ページの画像
PDF
ePub

to perceive, the defign of these gentlemen in this their opinion, was to leffen the value and authority of the facred Scriptures; the former, that he might banish at once all revealed religion out of the world; the latter, that he might advance the honour of the Church and priesthood, to which he belonged. And indeed the method now mentioned, feems to have a very natural and direct tendency to the end they aimed at. It is impoffible to have the fame value for the facred Books, which we ought to have, if we believe them to be only extracts out of fome records and registries, that we know nothing of. There is indeed this difference between the opinion of Spinoza and Father Simon, concerning the books of the Old Teftament, and the common one of St. Mark's being an epitome of St. Matthew, that they fuppofe the original records, out of which the books of the Old Teftament were taken, are all loft, but the book, out of which St. Mark was taken, we have ftill; this indeed is true, but let it be confidered, that this difference makes them more neceffary and useful, and St. Mark lefs fo. As there could not be any very good reafon, which could induce St. Mark, to make an abstract of St. Matthew's Gospel (as has been in part argued already"), so it could not be (if a mere abridgment) of any great use, when it was made. Upon what grounds could St. Mark believe his epitome would be more useful than St. Matthew's original? An epitome of a hiftory, every particular part whereof is abfolutely neceffary to be known by all thofe, who could know them, would be but of very little ufe to them, that either had or could procure the original.

Laftly, The fuppofing St. Mark's Gospel to be an epitome of St. Matthew, does in a great measure invalidate, and fet afide his teftimony to the truth of the Gospel biftory. If his Gospel be taken out of St. Matthew's, then it is evident, that his teftimony depends upon, and consequently amounts to no more, than the fingle teftimony of St. Matthew. It is true indeed, that an account of a matter of fact, attefted by one credible and duly qualified witness, is sufficient to fatisfy any

a Pag. 54.

reasonable

reasonable and unprejudiced mind, and confequently one of the Gospels would have been enough, to have rendered thofe, who rejected Christianity, inexcusable; yet fince men's minds are naturally fo corrupt, the more evidence and teftimonies we have, the more ftrong and confirmed our faith is like to be, and we have greater probability of convincing unbelievers. Now, as has been faid, if St. Mark's Gospel be taken out of St. Matthew's, it is of no ufe nor fervice in this refpect. But on the other hand, if we receive the account we have from all antiquity, that he wrote his Gospel from the mouth of St. Pe ter; we have another very good evidence for the truth of Christianity, even the teftimony of one, who was continually with our Saviour, from the beginning of his publick ministry till his afcenfion.

Now from all that has been faid, I hope it is very reasonable to conclude, that St. Mark's Gofpel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's. If the accounts we have from antiquity be of any value, that he wrote it at Rome from St. Peter's mouth; if he relates the fame ftories much larger than St. Matthew does; if he relates the fame accounts with very different, and seemingly contrary circumftances to thofe of St. Matthew's; if he gives us an account of feveral very confiderable things, which St. Matthew does not fo much as hint at; if he omits feveral confiderable hiftories; if the fuppofing this Gofpel an epitome, makes its inspiration more dubious and uncertain, and invalidates its teftimony to the truth of Christianity; if all these things are so, then there can be nothing more reasonable, than to conclude, that St. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's.

I might, if it were neceffary, carry this matter fomewhat further, and make it at least probable, that neither of the three Evangelifts (St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. Luke) had fo much as feen the Gofpel of the other, when he himself wrote. For had either of them feen the Gofpel of the other, it is very probable they would not have gone about to write the fame things, which were wrote before: and hence it is very obferv. able that St. John, who (as will appear hereafter) faw the Gofpels of the other three, does not relate the fame facts, which

he

he faw the other three had done before him. I am partly beholden to Mr. Le Clerc for this obfervation, and partly to the learned Mr. Dodwell, who endeavours alfo by several other arguments, to prove the point I am now contending for. Upon the whole, that which is most probable, is, that the Evangelifts, who were fcattered up and down the earth, into very diftant countries, to preach the Gospel; by the folicitation and importunity of those whom they converted, were prevailed upon to write down the substance of what they had preached to them; in which good undertaking, God by his Spirit was pleased to affift them, keeping them from all error, leading them (according to his promise, John xvi. 13.) into all truth, and bringing (as our Saviour had foretold he should do, John xiv. 26.) all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had faid unto them.

