«.-¦ '' ^^'^i^ '*•*".-- S-^' "''- ,.ySt| Dissertation: or, Inq.uiry Concerning the Canonical Authority... London, 1732. >-i + 'J^5J r\ A- I- ^ (»" i. ** ,, ¦* ¦r"^ '¦'^f - r * £.'=!. «v\ • YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY A dssscrto-tion orlng^UiCY iLonccrn'inp ¦Vhe canofMeo.1 au-tonty of the Uos^l Q-ccorcit n6 to MatKew DISS-ERTATION: O R, INQUIRY Concerning the Canonical Autoritj O F T H E GOSPEL according to Mathewj AND THE REASONS upon which it hath beeii Antiently rejefted by Heretics ; OCCASIONED By a late Pamphlet, intitled, A Third Paf- toral Letter — To the People of the two great Cities of London and Weflmtnfier ; Pretending to be a Defence of the Canon of the New Testament. Nam cum omnibus in rebus temeritas in affentiendo, crror- que, turpjseft; turn in eo loco- maxime, in quo judica'ndiim^ eft, quantum rebus divinis, religionique tribukmus.. Elt enim periculum, ne aut negleftis iis, impia fraude, aut fuf- ceptis, anili fuperftitfone, obligemur.. ^^ • CiC. de Dlvin. I. \. fub. Ink. ' LONDON: Printed for T. Warner, at the BJack-Boy mPater-nofler^ Rm.. MDCCXXXII. [Price i/] MlzT^O A DISSERTATION, 8i'f. HE limiting, and afcertain- ing the Books, of the facred Canon, of the New Tejia- ment among Chrijiians, and the maintaining its Divine Autority againft Vnbelievers j hath engaged the pens, and imployed the wits of fome of the greateft men, in all ages, from the firft Rife of Chrifiianity it felf. Our Sa'uiour and his Apojiles were no fooner off the Stage, than Forgeries of all kinds, broke in with irrefiftible force, Gos pels, Epijiles, ASis, Revelations, Liturgies without number; publifhed in the names, and under the feigned Autority of Jefus Chrijl, and his Apojiles, abounded in the Chrijlian Church ; and as fome of thefe were as early in time, as any of the writ^ A 2 ings [ 1+ ] In which as the Arguments, and Evi dence, of the antient and modern Oppof- ers of this Go/pel, are freely reprefented, fo whatever is taken out of the Fathers, and Ecclcfiaftical Hiftorians, in relation to it, is fairly cited; I have dealt equally in that refpedt, as became one, who aims fin- ccrely at the Truth, and therefore fhall not need, to make Apologies for the Under taking ; it being apparently every man's duty, to do all he can, for the difcovery of the Truth, which mufl necefTarily ad vance the intereft of True Religion and Virtue. Nevertjjielefs I am aware, fome will think it, not very becoming a Private Pcrfon, to diflurb the world, either with his own, or othex's doubts, tending to leffen the Credit, of any one Book of the prefent Canon, fo many ages paft EJlabliJJj- ed, and for the moft part Acquiefced in ; and more efpecially of that very Book, which ftands the Jirjl in order of time, as well as Place, and in the opinion of the moft, is, as it were, the Bajis, and Outwork of the whole Gofpel-hiftory. But as I am not alone in Inquiries of this nature, the ableft Divines, and the greateft Friends to Chrifiianity, having bu lled themfelves on the fame fubjedl before me ,- fo let fach Objedlors confider, that Truth always gains ground, and is the more illuftrated [ '5] illuftrated by fuch Inquiries, and therefore is to be purfued at all Events ; efpecially, fuch Truths as concern mens Eternal Salva tion ; and that nothing can be more foolifh, or prefumptuous, than to confine The Word of God, to juft fuch 'a number of Books ; or to Lean wholly on Autority in facred things, how Old or eftabliftied foever ; and farther alfo, that ftapuld the Heretical Arguments (here purely colledted for the fake of better inftru6tion) prevail, even to render Mathevus Go/pel ftill more fufpedted by fome than it is; yet Religion can be in no danger, The Will of God being fufficient- ly comprifed, in the other Canonical Books, both of the Old and New Tejiament; or if perhaps all thefe ftiall not be thought fufficient, yet there are ftill more Gofpels behind, waiting without, praying for ad mittance into the fanBified Number. But here 'tis not to be omitted, that there have been fome Chrijiians, who not perfeftly fatisfy'd, with Father ^ Irenaus\ Reafons, that there can be neither more, nor lefs, than Four Gofpels ; have found fault with, and rais'd fcruples, even from the ftated number, of our prefent GoJ'pels, it felf J alledging that in the main, they contain little more, than a four-fold re- / Becaufe there be four regions only in the world, with four principal winds, therefore there can be but four gofpels. Adv. Haref. /. 3. c. n. lation [8] lation of the fame fad:s, of the fame one Divine Perfon, of which they imagine the Holy Ghojl, could never be the Author; for who will fay, the Holy Ghofl, could ever be the Dictator, oi Superfluity and. Repetition; or that if he had infpired the Writer (fuppofe) of any one Gofpel, fuch Gofpel alone, fhould not have been fufficient to all the purpofes of Evangelical Revelation? The number of Gofpels (fay they) reflcd: deficiency on each other ; more Gofpels than one, inftead of witneffing for, imply De- fedls in thofe that went before, for the fupplying of which the latter were necef- farily publifh'd ; for inftance, St. Luke wrote his Gofpel only, becaufe many who had Undertaken, Attempted, or Endeavoured at, the fame thing before hini ; had not ac quitted themfelves faithfully, or had not been fufficiently accurate therein ; this is the fenfe moft interpreters put on the firft words of St, Luke'% Procemium, and fome think he muft needs have had regard to Matheiv's Gofpel (among others) which was then extant, and could not but be known to him But however that be, 'tis mani- feft in Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, that the fole ' Occafion of St. "John's writing his Gofpel in his very old Age, was purely to fupply the ' Eufeb. E. H. 1. 3. c. 24. Clem. Alex, apud eund. lib. 6. c. 14. Jerom. Catal. virpr. lUuft. in Joann. Epiphan. Hjeref.. 2. Alog. N" 12. defefts. [9] defedSj which himfelf, and the Afan Bijhops had obferv'd, in all the other three...^ This the Fathers generally acknowledge, tho' in fo doing ('tis apprehended) they immediately fubvert, the Divine Autority of thofe Gofpels; which few in reading thofe Fathers obferve, not becaufe of the difficulty, but becaufe men dare not fee, nor look into the grounds of their own Belief, taken implicitly from their Teachers; as is evident in a famous example we have, of a late Right Rev. Bijhop of our own Church, who when an inferior Priefl would have perfuaded him, to have publiftied a little book for the corredtion of fuch er rors, and praSiices, as had crept into the Church, fince the firft fettlement of Chrifii anity; anfwered him with great emotion in thefe words ' . Sir, I dare not examine, I dare not examine, for if ive Jhould examine, and find that you are in the Right, the Church has then been in an Error, fo many hun dred years A pretty confeffion this, of a Paftor of a reformed Church. But 'tis thought for all that, the faid Bijhop' s Cafe (miferable as it was) is not fingular — from the. very flight defence, the Pajioral Letter-writer has made, for the Gofpel-hifiory in general, and its reputed f Thefe words are attefted by the Rev. Mr. Wbifton under his hand, as fpoken by 'Bifliop Srafi/nV^^ to himfelf. Vid. Mem. of Dr. Clark's Life, p. 177. B Authors [ 10 ] Authors in particular : to judge him Itncere, a man muft conclude he had but a fu- perficial knowledge of the fubjedt he un dertook, and that if he had dar'd to ex amine things deeply, and acquainted him felf more intimately, with the oppofition fome Books of the New Teflament have met with, and the arguments oi Heretic i thereupon, he would have chofe, not to ^Jhave entred into the Difquifition at all, rather than have left it, upon fuch piti ful evidence, as muft needs incrcafe the number of thofe Heretics. The Lefter-ivriter, after having repeated fome Heads, or Contents of his two former letters, wherein he pretends ' he hds laid be fore us, the evidences of the Chrifiian Re ligion, as drawn from the accounts, the E- vangelifis give us of our Saviour Chrifi :-^ He proceeds in this his third Letter to fhew, what in truth is the cafe *, That Infidelity can have no other foffible refuge but in Infidelity or downright difbelief of the Truth and Autority of the Writings of the New Tejiament. To the End therefore, we may be arm'd in all points, againft the at tempts of Infidelity and every approach to it:. — He hath judged it expedient (he fays) to Enter into that Matter, i. e. into the proof of the Writings of the New Teftament, more .fully and diJiinSily, in order to give 5 Paft. Let. fag. 3. Edit. i. ^ Ib.^. 5.- US ["3 us a clear Fiew of the Evidences both of their Truth and Autority. Hjs Pofitions for which, fo far as they relate to the four Gofpels^ more particularly, are thefe. Firft ', That thefe Gofpels contain, a faithful and true account , of the Birth, Life^ Death, RefurreSlion, and Afcenfton of Jefus Chrift. And, Secondly, That they have been faithfully tranfmitted to the Chrijiians of fucceeding Ages. - — Thefe Heads alone are fufficient ; and which, if the Letter-writer attends to, and makes good, he will merit the ap- plaufe of- all Chriftendom. His firft head is, — - That the' four Gof pels contain, a faithfid and true account, of the Birth, Life, Death,, RefurreBion, &c. of Jefus Chrift Then follows *, — That if we would be fatisfied of the truth of any Hiftory, the two things we chiefty inquire af ter are, the Knowledge the Writer had of his fubjeB, and the CharaSier he bore iti point of integrity; But when the Reader na turally expected, he fliould have fairly en tred into fome fuch Inquiry, and have proved firft, who the Authors of the four Gofpels were, and then have given fome tolerable account of thtw CharaSlers: — All he fay-fi to it is ', — ¦ That the greateft Ene mies of Chriftianity have never denied, but that there was fuch a Perfon as Jefus of Na- ' Paft, Let. f. 9. * lb. p. 9. 