8. Again : And the ' Scribes, which came from ferufalem, /aid : He has Belzebub, . . Mark iii. 22. . . 30. Com- pare Matt. ix. 34. Luke xi. 14. . . 26. Then came to fefus Scribes and Pharifees, which were of ferifalem. Matt. xv. i. Compare Mark vii. i. And fays St. Luke ch. v, 17. And it came to pafs on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharifees, and Doc- tors of the Law Jilting by, which were come out Vol. I. *Gg ef
450 St. John. Ch. IX.
of every town of Galilee ^ and J tide a ^ and Jeru- falem. And the power of the Lord was prefent to heal them. And in every one of the Evan- gelifts we may meet with Scribes and Phari- fees, oppoling our Lord, watching his words and adions, cavilling with him, and refleding upon him, and his difciples.
Moreover in St. Luke ch. ix. 51. . . 56. is an account of a remarkable incident, when our Lord was .going from Galilee through Samaria, to Jerufalem, at one of their feafts : fuppofed by (z) fome to be the feaft of Ta- bernacles, by others (a) the feaft of Dedicati- on, preceding his laft PafTover. See likewife Luke xiii. 22. and xvii. 11.
However, after all, I do not think it was needful, that our Lord fliould go often to Jerufalem, or that all his journeys thither, and difcourfes there, {hould be recorded. It was indeed highly expedient, that his minif- trie fliould be public. So it might be, with- out going often Xoferufalem, John the Bap- tift was a man of great reputation, though he never went up to ferufalem during the time Luke i. of his fJkwing himfelf unto Jfrael, that we
know
(z) Vld. Clerk. Harmon, p. 234. 235. (aJSc^e Dr. Dji/rkidge's Fawi/j Extofitor. Se£i. 127. Vol. 2. p. S83,
Ch. IX. St.Johru 451
know of. And it is manifeH: from the firft three Evangel iftsj as well as fi'om St. yohn^ that our Lord's miniftrie was very pub- lic, and well known in all parts oi'Judea^ and the regions round about, and to men of all ranks therein. In them we find our Lord to have been notified before- bajid |)y 'John the Baptift. He fent out once his twelve Apof- tles, and then feventy other difciples, two by two^ to go before him^ and prepare men for him^ in every city and place ^ where he fiould come. In them we find him teaching in fynagogues, in cities, and villages, and defert places, crouded by throngs, attended by multitudes of people, and miraculoufly feeding at one time five thoufand, at another four thoufand men, befide women and children.
It was fit, that our Lord's minircrie (hould be very public. It is manifefl from all the four Evangelifts, that it was fo. Which can- not but be the ground of great fatisfadion to us.
5. The gcnuinnefie of the xxi. or lail chapter of St. Johns Gofpel ought not tot)e con te (led.
Grotius indeed was of opinion, that (b) St. G g 2 John
(h) Omnino arbitror, quae hie fequuntur conclufionem efle
totius
452 St. John. Ch IX. .
yohn concluded his Gofpel with the words, which are at the end of the xx. chapter : and that what is in the xxi. chapter was added af- ter St.Jobns death by the church of Epbfus. Againft that opinion the general, or fcj even univerfal confent of manufcripts and verlions is a great objedion. For it is very probable, that this Gofpel was publifhed be- fore St. Johns death. And if there had been an edition without this chapter, it is very likely, that it would have been wanting in fome copies. To which may be added, that we do not find, that any of the ancient Chriftian writers ever made a queftion, whe- ther this chapter was compofed by St. yob?2j
or
totlus operis, et ibi finifTe JoKannem librum, quern edidit. At ficut caput ultimum Pentateuch!, et caput ultimum Jofuae poft Mofis et Jofuae mortem additum eft a Synedrio Hebraeo- rum : ita et caput quod fequitur poft mortem Johannis addi- tum ab Ecclefia Ephefina, hoc maxirae fine, ut oftenderetur impletum quod de longaevitate ac non violenta morte Johannis Dominus pracdixerat. &:c. Grot, adyoh. xx. 30.
(c) Ceterum in tanto codicuni et verfionuni confenfu, eoquc prorfus univerfali, cogitari non debebat, caput hoc ab Eccle- fia demura Ephefma acceffifte. Quis enim negate tuto poteft, Evangelium Johannis ante ipfius obitum, adeoque ante addi- tum hoc, quod creditur, fupplementum accefliire ? Et quis crcdiderit, vel fic omnes codices in exhibendo ifto capite tam conftanter confcntire potuifie ? Wolf, in Job. cap. xxi. in.
Ch. IX. Sf. Jobfu 453
or by another. Finally, (dj the ftile is St. yobn's. In chapter xix. 35. ^nd he that faw it bare record. And his record is true. And he kno"Jceih^ that he fays true. Here xxi. 24. This is the difciple, 'which tejiijietb of thcfe ihingSy and wrote thefe things. And we know, that his teftimonie is true. Compare like wife ver. 7. and 20. The lall words of the chap- ter, at ver. 25. are thefe : And there are alfo many other things ^ which Jefus did : the which if they Jhould be written every one, I fuppofe, that even the world itfelf could not contain the books that Pdould be written. Which claufe evidently Is from the fame perfon, who wrote ver. 30. and 31. of ch. xx. Here the Evan- gelift feems to check himfelf, and to deter- mine, not to proceed a»ny farther. For if he
G g 3 fbould
(d) Rejicimus hie fententiam eorum, qui ah alia manu, quam ipfius Johannis Evangeliflae hoc caput eflc adjeflum pu- tant. Nam ita clare ftilum redolet Apolloli, ut fi aliquis alius id adjeciflet, non fine impoilura iftud facere potuiflet. Neq«e enim fe Joannetn vocat, fed more fuo difcipulum, quern lefus amabat. ver. 7. 20. Turn haec addit : Hie ejl dlfcipdus tile, qui de his tejlatur, et haec fcriffit , ver. 24. Quae defendi non pofliint a mendacio, fi quifquam alius praeter Apoftolum hoc caput adjecifiTet. Adde, quod diligentiflimi circa tales circumftantias Patres, Eufebius, Hieronymus, atque alii, noji itaplcnefilen- tio id involviffent. &c. ¥r. Lamp, in Jo. E'vang. cap. xxi. loin, 3./>. 720. 721. Vid. et Mill. Proleg. num. 349. 250.
454 ^^' >^^^^^ Ch. IX.
(liould attempt to commit to writing every thing which Jefus had faid and done, he fhould never come to an end.
Says Dr. Whitby upon ch. xx. 3 If. " Some *' think, that St. John here ended his Gofpel, ^* and that the following chapter was written " by fome other hands. But theffe Words " give no ground for that imagination : fince '* other Apoftles, after they feem to have con- " eluded their epiftles, add fome new matter: " as may be ittn in the conclufions of the ** epiftles to the Romans^ and to \htHt' brews'' V See Rom. ch. xv. and xvi. Hebr. xiii. 21. . .
25. I would likewife refer to Mr. Lehfant's note upon ch. xxi. 24. Who alfo afTerts the genuinneffe of this lad chapter.
CHAP.
455'
t~i>!^ 5^i&> 'W**" '■^tji'' T9>.*r«5\ _^«'?^^5^'&'^ -'SjefP jwi
CHAP. X.
Tbe ^eflion confidered^ whether afjy one of the Jir/i three EvaJtgeli/is hadfeen the Gofpeh of th'e otlxrs^ before he wrote.
rM^)^"^ERE 1 {hall In the firfl place Q TT Q mention the different fentiments )^ M of learned moderns concerning
tiM.^M,M this point. And then I intend to confider the merits of the queftion.
Calvi?i (a) In the preface to his Harmonic of the Gofpels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, declares it to be his opinion, that St. Mark was fo far from having abridged St.
G g 4 Matthew'^
(a) Mihi certe magls probabile eft, et ex re ipfa conjicere licet, numquam librum Matthaei fuilTe ab eo infpedum, cum ipfe fuum fcriberet: tantum abeft, ut in compendium ex pro- fefTo redigere voluerit. Idem et de Luca judicium facio. Calvin, argum. in Eimngel. {^c. ^
456 Whether any of the firfl three Eijangellfts Ch . X .
Matthew 'i, Golpel, that he thinks he had ne- ver fcen it. Which he alfo fuppoles to have been St. Luke's cafe.
This like wile muil have been the opinion of Bafr/age. Fur he fuppotetli (i>) St. Luke's to have been the firft written of all the Gofpels. Confequcntjy this Evangelift could not borrow either from St. Matthew, or St. Mark.
Mr. Whijion in (c) his Harmonic of the four Evangeliils calkd St. Mark the epiiomi- zer of St. Matthew, ^wjoiies^ in his Vindi- cation of St. Matthews Gofpel, well, and largely argued againft th it opinion,
Mr. Dc^'tc;^// declared his opinion upon this fubjed after this manner. *' That (d) none
" of
(h) Bafn. Ann. 60. num. xxxi. (c)P.iOZ.
(d) Sic latuerant in illis terrarum angulis, in qulbus fcripta fuerant, Evangelia, ut ne quidem refciverint recentiores Evangeliftae, quid fcripfiiTent de iifdem rebus antiquiores. Aliter foret ne tot eflent i.vAV7iO(poc)m, quae fere a prima ufque canonis conftitutione eruditorum hominum ino-enia exercuerint. Certe S. Lucas li genealogiam illam Domini in Matthaeo vi- difet, non aliam ipfe, nihilque fere habentem commune, pro- duxiffet, ne quidem minima confilii tarn diverfi edjta rations* S. Matthaeus, qui folus e noftris Luca erat antiquior, ipfe erat etvTOTSTHj. . . . S. Joannes Luca longo erat intervallo in
fcriptione
(C
Ch. X. hadfcen each others Go/pels ? ^^y
" of the firft three Evangelifts had feen the others Gofpels. Otherwife there could not ** have been in them fo many Teeming con- *' traditions, which have exercifed the *' thoughts of inquilitive men ahnoll ever *' fince the forming of the canon of the New •^ Teflament. Certainly, if St. Luke had fcQn *' the genealogie of our Lord, which is in St. " Matthew, he would not have publiflied *' another fo very different, without affiorningf *' any reafon for it. , . St. Matthew is the only ** one of our Evangelifls, who wrote before ** St. Luke. . . St. John did not write till long " after St. Luke. Nor did Mark write till af- *' ter St. Luke, if he wrote his Gofpel in the " fam.e year that he finillied the Acls of the ** Apoftles. Which feems to me very pro- ** bable. For the Ads are the fecond book of *' the fame work. As is evident from what
*' himfelf
fcriptione junior. Junior etiam S. Marcus, fi quidem S Lucas eo fcripferit anno Evangelium, quo Ada terminavit Apofto ■ lorum. Quod ego fane puto verifiminimum. Sunt enini A<^a XivTifo; ejufdem operis \'oyo<;, cujus -srpwTov ^'oycv ipfe fuum agnoicit Evangelium. Ad. i. i. . . Ita quo anno fcrip- tum eft a S. Luca Evangelium fecundus fluxerit Apollolo Paulo annus captivitatis Romanae. Eo enim ufque Aftorum hiftoria perducla eft. S. autem IVIarcus, feu poft obitum Petri, feu non multo antea, fcripfifle videtur. Dodvj, Dijf. Iren. i, num. xxxix.
458 Whether any ofthejirji three Evangelijls Ch. X,
" himfelf fays Ads i. i. St. Luke\ Gofpel " thLfefore was writ in the fecond year of the *' Apoftle Pcaih imprifonment at Rofne. For '* fo far the hiftorie of the Ads reaches. But " St. Mark feems not to have writ untill af- " ter the death of St. Peter ^ or not long before ** it." This then is the order of the four E- vangelifts, according to Mr. Dodwell : Mat' thew the iirft, Luke the fecond, Mark the third, and 'John the fourth.
How Mr. LeClerc argued on the fame fide, was feen (ej formerly.
On the other hand, Grotius fays, it (f) is manifeft from comparing their Gofpels, that Mark made ufe of Matthew.
Mill has fpoken largely to this point in his
. Prolegomena. " He fays, it (g) was not the
" defign of St. Mark, to make an abridge-
" ment
(e) See Vol. .v.p.2^1.... 235.
{/J Ufum effe Marcum Matthaei Evangelic apertum facit collatio. Grof. ad Marc. cap. i, 'uer. i.
(g) Ipfam Eva«gelii flrufturam quod attinet, neutiquam Marco inflitutum fuit, quod nonnullis videtur, Evangeliuiu Matthaei in epitomen redigere. Practerquam enim quod fer- vatum a Matthaeo ordinem non ubique fequatur, quod fane epitomatoris foret, in ejufdem rei narratione Matthaeo haud raro prolixior eft, ac plurima pafiim inferta habet, eaque fubinde magni ad elucidandam hiiloriam momenti, froleg, num. 103.
Gh. X. hadfecn each others Gcfpeh ? 459
** ment of St. Matthew's Gofpel, as forhe have " fuppofed. For he does not always follo^S " St. Matthew'^ order, as an abridger wbuld ** have done. And he is oftentimes more *' prolix in his hiftories of the fame thing ^' than St. MattheWy and has inferted many " additional things, and fome of great mo- *' ment for illuflrating the evangelical hif^orie. *' ... Nay (h) To far was Mark from in tend - " ing tb abbreviate SX.Matthew'% Gofpel, that *^ there ha\^e been men of great fame, as Cal- " iiiny arid our Dodweil, who we're of opi- '* nion, that St. Mark and Luke had never feen ** Matthews Gofpel. However, Grciws was " of a different opinion. Ahd indeed the " d:reat reftmblance of the ftile and comoofi- *' tion of thefe tv^o Evangelifts manifefls the " truth of it.'*
Of St. Luke Mili fays : '' Nothing (i) h
" more
(h) Imd cferte adeo nihil Marco erat in animo d'e abbrevi- ando Matthaei Evangelio, ut haud defint magni nominis auflores, qui exiftimant, a Marco ne quidem vifum fui/Te E- vangelium Matthaei. . . . Ceterum contrarium evincit, Evan- gelium imprimis Matthaei et Marci quod attinet, iftorum phrafeos, ipfiufque contextus firailitudo. Ibid. n. 107.
(i) Certe evulgatum fuifTe illud pofl: editionem Evangelio- rum Matthaei et Marci, ex collatione trium horum inte'r fe luce clarius apparet. Nihil fcilicet evidentius, quam D. Lu-
460 Whether any of the fir ft three Evangeltjis Ch. X. *' more evident, than that he made ufe of the "•* Gofpels of Matthew and Mark. For he has '' borrowed from them many phrafes and ex- " preffions, and even whole paragraphs word " for word."
But there Is not fufficient foundation for fuch ftrong alTertions, in the account, which Mill himfelf gives of the time of writing the firft three Gofpels. For, according to him, ^i, Matthew 2^ Gofpel was publilhed in (k) the year 61. St. Mark\ (I) in 63. hi. Luke's (m) in 64. Which is but one year later. Nor has -M/// made it out, that ^i.Mark's was pub- liftied fo foon as the year 63. For he owns, that it was not writ, till after Peters and Paul's departure from Rome. Which could not be, till after the year 63. How then could ^i.Luke make fomuch ufeof St.iW^r/^'s Gofpel, as is pretended ?
I allege but one author more, relating to this point. Mr. Wetftein fays, that (n) Mark made ufe of Matthew. And of St. Luke he
fays,
cam Enangeliorum Matthaei et Marci ipfus pt^jrtif, phrafes et locutiones, imo vero totas pericopas, in fuum nonnunquam ctfToAf^ei traduxifle. Ib.num. i\6.
(k) Proleg. num. 6i. (I) Ihid. num. lOI.
(m) Ibid. num. 1 1 2 .
(n) De Marco ap. T. Gr. T. i, p. S^2.
Ch.X. had feejt each others Gofpeh ? 461
fays, " that (0) he tranfcribed many things from Matthew, and yet more from Mark!* But may I not fay, that before Mr. IVet^ Jiein aiTerted fuch things, he (hould have given at left: fome tolerable account of the times, when the Evangellfts wrote, and that St. Mark was prior in time to Luke? Which I do not perceive him to have done. St. Mat' thew% Gofpel, indeed, he fuppofes to have been writ (p) in the eighth year after our Lord's afcenfion. But of St. Luke he obferves, that (q) ecclefiafliical writers fay, he pub- liflied his Gofpel at about fifteen, or as others about two and twenty years after our Sa- viour's afcenfion. Plis account of St. Mark is, " that (r) he was with Feter at Babylon, *' Thence he came to Rome, and was with " St. Paul during his captivity there. Col. iv.
** 10.
(0) Lucam multa ex Matthaeo, ex Marco plura defcripfifTe, ex colladone patet. De Luca ibid, p, 643.
(p) Ibid p. 223.
(q) Ibid p. 643.
(r) Poftea videtur Petro adhaefiffe, et cum eo Babylone fuifle. 1 . Pet. V. 13. Inde Romam venit, Paulumque captivum mvifit. Col. iv. 10. Philem. 23. Inde ad CoIofTenfes abiit, a quibus rogatu Pauli Romam rediit. 2. Tim. iv. 1 1. ubi Evan- gelium confcripfifle, et Matthaeum quidem in compendium redegUTe, nonnuHa vero, quae a Petro audiverat, adjeciffe di- citur, Ibid.t, 551.
462 Whether any ofthejirji three Evangelijls Ch. X,
" 10. Philem. 23. Then he went to Colojje, ** Afterwards at the defire of the Apoltle " he came to him thence to Rofne, 2 Tim. iv. ** II. Where he is faid to have writ his " Gofpel, abridging St. Matthew, and adding " fome things, which he had heard from " Peter'' A very fine charader of pur E- vangelift, truly ! But according to this ac- count of St. Mark\ travels, ^nd of the place, where his Gofpel was writ, it coulcj not be publlflied before the year 64. or 65. How then could St. Luke make ufe of it, if he wrote fo foon 2.% fifteen or two and twe?ity yean after Chrii]:'s afcenfion ?
I proceed now to fpeak mqre diilindly to the merits of the quell ion.
I. It does not appear, that any of the learn ^ ed ancient Chriftian writers had a fufpicion, that any of the firft three Evangelifls had (ctw the others hiflories, before they wrote.
They fay indeed, " that when the three firft written Gofpels had been delivered to all men, they were alfo brought to St. Johuy and that he confirmed the truth of their narrati- on : but faid, there were fome things omitted by them, which might be profitably related :" or, *' that he wrote laft, fupplying fome things, which had been omitted by the for- mer
Ch. X. hadjeen each others Go/pels ? 463
mer Evangelifts.*' After this manner fpeak (s) Eufebiiis of Cefarea^ ft) Epipbaniu^, (u) Theodore of Mopfueftiay and (x) 'Jerome, Not now to mention any others. Augujiin indeed about the end of the fourth centurie, or the begining of the fifth, fuppofeth (y) the firfl three Evangehfts not to have been totally ig- norant of each others labours, and confiders Mark's Gofpel as an abridgement of St. Mat- thew\. But, as (z) formerly obferved, fo far as I know, he is the firft, in which that opinion is found. Nor does it appear, that he was followed by fucceding writers.
2. It is not fuitable to the characfter of any of the Evangelifts, that they fiiould abridge, or tranfcribe another hiilorian.
St. Matthew was an Apoftle, and eye-wit- nelTe. Confequently, he was able to write of his own knowledge. Or, if there were any parts of our Lord's miniflrie, at which he was not prefent, he might obtain informati- on from his fellow-apod les, or other eye-wit- neffes. And as for other things, which hap- pened before the Apoftles were called to fol- low
(i) See Fol. <viii. p. ^t. (t) P.^oj.
(u) Vol. ix. p. 404, (x) Vol. x.p.gS. 99.
(jj Vol, X. p. 229. (zj P. 236.
464 whether any of the Jirjl three 'Evangelifts Ch. X.
low him, concerning his nativity, infance, and youth : as Augiijlin (a) fays, thefe the Apof- tles might know from Chrift himfelf, or from his parents, or his friends and acquaintance, who were to be depended upon.
St. Marky if he was not one of Chrlll's fe- venty difciples, was an early Jewifli believer, acquainted with all the Apoft les, P^/^r in par- ticular, and with many other eye-witneffes. Confequently, well qualified to write a Gof- pel.' Mill (b) himfelf has been fo good, as to acknowledge this.
St. Liike^ if he was not one of Chrifl's fe- venty difciples, nor an eye-witneffe, was a difciple, and companion of Apoftles, efpeci- ally, of PW, as is univerfally allowed. And
he
(a) See Vol. x. p. zzj.
(h) Marcus il.le, qulfquis fuerit, ad Evangelium confcriben- dum abunde inftrudlus accedebat. Si enim filius fuit Mariae, civis iftius Hierofolymitanae . . . ei fane jam a tempore con- verfionis tarn frequens iuterceflerat, ac plane familiare cum ipfis Apoflolis commercium, ut vix aliqua aetatis fuae pars ipforum confortio vacarit : ita ut quotidie ab illis petere licu- erit de diftis ac fadlis Domini 'pra^ctJ'offeii, quas conferret in commentarium. Sane, quifquis fuerit hie Marcus, apud Ve- teres plane convenit, fuiffe eum D. Petri comitem et inter- pretem : ipfumque comitatum fuiffe Romam ufque . . . adeo ut ex Apoftoli Knpva'ffoy.kvoii acceperit neceffe fit pleniiTimam et exaftiffimam hiftoriae totius evangelicae cognitionem. Mi// Pro/eg. ». 102.
Cli. X. had feen each others Go/pels F 465
he mufl: therefore have been well quaHficd to write a Gofpel. Moreover, as (c) has hecii fhewn, it is manifeft from J»is introdudiion, that he knew not of any authentic hiftorie of JefusChrid, that had been yet written. And he exprelHy fays of hiinfelf, that he had per- JeB underftanding of all things from the very jirji, and he profefTeth to "write of them to Thc' ophiliis in order. After all this to {-d.^, that he tranfcribed many things from one hiftori- an, and yet more from another, fo far as I am able to judge, is no lefs than a contradidion of the EvangeliH: himfelf.
3. The nature and deHgn of the firft three Gofpels maniieftly rtiew, that the Evangelifts had not feen any authentic written hiftorie of Jefus Chrift.
This is one of the obfervations of Le Clerc relating to this point : " We (d) can fcarcely "doubt, whether 'St. John had feen the other " three Gofpels. For as he is faid to have *' lived to a great age, fo'it. appears from his " Gofpel itfelf, that he took care not to repeat " things related by them, except a fcv/on!y, *' and thofe neceffarie things. But I do not
(c) See before p. So. , . 85.
(d) See Vol. X, p, 7,11. 234.
Vol. I. * H h ** fee,
466 Whether any ofthefirji three Eva?:geUJis Ch. -X.
*' fee, how it can be reckoned certain, that ** Mark knew of Matthew 2> having writ a *' Gofpel before him : or that Ltike knew, " that they two had writGofpels before him. " If Mark had feen.the work oi Matthew ^ it *' is hkely, that he would have remained fa- " tisfied with it, as being the work of an A- ** poftle of Chrifl:, that is, an eye-witnefle, " which he was not." And what there fol- lows.
I muft enlarge upon this obfervation. I forbear to infift nowonthe genealogies, which are in St. Matthew and St. Luke only. But I fay, that the writings of all and each one of thefe three Evangelifts contain an entire Gof- pel, or a compleat hiflorie of the miniftrie of Jefus Chrifl : or, to borrow St. Luke's expref- iions, Ads i. i. 2. a hiftorie of ^// that Jefus both did and taught^ iintillthe day, in the which he was taken up to heaven. For in all and every one of them is the hiftorie of cur Lord's fore- runner, his baptifm, preaching, and death, and of our Lord's being baptized by him : when by a voice from heaven he was pro- claimed to be the Meffiah. Then follows our Lord's temptation in the wildernelTe. After which is an account of our Lord's preaching, and his begining to gather dif-
cipleSj *
Ch. X. hadfecn each others Gofpcls f 467
ciples, the choice of the twelve Apoftles, and their names : and our Lord's going over the land of Ifrael, preaching the dodrine of the kingdom, attended by his twelve Apoftlcs, in fynagogues, and in cities and villages, v/ork- ing all kinds of healing and faving miracles, upon all forts of perfons, in all places, in the prefence of multitudes, and before Scribes, and Pharifees, as well as others. A particu- lar mifiion of his Apoftles, in the land of IfraeL Our Lord's tran figuration on the mount, when there appeared Mofes and Elias talking with him, and there came a voice from heaven, faying : This is my beloved Son, Hear him. His going up to 'Jenifahm^ and making a public entrance into the city, then ' cleanling the temple, where he often taught the people, and preached the gofpel, and openly afferted his authority and charader : keeping the Paflbver with his difciples, and inftituting a memorial of himfelf : his lafl fufFerings, and death, with the behaviour of yudas, the traitor, Feter^ and the reft of the difciples : his burial, refurredion, with the evidences of it, and the general commiffion to his Apoflles, to preach the Gofpel in all the world, and to all forts of perfons therein.
H h 2 Here
468 Whether any ofthejirfl three Evangelifis Ch. X,
Here are all the integrals of a Gofpel. And they are properly filled up. And all tHefe things are in all and every one of the firfl three Evangeiiils. Which fl^iews, that they did not know of each others writings. For it cannot be thought, that they Ihould be dif- pofed to fay the fame things over and over, or to repeat what had been well faid already. St. Joh?2j who had feen the other three Gof- pels, has little in common with them. AI- moil every thing in his Gofpel is new and additional. So it would have been with every other writer in the like circumftance.
And if St. Matthew's Gofpel had been writ at about eight, or fifteens or twenty years after our Lord's afcenfion, and had become gene- rally known among the faithful : (as it cer- tainly would, foon after it was writ :) it is not improbable, that we fhould have had but two Gofpels, his and St. Johns. Or if there had been feveral, they would all, except the firfl, have been in the manner of fupplements, like St. Johns, not entire Gofpi^ls, like thofe of the firft three Evangelifls.
This confideration appears to me of great moment, for fliewing that our firfl three E- van'^eliils are all independent witneiTes. In- deed
Ch. X. hadfcen each others Gcfpeh t 469
deed it f ems to me to be quite fatisfaflorie, and decilive.
3. There are in thefe three Gofpels, as was obferved jufl now by Mr. Dodwellj many feerr.ing contradidions: which have exercifed thefK-ili ot thoughtfull men to reconcile them. This is another argument, that thefe Evange- hfls did not write by concert, or after having fcen each others Gofpels.
5. In fome hiflories, which are in all thefe three Evangrlifts, there are fmall varieties and diiferences, which plainly fhew the fame thing. I fhall allege two or three inftances only.
I.) In Matdi. viii. 28. . , 34. iMark v. i. . . 20. Luke viii. 26. . . 40. is the account of the cure of the demoniac, or demoniacs, in the countrey of the Gadarens. It is plainly the fame hiftorie, as appears from many agreeing circumftances. Neverthelefs there are feve- ral differences. St. Matthew fpeaks of t\Vo men. St. Mark and St. Luke of one only. In Mark alone it is faid, that the man 'was at- vjayi flight and day in the fnoimtains, crying^ and cut ting himfelf with fiones . A n d h e a 1 on e mentions the number of the fwine that were drowned. He likewife fays, that the man be-
H h 3 fought
Whether any ofthejirjl three Evangelijis Ch. X.
fought our Lord much^ that he would not fend them away out of the countrey, St. huke fays : the demom hejoiight him^ that he would not com- mand them to go out into the deep, or abyffe. Surely thefe Evangeliils did not abridge, or tranfcribe each others writings.
2.) in Matt. xvii. i. . . 13. Mariv ix. i. . . 13. Luke ix. 28. . . 36. are the accounts of our Lord's transfiguration on the mount. Where St. Matthew fays : his face did fJjine as ihefuUy and his raiment was white as the light, St. Mark : And his raiment became JJjining, exceedifig white as fnou\ fo as no juller on earth can white them. St. Luke : And as he prayed, the fajliicn of his countenance was altered^ and lis raiment was white and glittering. It is plain, I think, that none had feen what the other had writ. In the defcription of the fplendour of our Lord's perfon, and gar- ments, each one follows his own phanfie. In St. Matthew and St. Mark are comparifons. But they are different. In St. Luke there is no comparifon at all.
3.) Tlie third inftance Oiall be what fol- lows next in all the three Evangelifts, after our Lord was ccn^iC down from the mount. Matt. xvii. 14. . . 21. Mark ix. 14. . . 29,
Luke
Ch. X. had feen each others Gofpehf /i^yi
Luke ix. 37. . . 42. In this hiftorie of the healing the young man, who had the epi- lepfie, where St. Mark is more particular and prolix, than the other Evangelills, there are many differences. I take notice of a very few only. In St, Matthew the father of the child fays : Lord^ have mercie on my Son. For he is lunatic^ and fore vexed. And the lieal- ing him is thus related, ylnd Jefus rebuked the demon, jlnd he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour. In St. Mark the father of the child fays to our Lord : Mafler^ I have brought unto thee my fon^ who has a dumb fpirit. And when our Lord healed him, he rebuked the foul fpirit ^ faying unto him : Thou dumb and deaf fpirit, I charge thee, come out of him^ and enter no fnore into him. And what follows. In St. Luke the father fays : Majler, 1 befeech thee, look upon my [on. For he is my only child.
Certainly, he v/ho obferves thefe things, muft be fenfible, that thefe hiftorians did not borrow from each other. There are many other like inflances. To mention them all wouM be endlefs.
I fhall add a confideration or two more, which muft be allowed to be of fome weight in this queftion.
H h 4 6. There
472 Whether any ofthefrrji dree E'vangclljli Ch. X.
6. There are fome things in St. Matthews Gofpel, very remarkablcj of which no notice is taken either by St. Mark, or St. Luke.
I intend, particularly, the vifit of the Ma- gians, with the caufes of it, and it's circum- Aances, and then the confequencs of it, our Saviour's flight into Egypt, and the flaughter of the infants at Bethlehem, and near it. Matt. ' ii. The dream of P//^/^'s wife. ch. xxvii. 19. the affair ofthePvoman guard at thefepulchre. xxviii-. II. . . 15. an earthquake, rending of rocks, and the re fur re 51 ion of many faints, 'who came out of their graves, and ivent into the holy city, and appeared unto many. ch. xxvii. 51,
• • • 53'
Thefe are as extraordinarie things, as any
in the Gofpels. And if St. Mark, or St. Liiket hid writ with a view of abridging, or con- firming '^i, Matthew's hiflorie, fome, or all of thefs things, would have been taken notice of by them. It is alfo very obfervable, that St. Luke has no account of the miracle of feeliing four thoufand with feven loaves and a Jew little filh'es, which is in Matt. xv. 32. . . 39. Mark viii. I. ... 9.
And what has been jufl new faid of St. Miitthew, particularly, may be alfo applied
to
Ch. X. had fee n each others Gofpels f 47 ^
to St. Luke, fuppcfing his to have been the firft written Gofpel. For in him alfo are many remarkable things, not to be found in the o- ther Gofpels. And if St-A^-z^/^^-wor St Mark had writ with a view of abridging or con- firming St. Liike\ hiftorie, thofe things would not have been paded over by them Vv'ithout any notice.
7. All the firft three Evangelifls have ma- ny things peculiar to themfelves. Which rtiews, that they did not borrow from each S^ther, and that they were all well acquainted with the things, of which they undertook to write a hiftorie.
Many fuch things are in Matthew, as Is well known to all. I therefore need not en- large on them. And a few of them were juft now taken notice of.
St. Mark likewife has many things peculi- ar to himfelf, not mentioned by any other E- vangeliil, A catalogue of them was made by us (e) formerly, though far from being compleat.
The fame is true of St. Luke. As much was obferved by Jrenaeus, v/ho fays, " there <* are many, and thofe neceflarie parts of the
" Gofpel,
(() See before p. iq8. . . , 208,
TVljether any ofthejirji three Evangelijls Ch. X.
" Gofpel, which we know from Luke only." His brief enumeration of thofe things was tranfcribed by us into this Work (J) long ago. Let me alfo rehearfe them here fomewhat dif- ferently. His general .introdu(5tion, the birth o^Johji the Baptifl, and many extraordinarie things, attending it. The Roman cehfus made in Judea^ by Cyrenius, or before that made by Cjrenimy which brought Jofeph and Marie from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the mean cir- cumftances of our Lord's nativity, the noti- fication of it to fhepherds by an angel, his cir- cumcifion, Marie's purification at the temple, the prophecies oi Simeon^ and Anna there, our Lord's going up to Je'rufalem at the age of twelve years. Ch. ii. The names of the Em- perour and other Princes, in whofe time John the Baptift and our Lord began to preach, and Gur Lord's age at that time, a genealogie dif- ferent from Matthew. Ch. iii. In St. Luke are alfo divers miracles, not recorded elfe- where. A numerous draught of fidies. ch. V. 4. . . 9. The cures of Marie Magdalen, Joanna, wife oiChuza, Hcrcd's Reward, and Sufa?i?2a. ch. viii. 2. 3. giving fpeech to a dumb man. ch. xi. 14. a woman healed in
a fyna-
(f) Vol, ii. p, 357. . . 360.
Cb. X. hadjeen each others Go/pels ? 47^
a fynagogue of an infirmity, under which fhe had labored eighteen years, ch. xiii. 10 . . 17, a man cured of the dropfie on a fabbath day, in the houfe of a Pharifee. ch. xiv. i. . . 4. Ten lepers cured at once, ch.xvii. 12. . . 19. the ear of Makhus healed, ch. xxii. 50. . . 5. the fon of a widow of Nairn raifed to life, in the fight of multitudes, when he was carried out to burial, ch. vii. 11... 17. a miracle of refurredtion, related by no other Evangelift. In him alone is the miffion of the fcventy dif- ciples. ch. X. i. . . 20. Divers beautiful pa- rables fpoken by our Lord, which are not to be found elfewhere : the parable of the good Samaritan, ch. x. 25. . . 37. the parable of the loft piece of filver, and the prodigal fon. ch. XV. 8. . . 32. of the unjuft fteward. xvi. i. , . 1 2. the rich man and Lazarus. 19. . . 3 1. the importunate widow, xviii. i, . . 8. the Phari- fee and Publican, that went up to the temple to pray. ver. 9. . . 14. To St, Luke alfo are peculiar our Lord's entertainment at the houfe of a Pharifee, where came in the woman that was a finner. ch. vii. 36. . . 50. his entertain- inent at the houfe of Martha, x. 38. . . 42. the hiftorie of Zaccheus. xix. i. . . 10. our Lord's agonie in the garden, xxii. 43. 44. the
penitent
^76 Whether any of the fir fl three Evangelijls Ch . X. penitent thief on the crolTe. xxiii. 39. . . 43. and a particular account of the two difciples •going to Emmaiis, xxiv. 13. . . 35.
Ail thefe, and many other things, which I omit, are peculiar to St. Luke. And did he tranfcribe many things from St.MattbeWj and yet more from St. Mark f
Milh argument, taken from the limilitude of ftile and compofition, to prove, that thefe Evangeiius had feen each others writings, ap- pears to be infufiicient. And himfclf allows, that (g) two authors writing upon the fame fubjedt in the Greek language mayeafilyagree very much in expreffion.
I have infided the more upon this point, becaufe I think, that to fav, the Evangelifts abridged, and tranfcribed each other,, without giving any hint of their fo doing, is a great difparagement to them. And it likewife di- minifheth the value and importance of their teftimonie, Said Mv.LeCIerc, before quoted,
" They
(g) Verum quldem eil, eum efTe linguae hujus, quae Evan- gelijlis in ufu erat, Hellenifticae genium earn indolem, ut ia unum ferme eundemque djcendi cliaraderem, quoties de una eademque materia agitur, fefe efformet : ife ut diveifi in hoc genere fcriptores, unum idemque aliquod argumentum parti- culate tradantes, ftilo ac fermonis tenore haud abfimili ufuri efTent. &c. Prol. mem. loS.
cc
Ch. X. hadfeen each others Gojpels ? /^yy
" They (h) feem to think more juftly, who fay, that the firft three EvangeHfts were un- acquainted with each others defign. In that " way greater weight accrues to their tefti- *' monie. When witnefTes agree, who have *' firft laid their heads together, they are fuf- " peded. Bat witneiles, who teilify the fame " thing feparatly, without knowing what o- ** thers have faid, are juiHy credited."
This is not a new opinion, lately thought of. Nor has it been taken up by me, out of cppoiltion to any. I have all my days read, and admired the firft three Evangelifts, as in- dependent, and harmonious witnefies. And I know not how to forbear ranking the othsr opinion among thofe bold, as well as ground- lefs aflertions, in which critics too often in- dulge themfelves, without confidering the confequences.
fhj See Vol, X, p. z^^.
The End of the firjl Volume.
Publiflied by the fame Author.
I. ' I ^ H E Credibility of the Gos- X PEL History, Part I. or, The Fa(fls occafionally mentioned in the New Tefta- ment confirmed by Fafiages of ancient Au- thors, who were contemporary with our Sa- viour, and his Apoftles, or lived near their Times. The third Edition, in two Volumes O6lavo. Prit:e, bound, lo^.
n. The Credibility of the Gospel History, Part II. or. The principal Fads of the New Teftament confirmed by Paf- fages of ancient Authors. In twelve Vo- lumes, Odavo. Containing a Hiftorie of Chriftian V^riters to the Begining of the twelfth Century : With their Teftimony to the Books of the New Teftament. Price, bound, 3/.
III. A Supplement to the Credibi- lity OF the Gospel History : or, A History of the Apostles and Evan- gelists, Writers of the New. Tes- tament. In which the Evidences of the Genuinnefs of the four Gofpels, the Ads of the Apoftles, the Epifdes, and the Book of
thd
Fiiblijhed by the fame Author,
the Revelation, and the Times when they were writ, are reprefented in a Light, fuited to all Capacities.
With Remarks and Obfervations upon every Book of the New TeR anient, ufefull for all, who defire to under (land the Chrif- tian Religion. In three Volumes Ovflavo. Price, bound, 15;.
Note. Any Volumes may, as yet, be had feparate, to compleatSets.
IV. Sermons upon various Subjet5ts. iiiz. The Duty of Confideration. The Unrea- fonablcnefs of Delays in Things of Religion. The Nature, Excellence, and Importance of moral Righteoufnefs. Wifdom attainable by thofe who feek it. Little Children brought to Chrift. The Happinefs of having reli- gious Parents, and other pious Relatives. The Virtue and Benefit of early Piety. A future State provable by Reafon. The Gof- pel the true Vv^ay of Salvation. The good Exercife of Faith. The Power of Chrift's Doilrine. A Recommendation of Things virtuous, lovel}^ and of good Report. The Importance of our Words. The Difficulty of governing the Tongue. The Benefit of fearing always.
'^,'i!«ip-
•i ■
Tfee**-
miw^-
r.
:^*
^^'*i
f^. ■"-
.V J'^ >•
?.^
lj,»K-^^"V
■m
4/. z .
■■\'- ■ i \ '*i %■
>F <^ 'f
^^. ■>. 'K .
■ If'
*- r. f. », '
•>. i- i^ I' fc r * I t-
" ■" ■T' -v.- ?^ •!«• I» ■*. f , t; -f '«», f >
>■ f\ ?<. -^ ^fe r^ .f f : k f . ^^ ^ .^ |, .it |. \ f \ ■
* ?: t"^ ^' ■•■; k r V r if. t t 'K *?' i % f[ i' K %[
h §■] \'.- t ; M u ^ f ^W r. K i^, ?;' -f^ It' r i' t" w f I i' .f ^ i'
^' f : K f.>' f'' -f^ ?•: 'W !( t' r; t" f^. ■*: f ; ifc' -f ' 4' K i"
te f *e
••^i r: ^
n
' W K r p*
f= ■<■ . ^:
*t' ;^v, i' a? ^5 -v
■r-\ i'
i V i' r i' -^ ■•
^'. >r ,^ -v ? » >■■■ .^. .f •$•. jf . i^ .r i f. V ■ K '^ •* fe: > •* 1^ "*' i' *• > i I ■■■ ■
■«*: *• t
.^ -4:' f '& ■■*■ 4,. k " i »> ^ ■ - • ' •■ •