CHA P. XI.

If it be allowed that St. Mark did epitomize St. Matthew; it will not from thence follow, that our prefent Copies of St. Matthew are misplaced, and contrary to the Order, originally intended by the Evangelift.

SIN

INCE then St. Mark did not make use of St. Matthew's Gospel in compiling of his, it is very evident, that Mr. Whifton hath failed in his main proof, in what he calls his

a Quoi qu'ils n'aient pas vû les écrits les uns des autres: car ils n'auroient pas redit ce qu'ils auroient vû avoir été publié avant eux, furtout par des Apôtres. Aufsi remarque-t-on que St. Jean, qui a vû fans doute les autres Evangiles, a évité de redire les mêmes chofes. See his French Teft. at Luk. i. 1.

Sed et reliquos ab invicem non

fuiffe vifos Evangelistas vel exinde fufpicio eft, quod primo illi prædicationis anno res geftas duntaxat enarrent; reliquorum annorum Pafchatumque memoriam folus confervavit S. Joannes Evangelifta: unde poffet quis fortaffe colligere, vila effe ab eo et probata, fuppletaque decefforum Evangelia. Differtat. 1. in Iren. §. 39.

most

ד

[ocr errors]

most authentick evidence, and most convincing argument, to prove, that the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel in our pre-` fent copies is very much misplaced, contrary to the method originally intended by the Evangelist. But

II. If it were to be granted that St. Mark did abridge St. Matthew, yet it would by no means follow, that our present copies of St. Matthew's Gospel are not in their true and firft intended order. Let us then fuppofe St. Mark's Gospel to be an epitome, and confider how Mr. Whifton does argue upon that supposition. "If, fays he, St. Mark was the epitomizer "of St. Matthew, and had his history before him, when he " wrote his own; it will follow, that either that copy of St. Matthew, which he made ufe of, was in a different order " from that which we now have (in the chapters under confi"deration); or elfe that he knew the order of his copy to be wrong, and contrary to the original one, and fo reduced it in "his epitome to the true and regular series of events, which "he learned from St. Peter. Now either of thefe is fufficient "for my present purpose; for it is evident that St. Mark does "not obferve the order of the present copies of St. Matthew << (whom he epitomizes), in that part we are speaking of. &c.”

[ocr errors]

This is Mr. Whifton's arguing; but, with fubmiffion to fo great a judgment, I think it is very far from being conclufive, as will very evidently appear by the following confideration; viz. St. Mark making use of a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, which was exactly the fame with our present copies of that Gospel, might deviate and recede from St. Matthew's order, and yet not believe that order to be wrong, and contrary to the original one intended by St. Matthew. Mr. Whifton has here very artificially joined two things together, as the fame, which are certainly different. To be wrong in respect of the order of time, and to be contrary to the original copy, are ceṛtainly two things very diftinct. St. Mark's being fuppofed an epitome of St. Matthew's, proves indeed the former, viz. that he believed St. Matthew not to have obferved the order of time in every particular, but not the latter. Why might he

2 P. 102.

not,

not, even having St. Matthew's Gofpel lying before him, fometimes relate his hiftories in a different order from that of St. Matthew? He might easily perceive it was not St. Matthew's defign (as indeed it was not his own in every particular inftance), to relate all things exactly in the order, in which they came to pass; and therefore might, if at any time he faw juft occafion, recede from his order. Certainly this is a much more reafonable fuppofition, than that our present copies of St. Matthew are fo much confufed and difordered. For making the matter more clear, I would illustrate my argument by the following example.

[ocr errors]

Let us suppose, that, when Lucius Florus made his abridgment of Livy's Hiftory, there were feveral branches of it, which were not placed by Livy exactly according to the order of time, in which they came to pass, but interspersed up and down in the history, as the circumftances required. Let us fuppofe further, that Florus in his epitome had taken every one of these particulars, and placed them according to the moft exact order of time, in which they came to pass. Are we under any neceffity of concluding, either that Florus knew his copy of Livy to be wrong, and contrary to the original one, or that the copies of Livy are fince corrupted and difordered? By no means. Now this is exactly the cafe here, and therefore I conclude, that although St. Mark did make use of St. Matthew's Gospel in writing his, yet it does not follow, that our prefent copies of St. Matthew are confused and misplaced.

CHAP.

« 前へ次へ »