3 lb. p,^. B 2 zareth. [12] zareth, who lived at the time the Gofpels Jpeak of, and who made choice of feveral Perfons, to be his Difciples (or Apoftles) two of which were Evangelifts ' — Thefe (he fays) left their Callings and Occupations, to attend and receive inftruSlions from Jefus ; they both faw him, and felt him, were daily conver- fant with him, and the like. — And beftdes thefe Natural ^lalifications (he calls them) they were fupernaturally afjifted alfo to give an account of Chrift s Life and ASiions. I do not find, the* Letter-writer offers at any other Evidence, for thefe hiftorical fadls, than the pretended Negative one, drawn from the Enemies of Chriftianity not denying 'em, except that he has a citation or two out of the Gofpels, to fhew ' ; That Chrift' s Apojiles were all familiar with him, and faw all his miracles from the Beginning; which is falfe of Mathew, and does not relate to Mark and Liike, two other of the Evangelifts. J. 13. ftiSlion, [ 24 ] fliSlion, and Reproach conftantly attended them. . Now, Firft, That the Writers of the New Teftament v^ere Rude and Mean, Sim ple and Illiterate, which the Letter-writer, with moft Divines, Affedts to Acknowledge j This, One would think, is fo far from be ing part of their Commendation, as 'tis commonly made, that Infidels, I am afraid will ftick to it, that 'tis the greateft Ob- jedtion poffible to their being Authors, and therefore, if they were indeed Rude and Mean, Simple and Illiterate, the Reproach will be found to be but too well Grounded. But after all, where is the Neceffity, of Divulging again and again, the Weakneffes iand Incompetencies, of the firft DoBors of Chrifiianity ? Or where the Piety, or At tachment fliewn to Our Excellent Religion, to be thus continually Afperfing its Found ers, and fixing to their Perfons the bafe Charadters of Fools and Beggars? Is not This to Expofe it defervedly to the Scorn of Unbelievers, and to the very fame Home-Objedtion, Chriftians ufually make to Mahometifm, viz. That it had None but an Illiterate Blockhead for its Author ? Then, Secondly, T'hat the A^oiiXes had no Worldly Views, tho' 'tis a Truth we are all Satisfy'd in, yet it cannot be Inferr'd, as the Letter-writer injurioufly purs it, from their being conftantly Perfecuted and Re- proach'd. [ 25 ¦] proaelf.d, "hut the contrary, Shame and Pufiifhmenf frequently attending a too eager Purfuit after the World, never a Contempt of it. — But neither does the Letter-writer know the Apoftles were aBually Reproach' d and Perfeeuted, after they had left their own Country; and it feems to me, an Ug ly Refleidtion upon their Ma;mers, and the DoBrines they publifh'd, to fay they were ' , - — For (as St. Peter fays) If they were Fol lowers of that which was Good, who could Harm them ? But my Defign not being to Trace the Gentleman, Step by Step, throughout his loofe Defence, of the whole Canon of the New Teflament, and with which too. This Treatife hath no Concern ; I fhall Confine the Inquiry to, and Seek no farther, than the Firfi Book of that Canon And This, to D^monftrate in a Single Inftance only, taken from the Gofpels, which with the Letter-writer, it feems, are the leaft * dif- putable Part of the New.Tefiament: — That . to Eftablifh the faid Canon againft the Ca vils of Infidels and Heretics, is not a Tafk -fo eafy as the Letter-writers Oftentatious, Carelefs Way of Treating the Subjedt, bears before it. But before I Enter upon fuch Inquiry, I cannot but take Notice, that the Letter- wfiter Extradts his Proofs, for the I-ifpi- r at ion of the New Tefiament, not from the ' I .P-Y iii. 13. ^ Paft. L-r, p. 7. D Propriety [26] Propriety and Excellency of the Subjedt Matter of its feveral Books, and from the evident Marks and Signs, they themfelves happily Afford, of their own Divinity^; but moft an End, out of the Fathers.^ — -. Whereas, there is nothing more ridicu lous, than to fly for Help to the Fathers, and Cite them forfooth, as good Evidence, for The Word of God againft Infidels: — For befides that. Infidels will Objedl to the Tef- timony of thofe Fathers, as Party-Bigots every Man of them, and, as they Con ceive, Modellers of that Religion, they are brought to Vindicate : So all know that are ever fo little Acquainted with their Writings, That they are not to be Credit ed in the Relation, Scarce of any One fingle matter of Fadt, for the many Neg ligences, Impertinencies, and Falfhoods, that are found in them ; Eat up as they were too, with the grofleft Superftitions, and carry 'd away with every Notion, which Coincided with thofe Superftitions. The External, or Written Word of God, can have no other fure Teft, than that of its .own Intrinfic Excellency zs it ftands ap parently conform to the Divine Nature, and to the Nature and Reafon of Things, i. e. It mufl necefTarily Prove itfelf, and not be made to fubfift, on the Credit of any Set of Men whatfoever: But leaft of all on their Credit. The Major Part of whom were they alive, would for their Herefies their [ 27] t^eir Knavery, and Inexcufable Ignorance and Credulity, be the Shame and Blot of their own Profeffion. But to Return to my Inquiry. In purfuance of which I fhall fhew with all Freedom (for the Sake of Inveftigating the Truth) what Heretics and Anti-fcrip- iurolifis, generally Urge againft the Autorir- ty of Our Firfi Gofpel ; which for the Reader's clearer Underftanding, I ftiall Con fider under the particular Heads follow ing. And, Firft, I will fhew the Great Uncertainty (they think) we are under, as to the True Author of this Gofpel; Secondly, I fhall ftiew the Occafion of its being wrote; Thirdly, The Time when; Fourthly, \ IJiall Inquire in what Language this fame Gofpel was wrote ; And, Laftly, I fhall Treat of its Genuijiefs and Autority, and the Grounds upon wYiich Heretics have always Rejedted it, and Number'd it among Apo cryphal Writings. And, Firft, That the Apoftle Mathew compof ed a Gofpel for the Ufe of the Nazarens, or firft Converts of his own Country, is on all Hands, as well by Heretical as Or thodox Chrifiians Admitted ' ; but whether the Gofpel we now have, bearing his Name, be the fame which he Wrote, with or with out Interpolations, of Retrenchments,is with ' Vid. Sim. Crit. Hift- N, T. Part i. c i. Sand, E. H. p. 5. Edit. ult. D 2 Heretics, [ 28 ] Heretics, the Great and Difficult Queftion ftill remaining to be Solv'd. It feems indeed pretty evident, That the Perfon who Affix'd the Title to this GoJ' pel, whoever he was, intended it fhould be Underftood to be, The Gojpel by Mathew the Apofile, i. e. Not as Pen'd by the ApoJ- tle's own Hand, but by fome other Perfon, from his Mouth or Teaching. This, as moft Think, is the true Import of the Greek Title which we follow. Accordingly thofe Sedts of Chrifiians, who condemn this Gojpel as Spurious, al ways deny'd. That the Title was any real Help to the Difcovery of the True Author or Compofer. ; The Greek Titles to This, and the other Gofpels (for they are all the fame) Run thus, viz. ^ - — The Gojpel according to Ma thew, — According to Mark, &c. i. e. plain ly (fay the Heretics) according to their Teaching or Preaching, and by no Con- ftrudlion that they were themfelves the Writers. For then, why fhould they not be Intided The Gofpel wrote or com pofed by Mathew the Apoftle in the fame diftindl Manner as The Epifiles are Intit led, The Epiftle of Paul the Apoftle to the Romans, &c. Befides, as there is but ' Thefe Titles were Added,^ Ex Solo Teflimcnh Hominum {fays Father Simon) and therefore will not Prove the Gofpels - were Compofed by thofe, whofe Names they Bear, in regard there was an Infinite Number of Forg'd Books, curyin«- the Names of the Apoftles. ' Crit. Hift. N. T. P.ut i . J. 2." One f =9 ] One and the fame Form to the Titles of all the Four Oofpels; 'tis Urg'd that they muft needs have been Affix'd, by fome foreign Hand ', as St. Chryfoftome exprefly AfTures they were, and that, long after the faid Gpfpels were Wrote, and Colledted ; and therefore Heretics infift, 'tis likely the Party who affix'd them, only Guefs'd at the Matter, or he might fet the Titles pur- pofely to deceive, there being nothing more common (fay they) in the Early Days of Chfiftianity, than to fend Forgeries A- broad under the moft fpecious Titles, which neverthelefs when they came to be Ex- amin'd, BeWfay'd themfelves, having No thing in them worthy thofe Holy Perfons, whofe Names they bore, and as 'tis certain thefe Titles Were put all at the fame Time, They could not proceed frorn the Authors themfelves ; for as the Holy Authors never * us'd to give Titles to their own Works; fo Thefe are fuppos'd to have liy'd and wrote, at great Diftance of Time and place, from each other, and therefore could Hot Confpire, to ufe the fame Form of Words, had they Inclinations fo to do, a Form too, as fome have thought, in its Prime Intention Equivocal, pretending to Indicate the Authors Names, and yet not daring to do it in exprefs Words. ^ Horn. 1. in Epift. ad Roman. * Non eft Scriptorum Confuetudo, Ut ante Initium Li- Brorum titulos ponant. Maldonat. Com. c. i . Math. Vid. etiam CrelHum in cap. i . Math- Where [30] Where Mathew the Apoftle is mentioned in this Gofpel, which (I think) is but ' twice. He is in both Places mentioned incidentally in the Third Perfon, but fay the Impugners of this Gojpel, if the Evangelift had been the Apoftle, .He would have Spoke of himfelf with fome Note of DiftinBion, and in the Firft Perfon, not in the Third, . Except he did it covertly, and with In tention to Conceal himfelf, for which no Reafon can be affign'd ; and 'tis very likely (fill'd as the Apoftle was with the Drvine Wifdom, and Writing to the Jews) That he would never have appropriated to him felf, th%t Term of Reproach neither *, call ing himfelf a Publican, contrary to the Natural Policy of all Authors, who have any Defire their Works fhould be Credited. As the Gofpel itfelf Affords no Light in this Matter, fo the Good Fathers (whofe Teftimony to Oblige the Letter-writer we fhall continue to ufe) Thefe Help very lit tle to Clear it up, all they fay being Found ed on no other ' Evidence, than their own Credulity. Irenceus, who flourifh'd not till towards the Conclufion of the Second Cen- ' Ch. ix. 9. X. 3. * The Name as well as Office of a Publican was had ii? the istmoft Deteftation among all the Jews, fo that a Book wrote by any under that Charafter would never be touch'd by them. 5 See Father Simon on this Head, who with the Reft of his Church, Refolves all into Tradition, without which join'd to the Autoritf of the Church (fay they) we can have no Af- furance, That any of the Evangelifts were the Authors of their refpeclive Gofpels. Crit. Hift, c. 2. tury. [31] tury, being the firft Writer, who adven- tur'd to Cite Mathew the Apoftle as Author of this Gofpel by Name -Indeed there is no other point of Hiftory (fays the Ad- verfary) more in difpute, than who fhould be the Author of OUr prefent Gofpel. As is Evident further (continues the Ad- verfary) by the many other different Titles and Names it bore in the very firft Age of Chriftianity.^.^Th\s Gojpel now Attributed to Mathew, being prefum'd to be the fame, with that formerly intitled. According to the Hebrews: It is the fame too. Divines Agree, with that which was fome time Afcrib'd, to the Twelve Apoftles in general. And at other times to fome One Apoftle in particular.— .As to Bartholomew, to James, to Peter, and laft of all to Mathew ; it has at other times been imputed to fingle He retics, as the Authors of it, fuch as Cerin- thus, Tatian, &c. And again to whole Sedts, fuch as the Nazarens, the Ebionites, the Encratites, and the like. All which different Denominations fufficiently Evince, that the Antients were utterly at a Lofs, to whom to Afcribe this Gojpel. — Adeo Impojfi- hile eft (fays a learned ' Hiftorian) de eo certi aliquid definire. ' Sand. E. H. ;>. 5. Where alfo the Author learnedly fheyv^s. That our prefent Gofpel of Mathew, is not on,]y different to That Antiently intitled According to the Hebrews, But to that alfo intitled According to Mathew, Us'd by tTie Antients. •Alittd Antiquis fuijfe Evangclium Malhei ab eo, quo hodie Utimur. Neverthelefs, [32] Neverthelefs, This great uncertainty, with refpedt to the Author, is no where Urg'd fingly by the Adverfary, that I know, as a reafon, why this Gojpel fhou'd he ac tually excluded the Canon, fince 'tis certain tnany Books are now there, whofe Authors are as little Known, and confequently of whofe Divine Autority the Church could > never have perfedt AfTurance ; becaufe to be Affur'd thereof She ought firil to have e- vident Proofs, not only of the Author, but that He was Influenc'd by the Holy Spirit. For Example, ' Holy Church has been always in doubt, who compos'd the Epiftle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of Peter, the Second and Third of John, the Epiftle of Jude, and the Book of Revelati ons ; Not to mention the Gojpel we are now Treating of, Nor the Scruples fhe has, with regard to feveral Books of the Old Teftament, which however fhe thinks fit to retain, in her Catalogue of the Sacred Writings ; making therefore an evident diftinBion, between Books properly only ^ Canonical, and properly Divine. As the Author of Mathew' s Gofpel is thought very uncertain, the Occafion of its ^ Eufeb. E. H. lib. 3. c. 3 & 25. ^ The Diftinftion of Sacred . Boolcs into Canonical, and Apocryphal, vvas firft Invented by Heretics, to whicli the Church after fome time was oblig'd to Yeild. Each Pajty Efpoufing thofe Scriptures lisCanonical, in which their pecu liar Tenets were to be found, the reft they Term'd Apocry phal, or Deutro-Canonical, fuffering them to be Read not on ly at Home, but in Public AfTemblies. being L 3:^ J being Wrote is no lefs fo' ; which is ^y" fe cond Head of Inquiry. All tVe can gather (fay its AdVef-farites) ffbtn amo'ng Hiftorians concerning This, is frofh Eufebius, who, they think, gives but a fcurvy Account of this matter; for as 'tis Vfery remarkable, that Our Saviour wrote Nothing himfelf, nor left any Diredtions for Writing to his Difciples, No, not after his RefurreBion ; fo according to ' Eufebias,^ Neither the Twelve Apoftles, nor Seventy Difciples, Were much Incliri'd to Write Books ; He fays Ma thew and John only, have left us any writ ten Memoirs (or Hiftorical Gofpels) and further, that -even thefe Two, were compell'd to Write what they did, (by their Auditors, he means) MHih'ew in particular by the He brews i when be whs upon the Point, of Set ting out on his Travels, to Preach the Gofpel to the Gentiles. By which This Father would unhappily infinuate. That neither Mathew, nor John Wrote of their own Inclination, or JFree Motion of the Holy Ghoft; but that they were Oblig'd thereto by their own Difci ples againft their Will; which hath given Occafion to Libertines, to fay, Thefe DiJ'ci- ples had the Propagation of Chriftianity more at Heart, and confequently had more of the Holy Ghoft in them, than their Teachers. I .E. H. lib. 3. c. 24. E The L 34 J The Time when This Gofpel was wrote t5o, which is the next Head of Inquiry^ is a Point, of as great Difficulty to be fettled, as any other : Heretics fay. We can bring, but One of all the Antients, who hath Affign'd any Time at all for it, and that IS Irenceus, who, by the way, is not ve ry Explicit; all he fays to it is S That Ma thew PubliJh'd his Gofpel when Peter and Paul were at Rome, which the moft ac curate Chronologers Place in the Year * 64, at fooneft. — For then (fay they) The Per fecution under Nero began at Rome, fome time in which Thofe Two Apoftles are fup pos'd to have fuffer'd together : — But fome thinking This Account of Ireneeus, fome- what of the lateft; pretend to colledt from Eufebius' s Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, That M?- thew Wrote in the Year 41. But Eufebius fays no more, Than ^ that Mathew having firft Preach'd to the Hebrews, and being a- bout to Go and Preach to the Gentiles, wrote his Gofpel, &c. — Neverthelefs, They who would oppofe Eujebius to Irenaus, Con^ jedture, That this fame Going, or Depar ture of Mathew from Jerufalem, tnuH. needs have happen'd in the Year 41, Or Eight ' L-en. adv. Hseref. lib. 3. c. i. ^ Vid. Du Pin E. H. Vol. I. c. 5. Who is particular to this Point Platina {iys, Peter and Paul fuffer'd, Anm Bom. 70, or thirty feven Years after the Crucifixion, the fame Ye.ir in which Jerufalem was taken and demolifh'd. Eachard f.iys, this Perfecution beg.in in 65. Rom. Hift. Nero''s Reign. 3 EM. E. H. lib. 3. c. 24. Vid. Mill. Prolegom. p. 7. N^6i. Years [35] Years after the Afcenfton ; Their only Ground for which is. That it was the fame Year, in which the Apofiles were Illuminated, and made to know, That the Gofpel was to be Preach'd to the Gentiles, but I am afliam'd to lay any Strefs upon a Conjedture fo very precarious. Let Us fuppofe for Argument Sake, That Eufebius hath Affign'd a Time for the Writing this Gofpel, but different to That of Irenceus ; yet how ftiould we help Clofing with Irenceus ( though a Simple Man) and contend, that he muft needs have been better Acquainted with this Matter of Fadt, than Eufebius, who liv'd near Two Hundred Years after hirn, and Three Hundred after the Fadt in Con- troverfy: Befides, that 'tis an unanfwerable Objedtion, to any Autority of Eufebius, That he could have no Intelligence of this Matter, but from Irenceus only; No other Ecclefiaftical Writer, that we Know of, having fix'd any Time, for the Writing this Gofpel. 1 may add too. That all the Roman CatholicDiv'mes, are for the Account given by Irenceus; but fome Proteftants have Scrupled of mere Superftition, — " As " Imagining ¦ it inconfiftent with Divine " Providence to permit, that the Churches " for fo long a fpace of Time, as thi« " of Thirty Years or more, fhould be " left deftityte of an Authentic Hiftory, E 2 "of [ 36 ] " of the Miracles, and Dodrinek of Chrift ; " And, forafmuch as God always Ads (fay " they) by Natural Means, fo tihey con- " cetve, no Memory fufficient, tio retain " fuch a Number of FaBs, Sermons, Doc- " trines, Promifes, Prophecies, and curfory " Sayings of Chrijl, fo long a Time, with- " out great Omiffioa; neither dare they " prefume, upon fo long a Neglect of the " Apoftles, and Governours of the Church, " to commit the Hiftory of Jefus to Writ- " ing, which at the fame Time is to fup- ". pofe them, . very defedtive in their Zeal ". for Chriftianity,. or elfe Ignorant of the "( moft likely means to promote it." . But what ace Thefe mere Arguments of Convenience only to a ftubborn Matter of Fadt, and which (iay the Roman^ Divines) Pj-oteftants dc not See, bear with ftronger Emphafts againft the Condudt of Jefus- Chrift himfelf, than of his Apoftles, who (as is faid) left them no Diredtions to Vyrite, and what is moft admirable, wrote nothing himfelf; tho' he muft needs for- fee. (fay Libertines) That fuch Omiffion would be attended with, bad Confequen- ces ; for they prefume a Gofpel compofed by the Divine Jefus, muft have anticipat:- ed all Sedts, and confequently all Hatred and Perfecution among Chriftians, which hath reduc'd them to fuch narrow Bounds in the World ; and Pagans then fhould have [ 37 ] have bad no Occafion to fay ^,.^We will not Believe Jefus's Gofpel, becaufe it was not wrote by Jefus himfelf. But to the point.— Eufebius having (as is faid) no other Father or Hiftorian from whom he could take his Account of Mathew' s Time of Writing, but from Irenceus only; there is no Queftion (had he Affign'd any Time) but that he would have concurr'd with him: For it appears he was very con- verfant with Irenceus's Writings, and often Copy'd his Words from him, as particu larly, he does this Account of Mathew'^ Time of Writing in his * Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, and which 'tis likely he acquiefc'd in ; for elfe why did he not Cenfiire it there» or Contradidt it rather, in his Chronicon, where he is wholly Silent. It Appears then, according to Father Irenceus (a Witnefs after the Letter-writer' % own Heart) That St. Mathew' s Gofpel, the Firft of the Four, was not Wrote till at leaft Sixty Four, or Sixty Five Tears after Our Saviour's Nativity, and above Thirty Tears after his Crucifixion; notwithftand ing, the Letter-writer exprefly maintains ', That not only This, but all the other Gofpels were Wrote and Publifh'd too, while the Matters were frefh in Memory, and while many Per Jons were Living, who wanted' not ^ Nolunt Evangelio, Credere, ^ia non ab iffo Jefu ilia c'onfcripta funt. Aug. RetraSl. lib. 2. c. 16. * Lib. 5. c. 8. ^ Paft. Let. ^.14. Inclination, [ 38 ] Inclination, io deteB the Evangelifts, if they could have been conviBed of Falfhood ; and tho' he knows too. That One of the Gof pels (even that according to John) was not compos'd, till near Seventy Tears after Our Saviour's Deceafe, and an Hundred Tears after his Nativity ; and further alfo, that the Sacred Writings of the New Tef tament could not be ' obtained by the Hea thens, but thro' Force and Stealth, for a- bove Two Hundred Years longer. But I come now. Fourthly, to Inquire in what Language This J'ame Gojpel, Intit- ' led. According to Mathew, was originally compjl'd. To this, Papias (the Antient Bifhop of Hierapolis) fays ^, That Mathew Wrote his Gofpel in Hebrew, And ' Irenceus after him. That Mathew delivered to the Hebrews the Hiftory of the Gofpel, Wrote in their own Language, fo ''¦ Origen, fo ^ Eufebius, fo alfo * Jerom; and fo in general, all the Fathers to a Man, all agreeing to the fame Tradition. \ Thofe Chriftians who delivered up their Gofpels to the ¦ Heathens, tho' they did it under the utmoft Threats of Tor ments and Death j yet, were thereafter Branded with the In famous Name of Traditores, i. e. Givers up, or Betrayers of the Myfteries, and for which they did fevere Penance, and were made incapable of the Priefthood. » Apud Eufeb. E. H. 1. 3. c. 39. 3 Adv. Haref. 1. 3- c. i. * Apud Eufeb. E. H. 1. 6. c. 25. * lb. 1. 3. c. 24. ^ Jerom. Prooem. in Com. Math. Not- [ 39] Notwithftanding which, fome Modern Critics of great Autority, Namely, Eraf- mus. Cardinal Cajetan, OEcolampadius, Maccius Illyricus, Calvin, Voffius, &c. a- •mong Foreigners; and Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Whitby, the Reverend Mr. Jones, and o- thers of Our own Nation, (not regarding the Fathers) have Oppos'd the aforemen tioned Tradition, Endeavouring to prove on the Foot of Critics and learned Obfer- vations. That the Gofpel we now hzwe ac cording to Mathew, was certainly deriv'd from fome Greek Original, there being no thing more eafy (fay they) than to Diftin- guifh always, hetween a. Tranfcript, and a Tranftation: And then as to fSxe Hebrew Text of this Gofpel, i found in the Fifth Century, by^^t. Jerom, in Cuftody of the Nazaren-Chriftians of Berea and Ccefarea, Cities in Paleftine; and which were then fuppofed to be Copies of Mathew's Origi nal: Thefe (they imagine) not to have been Copies, but an Early Tranftation from the Original Greek, made by the Apoftles for the Ufe of the Nazarens; The Holy Ghoft defcending on them for that Purpofe ; and as to the Greek Text now Extant, This they fuppofe to be a True Copy of that Original, wrote by St. Mathew's own Hand, preferv'd by an extraordinary Providence; which Notion of thefe Great Men, as it hath no Foundation in Hiftory, fo hath it the worft Tendency imaginable, as will. Appear [40] appear hereafter, and is vaftly abfurd in this refpedt, as it fuppofes the Rude and Illiterate Mathew to have wrote to his Countrymen the Jews, in a learned po lite Language, which neither T^hey, nor 'tis likely Himfelf ' underftood ; and This too, when he Wrote at their Requeft, and for their more particular Ufe ; and that when he had fo done. They were necef^ fitated to get his Gofpel Tranflated by the ether Apoftles, (Heav'n Interpofing) before they could make any Ufe of it. Mathew the Apoftle, is generally agreed to have been a Jew, and that he compos'd his Gofpel, for the Sake of the Jews ; now can it be conceiv'd, fuppofing him pro perly qualified, that he fhould on this Oc cafion, compliment Foreigners, more than his own Countrymen, and fhew all his Regard for their Churches, and none for thofe of his own Nation ; a Partiality certainly a Jew, could never be Guilty of? ' It has been the Opinion of Great Divines, the Apoftles did not Learn Greek by Infpiration; Peter had his Interpreter, and fo had Paul. Nay, Paul fairly ownes himfelf igno rant in the Greek, 2 Cor. xi. 6. ivhich it feems, tho' Born in a Grecian City, by his long Stay in Judea, he had in great Meafure forgot. Dum Excufo Apoftolos (fays Erafmus) ^i Gracitatem fuam, non ex Orationibus Demofthenis, fed ex Vulgi colloqaio Didice- rint ; non nego Donum hinguarum, neque tames inde Sequitur, eos non ptutjfe Grace difcere ex Vulgi colloquio. . Then follows, ¦ ^od fi contendis hanc Gracitatem quam Vidimus in Apoftolicis Literis, ejfe Donum Calefte. — Unde tanta Ser- monis Ruditas, imo Barberies, qtiatu Vijfimulan non fojfumus ? Epift. ad Eckium. Nor [41 ] Nor will any One believe, the Holy Ghoft Infpir'd Mathew on this Occafion, purpofe- ly to Write in Greek, contrary to his ap parent Duty and End of Writing ; or, if you will fay, the Gift of Tongues was Conftant and Uniform, is not writing or Preaching to a People in a Strange Lan guage, a fore Abtife of that Gift, Invert ing the End for which it was beftow'd ? But Greek, fay thefe Proteftant Divines, was the more Univerfal Language ; which Implies again, that Mathew did not Write, at the Requeft, and for the more peculiar Ufe of the Jews at Jerufalem ; for if fo. He was not to regard the Univerfality of a Language, but he was to Write in that Language only, which the People, at whofe Inftance, and for whofe Inftrudtion He immediately Wrote, Underftood ; Common Decency fhould have taught Mathew this, tho' not Infpir'd, and how Rude and Illi terate foever : The Jews certainly ftiould have their own Gofpel in their own Lan guage, the Language in which it had been Preach'd, by this fame Apoftle to them, and let the Greeks afterwards Tranflate it, if they thought fit, and had not pa tience to Stay, for thofe other Gofpels which the Holy Apoftle forefaw, and might declare would fhortly be compos'd for them in their own Dialedt. Indeed, Proteftant Divines, after all their Critics, arc fo Ingenuous, as to let you F know, [ 42 ] know, why they Labour this Point fo heartily ; not that any One Fadt arifes in Hiftory, to Determine them in That, of which they would feem perfuaded ; but for that They are apprehenfive, if the Thing was fo, I mean, if this Gofpel was Origi nally compiled in Hebrew, that then its Autority would be more dubious; the Ori ginal Text being loft, and even the Copies of that Original which (they Think too) Providence would never fuffer. But why did it fuffer it to be corrupt ed, as moft agree it was, and that as foon almoft, as it came into the Nazarens Iflands? And if That be the Cafe, 'tis fcarce worth the difputing now, in what Language it was Wrote; Again, Suppofe it compos'd in Greek, yet will it not thence follow, Our prefent Greek-Text is more pure, Since it is not known, nor was fo long fince as ^ St. Jerom's time, from whence That fprung. If the Original was Wrote in Greek, and deliver'd to the Nazarens, 'tis not likely, they vvould Part with it to the Gentiles (their Avow'd Enemies) to make Copies by; 'tis infinitely more probable, that having caus'd it to be Tranflated into Ji/^,^r^w with Amendments for their own general Ufe, ^ Matheus primus in Jiidx-a, propter eos, qui ex Circumci- fione Crediderunt, Etm-ngetium Chrijli Hebraicis Literis Ver- bifque compofuit ; quod qiiis poftea in Gracum trnnftulerit, non fatis certtim eft. iVcrun. de Script. Eccl. in Math. fome _ [ 43 ] fome Copies of that Hebrew Tranftation in procefs of Time, unavoidably ftole abroad, and fell into the Hands of the Gentile Chriftians; who reduc'd it again, into the Greek we now have ; as we are intirely in the Dark in this Affair ; this Conjedture feem much more Rational, than to Ima gine with all thofe, who pretend Our pre fent Copies are deriv'd from a Greek Ori ginal, that the Jewijh Chrifiians were in Haft, to Tranfmit Authentic Copies to the Gentiles, of their own Original in its firft Purity, even before They had ferv'd themfelves with it. Upon the whole, notwithftanding all has been faid, on this Head, by Modern Divines ; moft think that Our prefent Gof pel, is on a much better Foot of Credit, fuppofing it deriv'd from a Hebrew-Origi- nal, than if we fhould allow it compofed in Greek ; becaufe in the latter cafe, we Ihall be forc'd to confefs it, a different Gojpel to that, which St. Mathew certainly compofed, even a Counterfeit, Palm'd on Us in its ftcad ; for be Our Greek Text from whence it will, that the Apoftle wrote in Hebrew to the Jews, who fpake Hebrew, was a Fadt fo Notorious to the Antients, fo well Attefted, fo Univerfally Aflented to, and fo Natural to be True,, that there is no withftanding it ; the Tradition is Trac'd up, very near to the Time of the Holy Apoftle himfelf, and downward again F 2 'for [ 44 ] for above Fifteen Hundred Years toge ther, without Interruption ; therefore, after fuch a continued Train of Evidence, for fome Moderns, (of whom I think Eraf mus was the firft) to come now and fay, and ftick to it, upon the Foot of Critics only, that the Original of Our prefent Gofpel, was certainly Greek ; what is it but in other Words to Affirm, it is not the fame with St. Mathew's (as the Heretics always afferted) and confequently that a Spurious Gofpel hath been impofed on us ? I come now to my Fifth and laft Head, which is to confider more- nearly, the GenuineJ's and Autority of Mathew'5 Gofpel, and the Grounds upon which it was antient ly, and is now, reje^Bed by fome Heretics. In Treating of which, I fhall be Oblig'd to repeat fome things already faid, in regard. This Head bears fo near a Rela tion, to thofe that went before. Now to be fatisfy'd of the Truth of any Hiftory, the Impugners of this Gof pel, and the Letter-writer z.xe ^eX\. agreed; that it is requifite we fhould know, Firft, Somewhat of the Author's CharaBer ; Se condly, Whether the fame (if Antient) hath been faithfully Tranfmitted down to Us; And, Laftly, Its Autority will depend in great meafure too. Upon its own Intrinftc Evidence, with regard to the Reafonable- nefs and Credibility of Fadts therein re lated We have feen, Firft, [45] Firft, On what a precarious Foot (in the Opinion of thofe who oppofe this Gofpel) the fame ftands with refpedt to its Author, whofe very Name is not certainly known, fo many Authors (fay they) was this Gof pel from the Beginning afcribed to. So many Titles it bore, and fo ^eftionable is its prefent Title, that we can by no Cri terion, arrive to any Certainty, who the Writer was; Nay, was its Title never fo exprefs, fo many Forgeries were Obtruded upon the World, in the Apoftles Names, That this neither would not be fatisfadtory, in a, Matter of fo great Importance, with out fome further Evidence corroborating it. But Hiftory they tell you Affords none of that kind, till at leaft One hundred Tears, after the pretended Publication of Our prefent Gofpel ; Father Irenceus (as Ob- ferved) being the firft Ecclefiaftical Writer of all thofe whofe Works are now extant, that cites Mathew the Apoftle by Name as the Author of it. Now (fay Heretics) the little Account we ought to make of his Teftimony, in this Particular, appears hence, That 'tis found ed upon the Tradition, he received from Papias, whofe Scholar he was, A Man (fays ' Eufebius) of Weak Judgment, A fabulous Author, and One who led many in to Error, and particularly his Pupil Irenas- us; fo that upon this Fool and Knave both ' E. H.l. 3. c. '59. (ac- [ 46 ] (accorditg to Eufebius) doth the whole Tradition, of Mathew's being the Author of the Gofpel we now make Ufe of, de pend. For as Irenceus had it from Old Papias, fo Eufebius plainly took it from them both, Notwithftanding his bad Opinion of the Men; and to thefe aill the following Cj^z^rc/^ Writers venture to fubfcribe, without anyDif- quifition, as appears, into the Fadt ; and this is the goodly Evidence (fay the Heretics) which we Orthodox Believers, have been all along taught to Confide in ; and which having been fo often objedted to Us, in Triumph by the Adverfary, 'Tis much to be wondred, the Letter-writer fliould pafs it over, without Offering to furnifh the World, with fome more Material Evidence in its ftead, Efpecially in an Affair of the higheft Concern, As whether the Books of the New Tejiament, One or other of them, were wrote by thofe, They are pretended to be wrote, and confequently by Divine Infpiration. Indeed the prefent Gofpel (fay- the fame Perfons) fhould for Diftindtion fake, be term'd. The Gofpel by Mathew According to the Gentiles ; for there was another Goj pel (fay they) extant in the Primitive Church, which all the firft Converts made Ufe of, and afcribed to Mathew's Writing, And which therefore was commonly called, by way of Diftindtion — — The Gojpel by Mathew [ 47 ] Matthew According to the Hebrews; " This *'' Gojpel (faid the Hebrews) is the fame, " which You Gentiles acknowledge, the *' Apoftle wrote for Our Ufe, and at Our " Requeft, and deliver'd to us the Ori- " ginal, the fame which we kept facred " among our Selves for near five hundred " Years together. When You Gentiles de- " ftroyed, both Copies and Tranflations, " to take off all Rivalfhip, as it fhould " feem, between the two Gofpels, And " that Yours alone might Reign with- " out Competition". This (Say Our Oppofers) is what the Jewift Chriftians always urged ; and we fee with what Juftice, They gave the Pre cedence to their ovinGojpel. — "Ours (faid " they) was the Original, We had the keep- "ing of it all along, We claim it by your " own Confeffion," The Verity of an AB al ways precedes the Corruption of the fame. To Obviate this Jewijh Objedtion, fome ^ Moderns^ have feigned, That the Apoftle Mathew did indeed publifh Two Editions of his Gofpel, The firft in Hebrew for the Jews, but the laft and moft corredt in Greek for Us Gentiles This indeed is an Anfwer, But (fays the Adverfary) 'tis at the E^pence of all Sincerity and good Reading, there being no Foundation for it, I Sixt. Senenf Bibl. Sacr. lib. 7. p. 385- Whitbfs Preface to the four Gofpels. Nye's Defence of the facred Canon a- gwift Toland, p. 78. either [48] cither in Hiftory or Oral Tradition ; 'Tis an Expedient the Fathers, rich in Inventi ons, never hit on ; for they fubmitted al ways the whole Autority of this Gojpel, to Papias and Irenceus; And Chofe to fay the Gentile-Copy of Mathew, was the only True One, the fame with that of the Hebrew-Chriftians, before the latter was Interpolated and Corrupted, Tho' Others again have been of Opini on, The Nazaren Gofpel was abfolutely diftind from it. Or St. Jerom never would have Tranflated it into Greek and Latin. But this breaks in upon what I would Confider next, which is. How faithfully the Gofpel compiled by Saint Mathew hath been Tranfmitted down to Us. In Relation to which, Vis Enemies v^'-^ be apt to obferve. That if what the Anti ents unanimoufly affirm, viz. That the Apoftle Mathew compofed his Gofpel in He brew, is to be depended on ; Then the Gof pel we now make Ufe of, according to fome Moderns of great Name, cannot be the fame, but Another whofe Original, it leems, was Greek; They will tell us,- we have loft Mathew's Hebrew Gofpel, and a GreekO'c.e is Tranfmitted to us in its ftead, of whofe Autority we know nothing. But again, fhould it be fuppofed, Thofe Moderns are miftaken, and that the Gofpel we now have, is the fame with that 'men tioned by the Fathers (the Original of which was [49] was Hebrew) yet, the fame Fathers. leW You, the Nazarens begah to Stuff it very foon with their own Inventions; and that the Ebionite Gofpel too (another Branch of it) was ftill more corrupt: Notwith ftanding which, and that^e knows theHere-^ tics infift, That this is the Voice of all Anti quity, yet the Letter-writer contents himfelf' with barely Afferting, ' That this (among the other Gojpels) hath, been faithfully Tranj- mitted to Chriftians of fucceeding Ages ; Of fering no Proof, But putting \t upon Infidels rather to Prove ic for him, and to fhew. That any other Book whatfde'Oer, has fitch, and fo many plain, and ftrong Tefti monies of a faithful Tranfmijpon, as the New Tejiament. And in order to induce them thereto (and I dare fay, with no Defign to Infnaie them) he Affyres them the Coafts are all clear *.— Chriftianity (fays: he) Requires no farther Favour, than a fair and Impartial Inquiry into the Grounds and DoBrines of it: — But Irifidels and Here tics both having tried the Spirit of (fome people's) Chriftianity, and Smarted fo often, for Trufting to Invitations of this fort, care not, I fee (after long Expedation) to ven ture.— I fhall only take upon me to fay (who always held the Booh of the New Teftament in the utmoft Veneration till the laftfP^or^/Li?/^^rflung Doubts in my way) That the Faithful Tranfmiftion which the Letter-writer coiitends for (if we fefped ' Paft. Let. /. 63. * Firft Paft, Let. p. 54. G Af«- [5°] Mathew's Gofpel only) can never be made fairly to appear;, from Ecclefiaftical Hiftory only, it being impoffible in the Nature of the Thing, admitting, as that does, the Original of it to have been corrupted, which is the Cafe of no one profane Author, that I know of; or if you will affert, the Hebrew Original remain'd intire, till fuch time, as a Tranfcript, or elfe Our prefent Verfion was made from it ; yet how fhall that ap pear? No oneGenfile Father having ever feen, or pretended to have feen, which is much, Mathew's Original ; and therefore it was im- pradicable to compare and redify either Tranfcript or Verfion by it, or be affur'd whether it was true or falfe ; fo that I am afraid Heretics will infift. That this is Ar- gumentum ad Ignorantiam only, or a mere Affertion rather, without either Proof or Probability. If old Papias is good for any thing, he may ferve to refell all pretence to a Fadj in which he could not well be miftaken...^ He liv'd after the Commencement of the J'econd Age, long after Mathew's Gofpel is fuppos'd to have been publifh'd ; and what he fays to it is, ' That Mathew having wrote his Gofpel in Hebrew, every one Interpreted it, as he was able. Upon which Words a late * Learned and Worthy Divine of our own Church, naturally obferves, That f^ Apud Eufeb. E. H. lib. 3. c. 39. * Whitby's Preface to the four Gofpels. Papias [51] Papias knew nothing of any Authentic Ver fion of MtitheW s Gofpel, 'approv'd by the A- poftles, and look'd upon in his Time, as Ca nonical by the Church ; but if the Gentile Church had obtain'd no One approv'd Ver fion fo late, i. e. Not till after the Beginning of the fecond Century (before which time 'tis univerfally allow'd the Nazarens had corrupted their Original) Heretics will alk. from whofe Hands, or by what Means or Teftimony, fhe could procure it afterwards, except only by a New Revelation ? The Truth is, — The Original Hebrew being a Sacred Depofttum in the Hands of the Nazarens ; the Gentiles muft have been content, with fuch a Copy oi: Verfion, as thofe People thought fit to allow them; and if they were fo very Intent (as moft a- gree) upon Corrupting, with their own Ad ditions, even the Original itfelf; is it likely. They would oblige the Gentile Chriftians (their bitter Enemies) with a truer Copy than they had themfelves ? Or with a Ver fion more pure than their own Original ? Few Heretics will believe this. That thefe Two Gofpels, viz. That we have at prefent, and the Nazaren did in deed differ very materially from each other, is a Fad that appears even at this Day ; fince many of the Various Readings in the Nazaren-Gofpel (or Interpolations, if you had rather call them) are now extant, hav ing been colleded out of the Fathers with G 2 great [S2] great Pains by feveral learned ' Hands.— ^ Tho' thefe do not at all help us out in our prefent Inquiry, for the Queftion ftill re mains, whether Thefe are indeed Interpo lations, or rather part of the Original Gofpel^ Or whether thofe firft Converts, and Cotem poraries with the Apoftles, if they did add or interpolate, had not good Reafon and Autority for fo doing ? * As many learned Men fuppofe they had. And if fo, then (fays the Adverfary) it will follow, fuppofing both Gojpels had the fame Original, that. our prefent Copies are Retrench'd, or not fo faithfully Tranfmitted as they ought to have been. After all, 'tis a melancholy Thiqg, Ec clefiaftical Writers fhould agree. The Ori ginal itfelf of Mathew's Gojpel was at any time corrupted; fince if the Thing were fo, the fame will amount even to a Demon- ftration, That the firft Converts (the Cor rupters) never Believ'd it of Divine Infpi ration ; but knew it rather, to have been compil'd, by One among themfelves, not only liable to Miftake, but who had adu- ally Miftaken, in thofe Fads or Points to which they fo readily, and without Scruple made Alterations ; for what elfe could de termine thofe Chriftians, to Alter and Adul terate a Gojpel, which was wrote to oblige themfelves, by an infpired Apoftle too, and a Friend of their own choofing ? There- ' Vid. Eabritii Cod. Apocryph. N. T. kc. p. 2c6— !?7I. » Vid. Sim. Crit. Hift. N. T. Part I. c 7. [53] Therefore that They corrupted it at all feems to me (I confefs) a mere Slander of the Gentile Fathers, without Foundation, in order to magnify their own Gofpel; in regard great Encomiums are given th!& Na zaren Gofpel, as well by thofe who have thought it a diftinB Original, as by thofe who have eonceiv'd it of the fame Origin with Our prefenjt Gofpel " The Firft believe it was an honeft « Compofure, not by a fingle Hand, but *' by a Council, or CoUedion of Jewijh " Converts at Jerufalem, foon after Our "_ Saviour's Afcenfton, and fome time before " St. Mathew\ or any other of our pre- " fent Canonical Gofpels appeared, and " therefore to be prefer'd to them ; and " that the moft antient Fathers receiv'd it " among other the Infpir'd Writings. " The Latter fay boldly. That our pre- " fent Greek 9'ext is of no Validity, but to " be efteem'd rather Apocryphal, in refped ^' to theO/<:^ Hebrew of the Nazarens; they " lament therefore exceedingly the Lofs of " it, as the greateft Mifchief that could *' poffibly have befallen the Chrift tan Churchy " wifhing it were now extant, as it was " beyond all Doubt, the moft antient Ad " of the Chriftian Religion, and confequent- " ly fhould be the only -Means, if we had " it, by which we might Corred our pre- " fent Greek Verfion, which (they think) at " the beft is but a bad One ; the Tranfla-, " tor [ 54 ] ** tor (whoever he was) having affum'd " ftrange Liberties, in Epitomizing it, and " giving us rather the Senfe than the ": Words." So Unfaithfully has it been Tranfmitted to us. — For the Sake of thofe who may be Curious to know the Great ^ Names, of one or other Perfuafion, I have inferted them in the Margin, as colleded out of Father Simon, Six fus Senenfis,Grabe, and other Learned Authors. To fay no more on this Head, if the Gofpel we now have according to Mathew, was wrote Originally in Greek, as fo many learned Men contend, let us confider once again freely and impartially, what muft be the Confequence, and upon what a very uncertain Foundation it manifeftly ftands. Not only it is Agreed, the Original Greek was never fo much as heard of, referr'd to, or mentioned, by any one Chriftian Writer, as then Exifting any where ft but the im mediate Hebrew Tranftation alfo of that Greek hath been miffing, ever fince St. Jerome's time, or very foon after, (that is) above 1300 Years paft; So that now what the Englijh Church makes ufe of, and builds her Faith upon, and which is called particularly in the Front of our Tefta- ments ; A Tranftation out of the Original ' Epipbanius, Jerome, 'Bede, Bc{ronius, Father Simpn, Sixtus Senenfis, Dr. Grabe, Toland, Nye, Le Clerc, Fabritius, Mr. Riehardfon, Dr. Mill, Du Pin, &c See alfo A. B. Wakens Preliminary Difcourfe to his Tranijation of the Apoftolical Fathers, Chap. lo. Seift. 4. "^ Greek, [55] Greek, is in Truth no other, than what is generally reputed by our prefent learnpd Clergy, Avery faulty Tranftation, from a ^ modern Greek Edition, of a bad Greek Tranftation, out of the loft HebrewTranftation, from a Greek Original that was never feen. — Not to mention that the Author of Our faid Greek Tranftation (bad as it is) was ne ver known, to any one of the Fathers, no not to the inquifitive Jerome himfelf ; which therefore put him upon Tranflating the Nazaren Gofpel (in his Time extant) into Greek and Latin. But which Tranfla tions together with their Original were ner ver more heard of. From what has been offer'd therefore upon the Two laft Pofitions, or Heads, it may be obferv'd. -That the Heretics the Impugners of our prefent Gofpel of Mathew, proceed upon other Confiderations, than the Letters-writer feems willing to apprehend ; They argue, that either it was not deriv'd frpm St. Mathew's Genuine Hebrew, and confequently is an Apocryphal Gofpel, or if it be, that it was Interpolated from the Beginning according to Church-Tradition, or laft of all it hath been Retrench'd, as fay others, and Epitomis'd by the Tranftator; and this long before it came into the Hands ' Robert Stephens, Printer at Paris, who Publi.'h'd New Editions of the Greek Teftament, Annis 1550, 1551- which our laft Tranflators of the New Teftament chiefly follow'd. of [56] of any of thofe Gentile Fathers, from whonl he takes his Accounts of it. They eafily fubmit to the Letter-writers fine Reafoning, ' That after Chriftianity was carry' d into almoft all parts of. the Roman Empire, and Copies of the New Teftament fpread ivith it, and not only remain'd in the Hands of numbers of private Chriftians, but •were publickly received and read in Religious Aft'emblies; which (by the way) could not be, till towards the End of the Fourth Cen tury: That then indeed, it had been in vain, for a private Chriftian, to have at tempted any confiderable Alteration in his Copy, without being found out, and ex ploded by others, (tho' fome Alterations we know were made, found out, and ex ploded, and yet Continu'd) But, I fay, the Adverfary is not averfe to admit the Ar gument on this Head; What he urges with refped to Our prefent Gojpel is, that fup pofing it truly deriv'd from St. Mathew's Hebrew, (which the Learned we fee very much fufpedT:,) yet was it grievoufly Adul terated in its very Original, or elfe Abridg'd by its Tranflator whilft in private Hands^ In either of which Cafes, the few Arguments which the Paftoral Letter-writer hath brought, for the faithful Tranjmiftion of this particular Gofpel (among c>tWs) will be found of no Force. As to the Various Readings, in a Gofpel, the whole of which is fufpeded to be Apo- ' Paftoral Letter, /. 64. cryphal. [57] cryphal, I do not find the Adverfary triuchphs much in that refped ; tho' it has been ob- ferved by fome Critics, that in this Gofpel alone, which Confifts of about iiooVerJes, there are to be found no lefs than rooo Various Readings. Which to fpeak the Truth, with ' Dt. Whitby, are enough to make the Mind doubtful, and a little Ap prehenfive, that nothing certain can be ex- peded from a Book, where there are Al terations in every Verfc, and almoft in e- very Part of every Verfe. 'Therefore upon the whole I am afraid, Thofe who oppofe the Canonical Autority of this particular Gofpel, will be apt to in fift. That as the Authors of all f)rofane Writers, of any Note, are, and have ever been, univerfally affented to, without Dif^ pute, which is far from being the Cafe of the Author here examin'd : So neither are there * any fuch plain and ftrong Teftimo nies for the^ unfaithful Tranfmiftimi of any of thofe Writings, as there are of this Gofpel; and confequently, upon thefe two Accounts, that they may fairly Rejed the latter as Apocryphal, without ^ Involving themfelves in the Abfurdity of RejeBing all Antient Writings i&hatfoever. For befides (I fay) that they think their Authors certain, we have no fuch plain Evidence for their A^ dulteration; as neither was it ever the In- ' Exam. Var. Left. Mill, p 3. . » Paft. Let:/. 63. ' Ibidem. H t^rell [58] tereft of any Set of Men fo egregloufly to Corrupt them in Support of Private Opini ons. — — That which makes the immenfe Difference between the Sacred, and Profane Writings, and caufes a reftlefs Bickering with, and Scrutiny into, the former is this, — - That tho' we are told our Salvation depends, upon their moft exad Truth and Certainty, yet the Priefts will hot permit Hqneft Men, to make ufe of their Underftandings, with the fame ' Freedom, when they read thefe, as they take upon themfelves always to do, when they read a Profane Author, tho' there is fo much the greater Reafon for it ; the Clergy, for Inftance, of the Church of Eng land (the moft Learned in the World) tho' they know the Sacred Scriptures have doubt ful Books in them, and have been moreover horridly ' Abus'd with refpeB even to fome Efentials ; and tho' they allow, there are above 30,000 Various Readings in them, many of them - of Importance, yet with their good Will, they would tye Men down ftill, to an implicit Belief of every Book, and e^^ery Period, or Paffage, in thofe Books, without Examination; though what they ' Vid. Paft. Let. p. 6, 7. Where the Author reproaches thofe who pretend to this juft and neceffary Freedom,, without which all Reading is Vain. * 'Tis a Thing notorious to Divines, and Dr. Mill- hath made it manifeft to the World, That no one Book hath fuf fer'd fo much, by the Length of Time, nor been fo perfidi- oufly dealt with (by the pretended Guardians of it) as the New Teftament in general. Fid. Wetftenii Pref. Nov. Teft. who collefls out of Dr. Mill thovt 30,000 various Readings. many [59] many tinies rigidly infift on, * Tends neither to the Honour of God, nor the Good of Men; and tho' it evidently Difagrees with the Light of Nature, and the Reafon of Things ; to be govern'd by which, is by the Letter-writer *, deein'd' an Iflfidel Principle. 'Tis worth while the obferving, how art fully, this declared Enemy to rational Li berty applies himfelf there, to the Prejudi ces of Vulgar Believers, ftirring up their Refentments againft thofe who pretend to judge foir themfelves in the Conftrudion of Holy Writ, and infinuating as if it fhould be great Piety in Men always to diftruft their own Underftandings, but prefumptu ous Wickednefs in them, ever to doubt of their Wit or Fidelity, thro' whofe Hands the Sacred Volumes have been tranfmitted, and who pretend now authoritatively to didate their true Meaning to them;^ infulting alfo poor Sceptics oh that Account> and for daring to fufped, they may fonje- times hit upon falfe Readings, and poffibly be impos'd on, in Point of Divine Revelation, which he will by no Means fuffer, tho' thofe Readings fhoufd contradid (as is faid) Natural Li^t, and the Reafon of Things ; and this at the fame Time too, (which is the Jeft of it) that he ' intreats them care^ fully to perufe the Sacred Writings. Llftly, j come to conftder, the Internal Teftimony this Gofpel according to Mathew * Paftoral Letter, /. 6. * Ibid. />. 7. 3 Ibid. p. 90. \\ 2 affords. 0 6o ] affords, of its Divine Autority, or ¦ rather, the DefeB which Heretics, the Renouncers of this Gofpel complain of in that RefpeB. ^. Npw the firft and great Defed with thefe is, that there is no Manner of Ac count, no Teftimony to he foxxnd in It, of the Author himfelf, who he was, in what Time, to whom, or upon what Motives, or Information he began to write,, which (fays the Adverfary) looks very fufpicious, efpecially as he treats of Things facred, , and is for introducing • a New Faith, a New Worjhip, and, in a Word, a New Re ligion into the World, the Impoftures in %yhich were very numerous. TThis Author (fays the Adverfary) is fup pos'd the firft and leading Evangelift, the ftrft that utidertook to pubUfh Fads almoft incredible, or at leaft fuch, as the Heart of .Man could not eafily conceive, even the Incarnation and Miraculous Birth of a (rod, together with his Divine Life, Doc trines, and ABions, during his Abode here upon Earth; and laft of all his cruel Death, and Paflion, with the dazling Wonders that enfu'd, and which accom pany 'd his triumphant Refurredion from the Dead, fufficient to amaze,, and con found Mankind ; confcious therefore of the great Difficulty he fhould have, to obtain the neceffary Credit, it was the more incumbent on him, )to prepare his Reader's Way to it, by all the juft Means he could devife ; as particularly by making him- [6i] himfelf known fix^, and after that t\i^:Time and Occafton of his Writing, as alfo how he became fufficiently appriz'd of thofe extraordinary Fads, which he took upon himfelf, ^?;y? of all, to publifh to a bigot- ted ignorant World, from which he had no Reafon to exped a very favourable Hearing.— And if he knew himfelf to be indeed Infpir'd for the Undertaking, what fhould hinder (fays the Adverfary) or what could poffibly be the Reafon, why he did not fatisfy us in- that Point? and this the rather as the Publication of his Gofpel-Hiftory and Precepts, fhould tend diredly to fubvert, not only That of his own Country, but all the Religious Inftitu- tions then in the World, long eftablifh'd, and to which he muft know, the feveral Nations were immoderately addided.~And further alfo he could not but forefee, the firm Adherence to all he faid, would be indifpenfibly requir'd, even againft invete rate Cuftom of all thofe, to whofe Hands his Hiftory fhould at any Time thereafter come, under Pain of Eternal Reprobation. On the other Hand (fay they) for us carelefly to fuppofe a Literal-Infpiration, without any Marks of it, or fo much as the Author's own Teftimony, or Pretence to it, is a Credulity of which we ought to be a/ham'd 'Tis taking up with a Religion founded upon Tradition, or Church Teftimony, for which, one Pare of the Chriftian World is very defeivcdly ex^ [6a] expos'd; a mere groundlefs Tradition (fay they) againft the Reafon of the Thing it felf, and which therefore is much more eafily rejeded than receiv'd : • This, (continue they^ is to Believe, or rather Create a Miracle to Our felves, merely upon the Strength of our own Fancies. But there are fome Men (fay they) who not only prefume abfurdly, to extend and limit the Word of God, to juft fuch a Number of Books, but, as obferv'd, would alfo bind Men down, to an Implicit Belief, in every Line, and every Word, in thofe BcToks ; when 'tis fo Apparent, the Authors themfelves Didate nothing by Dint of their own Autority, nor feem to exped any fuch blind Submiffion at our Hands. For Inftance, can any One (fay they) believe our prefent Author had any fuch Expedation, when he never once offers at fatisfying his Reader, in any the neceffary Points leading , to it? Where (fays the Adverfary) does Mathew pretend to be fo much as an Eye or Ear- Witnefs, to any One of Our Savi our's Tranfadions? Or does he let us know, from whom elfe he learn'd them, or from what Memoirs he came by them, fo as to be enabled to Tranfmit them to Pofterity, with that Accuracy, a Rational Faith in all his Relations, abfolutely requir'd ? If he has fail'd in affording Us thefe neceffary Ante cedents to Belief, we fee not why it fliould be demanded of Usi The [ 63 ] ' The. Injpirld Pen-Men in the Old Tejia ment, Mofes and the Prophets, who were not only bare Recorders, bpt who were themfelves alfo the Workers of Miracles, to which Mathew no where pretends; Thefe (fays the Adverfary) were neverthelef3 carefi:}l to let us know, they were commiffi- on'd from Heaven, to teach all that they taught us ; and fometimes they inform us too of th^ir own Tribes and Families, for more Satisfadjon ; but they never fail to affure Pofterity, that tbey Prophefy'd by DJvine. Autority, which you hear of, ac every Turn; but which they had notln- cvjlcated fo often, had they not perceiv'd it neceffary, to obtain due Credit and Obe dience, to the Divine Commands.- — -And St. Paul alfo in his feveral Epiftles, to thofe Churches he himfelf ereded, follows their Example in fome meafure, or fhall we ra- ^ther fay, His own Dlfcretion. Whereas the Author of this Gojpel, is intirely Silent in that matter, and who in deed if he had attempted to gain a Belief of this Sort, his own Irregularities, (fay his Antagonifts) would have betray'd him — . Urging that the Holy Spirit could never be the Author of thofe ' ContradiBions, Dif- locations ' The Adverfary had better omitted [Contradiffions, and Difagreemeiits] fince Thefe, (moft Commentators agree,) are fpecial Signs, and even Proofs of the Truth of the Goffel Hiftory. Veritatis maximum iftud eft Judicium (fays Chryfoftome) Nam fifer Omnia Conjentirent, exaild diligen-^ [64] locations, Improprieties, and Difagreements, which Divines the moft Learned and pious, have Pointed, out, in their Comments on this Gofpel. 'Tis true there are fome, who pretend to account for, the Diforder and Confufion obferv'd, more efpecially in the former Part of St. Mathew's Gofpel, but They are driven to a very odd Expedient ; ' They fuppofe the Infpir'd Author wrote at firft feparately, and upon J'everal diftinB Papers, ivhich Papers, (or whatever elfe the Gofpel nioas written upon) being carelefty flung afide by the fame Author, were afterwards put together, in their prefent confus'd Order, by thofe, who did not perfeBly know, the True Series of the Hiftory. . A Conjedure unworthy the Holy Apoftle, and that Spirit, by whofe Afflatus he is fuppofed to write.— The Holy Ghoft, (fay thefe Harmonifts) dic tated the Gofpel in good Order, but fail'd in the After-Compofure, than which nothing can be more improvidential and abfurd. But 'tis not the Tranfpofitions and Dif- locations of Fads only, which the Adver fary lays fo great Strefs on. "The Meannefs and Inaccuracy, (fay they) of the tjd, — Nemo Hoftium Chrifti fuiffet, quin crederet, eonvenijfe Una E vangeliftas, Ig Humana quadam Qonffiratione, frripfiffe qitee fcripferunt, Chryfoftom. Horn, in Math, i . Apud Cafaubon. adv. Baron. Annal. p. 172 . yid. etiam Grot. de Veritat. Chriftian. Rel. lib. 3. S. 13. Et ubique inter Commentator. ' Fid. fThiH. Hum. p. 103, 104. And other Harmonies 'tp the like Effeft." whole [ 65 ] whole Compofure: And the partial imper- fed Account the Author gives, without Or der or Coherence, of that Illuflrious Perfon, who is his only Subjed, a,s they fhew him to be much Inferior in Genius and Capacity, to the unaffifted Grecian and Roman Hiftori ans of thofe Times, fo therefore (they ima gine him) far unequal to a Task, which fhould prove of that near Confequence and Importance to the World. For I confefs 'tis not eafy for fome Men, to give into that Notion of ^ St. Paul, that a Being of Infinite Wifdom, Jhould chgofe the Foolijh and the Weak, the Bafe and De- fpis'd, (that is) thofe who are fartheft off his own Image,) even the Idiotical, Brutifh part of Mankind, to teach and reform the Wife ; or that he fhould delight in fuch rude Inftruments, merely to fhew his Power againft, and Confound thofe, who with com mendable Labour and Study, have adorn' d, themfelves with ufeful KnOvvledge: . Had this been True of St. Paul himfelf, he could never have brought over fo many People and Nations, to the Profeffion of Chriftianity, more 'tis believ'd than all the reft of the (illiterate) Apoftles together, nor made that illuftrious Figure in its behalf, before the learned Pagans, as we are told he did, as well in Judcsa, as at Rome, and Athens. s I I Cor. i. 27, 28. I The [66] The internal Charaders therefore, by which other antient Books are many times eftablifli'd, are we fee made ufe of by the Enemies of this, in order to overthrow it : ¦ Their Arguments for which, are left to the Letter-writer's ferious Confideration. But neither do Sceptics ftop here ; they fay further, that the Author of this Gofpel . is really Miftaken as to Fad, in fome of his Relations ; for they Objed, he hath given us ' a Genealogy of Jefus, which even the Orthodox allow, to be utterly irreconcile- able to other Parts of Holy Writ, the Con fequence of which is, that he hath admi- niftred Occafion for a Herefy, which from the firft Appearance of this Gofpel, hath continually infefted and turmoil'd the Church ; for (fay * Church-Writers,) 'tis from the Spurious Genealogy, given in this Gojpel, That thofe two famous Arch-Heretics, Ce- rinthus, and Carpocras, with their numerous Followers, took upon them to prove, that yefuswas fprung in the ordinary way, from yofeph and Mary, and therewithal to deny his Divinity and Incarnation, points of the greateft Concernment to Chriftianity : And which if given up to thofe Heretics, would render the Profeffion of it, in all other Re- fpeds, as mOft think, of no Effed to the World. ' He that would fee more of this Genealogy, let him confult Sixtus Senenf Bibl. Sacr. p. 582. 590. And Spanheim, Dubia Evangelica. Vol. i. 2. * Simon. Crit. Hift. N. T. Part. 1. chap. 7, 8. In [67] In this famous Inftance of making yefus to defcend from Jofeph the Carpenter, as Mathew apparendy contradids St. Luke; fo his Enemies have obferved, that this is not the only One, wherein they differ on this Head. Whoever will be at the Pains to compare Mathew's Genealogy, with that tranfmitted to us from St. Luke, and Mathew's again, with the Hebrew Pedigrees, in the Old Teftament, will find Gradatim, as he proceeds, that he fcarcely agrees with St. Luke, or the Sacred Canon of the OldTeftament, in a fingle Degree of Defcenr, except thofe of the Patriarchs, notorious to all ; which makes fome vehemently fufped, either that this Gofpel was not wrote, till after the DeftruBion of ferufalem, when the public Records of the Jewijh Pedigrees (to which the Author before that Time, might have had free accefs) perifh'd toge ther with the Temple^ ; or elfe that it was compos'd by fome Gentile-Convert, who be ing a Stranger to the Language, Religion, and Policy of the Jews, i. e. fimple and illiterate; received all Things upon Truft, from fome unfaithful Relator. And which (fays the Eneniy) feems to be the Cafe more plainly, when we confider further, this Author's grofs Mifapphcation of certain Prophecies in the Old Teftament, which by ' erroneous Citations, and a moft I 2 wretched ' St Jerotie, Commenting on Mieah v. 2. and Obferv ing the V«riance, between the Genuine Text, and its Quo- tatioa [68] wretched and forc'd ConftruBion, he hath warp'd to a Senfe, altogether foreign to the Prophets true Meaning, and this only for the fake of accommodating them to Jefus in Proof of his being the Meftiah, which ftood in need of no fuch fupport ; and which there fore is thought by fome, another Inftance of t\ns Axxthov'sviantof Judgment at leaft, if not Fidelity : As alfo, that as he was not himfelf a Jew, fo neither could his Gofpel be calculated, for the Ufe of the Jews, who were never wont to apply any of the Prophecies quoted in this Gofpel to their ex- peded Meftiah, and confequently he nnuft know, could not be eafily impos'd on, in that refped. Tho' others again have infer'd, from the Sophifticated manner of this Author's quot ing, and accommodating Scriptures, that he was too well vers'd in Myftical Theology, and made more ufe of it, than well com ported with a poor illiterate Chriftian of the Apoftolick Age; and confequently that this Gofpel, might poffibly be compos'd, by fome Heleniftical Convert Jew, fkilful in that way, but at fooneft after the Deftrudion of Jerufalem ; for the Primitive Chrifiians had not learn'd to allegorize and play the tation in Math. ii. 6. Owns freely, that the Evangelift\ Quotations out of the Old Teftament are, almoft all of them Erroneous. — Aut Ordo mutetur, aut Verba, £=f interdum Senfus quoque ipfe Diverfiis fit. They negleifling (as he thinks) to Tranfcribe x!kzTn out of the Book's themfelves, and Trufting to their own Memories, which fail'd them. Fool [ 69 ] Fool with the Sacred Writings, till after the Platonifts came into the Church ; when ('tis true) they became fo expert in it, that they would readily convert the plaineft Text of Scripture to an Andgogical Mean- 2»g.-«_But which Method of expounding Scripture, to which the Antients were con tinually addided, gave the Enemies of our Holy Religion a Handle to expofe exceed ingly, and ridicule it, as a Religion found ed on Tropes and Figures only, and the mere Dreams and Vifions of Impoftors. - I fhould conclude here, but that I am called upon, by a very ingenious Author, now lying before me, to give a Specimen or two more of Mathew's fingular Probity and Skill, in compofing Sacred Hiftory; but which however I fhould not have men tioned, did they not in the Opinion of Friends, as well as Foes, require an An fwer more folemn and d propos, than any has been yet given them. I have touch'd already upon the Genea logy in his firft Chapter, and have fhewn how infinitely he varies in his Account there compar'd with St. Luke, and the reft of Scripture, of which Anti-Jcripturalifts take Advantage. 1 proceed now no far ther than his very next Chapter, to de- monftrate equal Judgment and Veracity, in his recording Fads of another Nature, In [70] In the Beginning of this fecond Chapter, * He fets out with a moft furprizing Story, of three Wife Men coming fome where from the Eaft, led by a Star, to a certain Houfe. - — Now what Foundation is there in Na ture (fays my Author) for fuch Aftrologi- cal Notions, as thefe Wife Men were adted by ; or of fuch a Phenomenon in the Heavens, waiting upon thefe three Men here and there, and laft of all point ing down to a little Houfe, whither they were, without other Inftrudlon, to go ? Mathew goes on and fays. That at the News thefe fame Men brought of the Meffiah'i being born^ all Jerufalem was troubled; which 'tis urg'd cannot be true, for that we all know, the Jews expeded their Meftiah, with the utmoft Defire and Impatience, agreeably to what St. Luke fays, ^ That the Tidings of Chrift's Birth was Matter of great yqy.— Again, Verfe 6th, Mathew introduces the Chief Priefts and Elders, as applying the Prophecy of Micah v. 2. to the Meftiah, which we know the old Jews conftantly underftood, fome of King Hezekiah, and others of Zorobabel, whom they alfo deem'd to have fulfill'd it ; and further did in Chrift's own Time, make ' Vid. Scheme of Literal Prophecy, fuppofed to be wrote by Mr. Collins What is obferv'd by him oi Mathew's In accuracy and Miftakes in this Chapter, is ho more than what was antiently objefted on the Part of the Manichies, to be found in St. Augiiftin, Sixtus Senenfts, &c. * Chap. ii. V. lo. it [ 71 ] it a part of his Charader ' Not to know whence he was,— .So far my Author concerning Mathew's Judgment and Inte grity as an Hiftorian. "The next Inftance, he gives, is of his Skill, in Chronology, in laying down as he does, the whole Tranfadion of this Affair in the Reign of King Herod. iWhen according to St. Luke, Jefus was not born, till many Y'ears after Herod's Death, even when Cyrenius being Governor of Syria, had laid a Tax on Judeea; which 'tis cer tain, he could not have done, had Herod, who was fupreme Lord of that Country, been alive. Befides that Mathew contra dids the Vulgar Mra of Chrift's Nativity,- which does not commence, till three Years after the Death of Herod. Nor can this Affair of the Wife Men, the Slaughter of the Infants, the Journey of Chrijl into Egypt, and his Return thence (a * