صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

fixing of such a note be very proper. For instance, to the sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 2.) is prefixed xaì ȧvoížαs Tò σTóμa AUTOũ, (which is one of Mr. Whiston's notes of the order of time,) and he opened his mouth. Might not this note be very well prefixed to our Saviour's preaching, although the sermon, in the order of time, were really before that which immediately precedes it in the history? The same may be proved of almost every one of these notes, which Mr. Whiston has here mentioned, if it were necessary.

The truth is, it is a common thing in all histories to make use of such transitory or introductory phrases as these; nay even of those which seem most to imply an immediate and orderly succession of events, in a very great latitude. So for instance, Gen. xxxviii. 1. immediately after the account of Joseph's being sold into Egypt, it follows, at that time Judah went down from his brethren, &c. when as it is certain this happened a considerable time before Joseph's being sold into Egypts. Hence, says Dr. Lightfoot h, "the words at that "time are not to be referred to the next words going before in "the preceding chapter, concerning Joseph's sale to Potiphar, "but are of a more large extent; as that phrase, and the phrase "in those days, are oft in scripture." It is a trite observation among the writers of sacred chronology, that these phrases in scripture are frequently used with a great deal of latitude. It has been observed that this phrase, In that day or time, is used sixteen times in the Old and New Testament in a lax sense, and not implying a regular succession of events. So the words 'Ev de Taïs huépais èxeivais, Matt. iii. 1. are put to introduce the history, which is next to Christ's fixing at Nazareth; which was about thirty years after. Upon the whole then, if this be the use of most of these notes, only to introduce the following story, if those which seem most to be notes of time re

g See above, p. 148, 149.

h Harmon. and Chronic. of the Old Test. Gen. chap. xxxviii.

i Locutionem autem illam (in tempore illo) eodem modo in Deuter. x. 8. usurpari notat Aben-Ezra; quomodo et ab aliis est observatum, in die illo, sine determinata aliqua temporis notatione, sedecies in Veteri et Novo Tes

tamento esse positum: hocque ipso in loco, in tempore illo, non ad illud, quo in Egyptum venditus est Josephus, sed quo ipse Judas in Cananæam cum Patre advenit, referendum esse defendimus. Usser. Chronol. Sacr. c. 10. Vid. Spanheim. Dub. Evang. tom. 2. Dub. 10. et 95.

gard principally what follows, and are used in such a lax sense; then they do not prove that this part of St. Matthew's Gospel was originally wrote according to the order of time.

Thus I have considered Mr. Whiston's first assertion, viz. That St. Matthew designed originally to observe the order of time through his whole Gospel, and have endeavoured to shew that the several arguments he brings to support it are not conclusive.

CHAP. VI.

Mr.Whiston's proof of the main proposition considered. It supposes St. Mark's Gospel an epitome of St. Matthew's. This the opinion of most learned men, but certainly false. That St. Mark is not an epitome of St. Matthew, proved, first, from the account given in antiquity of the manner and occasion of his writing, viz. that he wrote at Rome from St. Peter's mouth. The testimonies out of antiquity produced. Two observations from scripture to support these testimonies.

MR. WHISTON having attempted to prove that St. Matthew, in this part of his Gospel, designed to observe the order of time, proceeds to shew that the several branches of the history in this part are not according to the order of time. But before he comes to a particular proof of this, he says, "He will " in general prove the main proposition by the most authentic ❝ evidence, viz. the testimony of St. Mark k." This indeed, if it be any evidence at all, will be most authentic and indisputable. Let us a little consider it.

"St. Mark," says Mr. Whiston, "was the epitomizer of St. "Matthew-gives us such an account of our Saviour's acts,

[ocr errors]

as demonstrates that St. Matthew's Gospel lay then before "him, and was the almost only guide he followed in his his"tory. Now supposing this," says he, "it will follow, that "either that copy of St. Matthew, which St. Mark made use of, was in a different order from that which we now have, (in "the chapters under consideration,) or else that he knew the

86

* Page 102.

"order of his copy to be wrong, and contrary to the original 66 one, and so reduced it in his epitome to the true and regular "series of events, which he learned from St. Peter. Now "either of these is sufficient for my present purpose; for it is "evident that St. Mark does not observe the order of the pre"sent copies of St. Matthew (whom he epitomizes) in that part we are speaking of," &c. This now is St. Mark's testimony, and Mr. Whiston's most convincing argument, of the truth of the proposition, viz. that the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel, in our present copies, is not now in its true and first intended order.

[ocr errors]

However specious and plausible this argument may at first appear, I doubt not but every unbiassed mind, after a more close examination, will be very far from thinking it conclusive and convincing. The two following considerations will sufficiently invalidate the force of this reasoning, viz.

I. St. Mark did not epitomize or abridge St. Matthew's Gospel, nor had he it lying before him when he wrote.

II. Suppose St. Mark did abridge and make use of St. Matthew's Gospel in composing his, yet it will not follow either that the copies he then used were, or our present copies now, are misplaced, and out of the order originally intended by St. Matthew.

I. St. Mark did not epitomize or abridge St. Matthew's Gospel, nor had he it lying before him when he wrote. In undertaking to prove this, I am very well aware that I oppose the sentiments of learned men in all ages of the church: ancient and modern writers have almost all, with one common consent, voted and agreed St. Mark's Gospel to be an epitome of St. Matthew's.

Austin', among the ancients, and among later writers Erasmus m, Sixtus Senensis ", Alsted, Grotius P; Spanheim 4, Toinard', and many others, assert it. Nay, Erasmuss in another

Marcus Matthæum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur. Aug. de Consens. Evang. l. 1.

e. 2.

m Annot. in Nov. Test. ad Marc. i. 1.

n Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 1. ad voc. Marc. Præcognit. Theolog. 1. 2. p. 263.

P Annot. ad Marc. i. I. q Histor. Eccles. Sæcul. I. c. 6. r Prolegom. in Harm. Evang. p. 4. s Erasmus, in Apolog. contra Albertum Carporum Principem, scribit, eundem fuisse utriusque evangelii scriptorem. Vid. Sixt. Senens. 1. 7. de Marci evangelio.

place has carried the matter somewhat further, and by a certain likeness, which he imagined he observed in the style and idiom of these two Gospels, (contrary to all antiquity, and even to himself in the place first cited), is induced to believe they both were wrote by the same person.

But notwithstanding this so universal agreement of learned men in this matter, I am not afraid to undertake the defence of the contrary opinion. It is no new or uncommon thing for the bulk of critics and commentators to agree in an error. An opinion that is plausible, and has some appearance of probability, first started by a person of reputation, and ushered into the world under some great name, is very often universally received, and for a long time entertained as an unquestionable truth, though all the while it be really false: but if in process of time it has the good fortune to be espoused by more men of reputation and character, for sense and learning, it then acquires a sort of sanctity, and, through I know not what sort of fearfulness, men dare not so much as suspect or call in question the truth of a proposition which has been believed by almost all learned men. This I verily believe was the case in respect of the point we are now upon. Austin, and some others of reputation, first started it: to others, who would not be at the pains of examining into the truth of it, it seemed plausible, and so they received it. And by this means many learned men suffered themselves to be imposed upon, taking that for truth, which they certainly had rejected as false, had they but ventured strictly and closely to examine it. But numbers are no evidence of truth, and (as Mr. Whiston well observes in another place t) "a common opinion without a solid foundation is of "no great value." He that heartily and in good earnest seeks after truth, must not suffer himself to be impressed either with the number or reputation of those who think otherwise than he does. It was a noble resolution of Seneca's ", "That he "would obstinately persist in the search of truth; not making "his understanding a slave to any man's, nor giving in to "any opinion, only because it was published under a great "name."

t Chronol. of the Old Testam. p. 16. u Verum contumaciter quæram;

non enim me cuiquam mancipavi, nullius nomen fero, &c. Sen. Epist. 45.

I shall therefore endeavour to prove this common opinion (viz. that St. Mark epitomized St. Matthew) false; and I shall take the more pains in the matter, not only because I shall thereby invalidate Mr. Whiston's most authentic evidence, but set a matter in a clear light, which (as far as I can find) no one yet has attempted to do, and so withal recover the honour of this Gospel, (viz. St. Mark's,) which has so long lain under this hard and injurious charge, of being extracted and compiled out of St. Matthew. And,

1. It is very evident that St. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, from the accounts we have in ecclesiastical history of the manner and occasion of St. Mark's writing his Gospel. The substance of all those accounts which we have is this, viz. That St. Mark, (who was the companion and interpreter of St. Peter,) being at Rome with him, was desired by the brethren there, to give them an account in writing of what he had learnt from St. Peter, of the doctrines and life of Christ; that they did not desist in their entreaties till they had prevailed, and this was the cause or reason of the Gospel, we now call St. Mark's, being first wrote. This in short is the account, and it seems to be as largely attested by the ancients, as almost any matter of fact whatsoever, at that distance from us. Papias, Irenæus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and many others, all agree as to the main of this fact.

The most full and ancient relation of this matter is that of Clemens Alexandrinus, cited by Eusebius in two several places, and confirmed in the first of those places by the most ancient testimony of Papias. To the same purpose (though not quite so full) is the account of Irenæus, viz. "That St. “Mark committed to writing the things which he heard St. "Peter preach y." So Origen", "That St. Mark made or

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« السابقةمتابعة »