ページの画像
PDF
ePub

respect to make it like St. Mark's, I am fure every one would blame it, as not duly done. Mr. Whiston has made an epitome of the Gospel history; and it is no compliment at all, nor a character fo great, as that ingenious performance deferves, to fay, it is a much better epitome of the Gospels (not only in this respect, but many others) than St. Mark's Gospel is of St. Matthew's. A juft epitomizer should have at least the general heads of the history, which he abridges, in his epitome ; St. Mark has not fo much as this, and therefore Father Simon hath reasoned very juftly on this matter; "It is, " fays he, worth obferving, that St. Mark cannot pass for a "fimple abbreviator of St. Matthew, because he insists more "at large, than he doth in fome places; befides, if he had only " a design to publish' an epitome of St. Matthew's Gospel, "he would not have taken away the entire genealogy of Je"fus Chrift, which makes one of the moft principal parts of "it it is not the custom of those that epitomize the works "of others, to retrench the most considerable part of them."

:

a Critic. Hiftor. of the New Teft. Par. 1. c. 10. p. 89.

[blocks in formation]

CHAP. X.

The fixth Argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel is not an Epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. because that Suppofition makes its Infpiration more dubious and uncertain; it makes the Author look like a Plagiary. Two Objections against this Argument anfwered. The feventh Argument, the fuppofing this Gospel an Epitome detracts from its Honour and Usefulness. Spinoza and Father Simon for this reason affert most of the Books of the Old Testament, to be only Epitomes, made out of Records that are loft. Laftly, the fuppofing this Gospel an Epitome, invalidates in a great Measure its Teftimony to the Truth of Chriftianity. The Evangelifts did not fee one another's Gospels.

Arg. VI.

ST

T. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome or abridgment of St. Matthew's; because the fuppofing it to be fo, makes its infpiration more dubious and uncertain. That this Gofpel (as well as the other historical books, which are received into the Canon of the Old and New Teftament) was wrote under the conduct and immediate influences of the divine Spirit, is what I muft at present take for granted. Mr. Whifton, when he wrote the propofition, which I am now endeavouring to disprove, believed the writers of the Gospel hiftory to be infpired; and therefore it is not at all necessary I should now undertake the proof of this matter. There is only one thing I would offer to Mr. Whifton's confideration on this head, and that is, that many of the most antient and genuine writers of the Chriftian Church (fuch as Mr. Whiston himself reckons most valuable) give us abundant evidence that they believed, nay, and fometimes exprefsly make mention of, the inspiration of the Gospel hiftory".

a P.

112.

In this number are Clemens Romanus, Irenæus, Juftin Martyr,

and many others, who lived not much later than them.

Taking it then for granted, that St. Mark's Gospel was wrote under the conduct of the divine Spirit, it is not reasonable to fuppofe it to be an epitome of St. Matthew; to be an epitomizer, and to be under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, feems to be a little inconfiftent. For if, as Mr. Whiston says, St. Matthew's Gospel, lying before him, was his guide in writing his hiftory, what need was there of the infpiration and guidance of the Spirit? If he had St. Matthew's Gospel lying before him, why could he not, without any immediate influences from Heaven, transcribe out of it, here a piece, and there a piece, of the hiftory, where he had a mind? a perfon endowed with the common and ordinary powers of nature, if he were but able to read, might have made as good, nay I may venture to say a much better epitome of St. Matthew's Gospel, than this of St. Mark's is supposed to be. For my part, I freely own, that if it could be proved, that St. Mark made St. Matthew's Gospel, lying before him, his main guide in writing his hiftory, I fhould very much question whether he were infpired at all or no. The little neceffity there was for inspiration, or the influences of the Spirit, to affift a person in transcribing another man's book, is a fufficient argument, there was no infpiration at all. I conclude therefore, upon the supposition of St. Mark's Gospel being inspired, that it was not transcribed or extracted out of St. Mat

thew's.

Befides, to argue further upon the fame fuppofition, how odd does it found to hear a Chriftian fay; "the Holy Spirit "inspired one person to write a history, and then inspired an"other person to abridge it? The Holy Spirit thought fit at "firft to have fo much wrote, but then afterwards, that it "fhould not be quite so much." This is to make the Holy Spirit to cut off the fuperfluities of his own works. But this is an abfurdity so great, that no one sure will be willing to defend; and yet defended it must be, and certainly true it is, if St. Mark be an epitome of St. Matthew.

It may indeed be objected here, that the fame difficulty attends the account I have given out of the antients, of the ori ginal manner of St. Mark's writing, as does attend the fuppo

fition of his being an epitomizer. It may be faid, inspiration was as little neceffary to St. Mark writing from St. Peter's mouth, as transcribing out of St. Matthew's Gospel.

To this, I think, it is fufficient to anfwer, that, if the account that has been given be true, viz. that St. Mark wrote what he heard St. Peter preach, the inspiration must be rather fuppofed in St. Peter, than in St. Mark, who was only as his scribe or amanuenfis; and fo no more was required of him, than faithfully to write down, what St. Peter told him. Hence Eufebius tells out of Clemens Alexandrinus, that, when St. Mark had wrote down, what he had heard St. Peter preach, St. Peter, αποκαλύψαντος αὐτῷ τῷ πνεύματος, by the infigation of the Holy Spirit, approved and confirmed this Gofpel, for the use of the Churches.

Arg. VII. St. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, because the fuppofing it to be so, detracts from its honour, and usefulness. The enemies of revealed religion may many ways improve fuch a conceffion, to the leffening the juft efteem we ought to have for this facred Book. To say this Gospel is only an abridgment of another, makes it liable to the opprobrious charge of being ftolen, and its author to the black name of being a plagiary. An epitome indeed of another perfon's work, known and owned to be such, is not in the leaft liable to this charge; but for a person to tranfcribe the greatest part of another's book, to publish it in the world under his own name, without the least hint or intimation, that he did make use of that other perfon's book, though he have the best ends and designs in his work, will be looked upon as a fort of pious fraud. This is not only, what might be reasonably imagined and supposed, but has been really matter of fact. For as long fince as the latter end of the fourth century (in Jerome's time), Ruffinus plainly called it religiofum furtum, a religious theft; and Pighius, a great advocate for

2 Hift. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 15. I own indeed, Eufebius, citing this account of Clemens in another place, seems to make it contrary to this, as though St. Peter did neither encourage nor difcourage this under

taking of St. Mark. Vid. lib. 6. c. 14. For the reconciliation of which difference, I fhall only refer the reader to Valefius's notes on the place last cited.

Popery

Popery in the beginning of the Reformation, mightily pleafed himself with these words of Ruffinus, defigning, fays my author Chemnitius, thereby to leffen the authority of the Scrip ture. Hence Spinoza and Father Simon (who were two as true enemies, as ever the facred volume met with) have endeavoured to persuade us, that the several books of the Old Teftament, are only extracts and abridgments of fome larger records. The former (Spinoza), after he had largely endeavoured to prove, that the five books of the law were not wrote by Mofes, but a long time afterwards, and also that the fucceeding histories of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel I. and II. the books of Kings I. and II. were wrote a great many ages after the perfons, who are mentioned in them, were dead, concludes they were all wrote by Ezra, and that they are only epitomes or abridgments of fome larger records, which he made ufe of. The fame also is his opinion concerning the books of the Prophets; "When, fays he, I closely confider the "books of the Prophets, I perceive the prophecies, which are "contained in them, were collected out of other books; and "that they are not in the fame order, in which they were faid or wrote by the Prophets, &c. Wherefore these books are only scraps and fragments of the Prophets." Father Simon's opinion, and his conjectures to fupport it, are fo very like thofe of Spinoza, that there can be no doubt but he borrowed his hints (however, the greateft part of them) from him; he tells us exprefslyd, "That it evidently appears, that' "the most part of the Holy Scriptures, that are come to us, "are but abridgments and fummaries of antient acts, which ❝ were kept in the registries of the Hebrews." It is very easy

a

Pighius delectatur Ruffini verbis, qui Evangelium Marci vocat religiofum furtum; ut,, fcilicet, eo facilius Scripturæ auctoritatem poffet extenuare. Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Trident. Par. 1. De Script. Evangelift.

Tractat. Theolog. Polit. c. 8. & c. 9. Hefdras (eum pro prædictorum librorum fcriptore habebo)-non aliud fecit, quam hiftorias ex diverfis fcriptoribus colligere.

• Cum ad hos (fcil. Prophetas) attendo, video Prophetias, quæ in iis continentur, ex aliis libris collectas fuiffe; neque in hifce eodem ordine femper defcribi, quo ab ipfis Prophetis dictæ vel fcriptæ fuerunt.

-Quare hi libri non nifi fragmenta Prophetarum funt. c. 10.

d Critic. Hift. of the Old Test. B. I. c. 2.

to

« 前へ次へ »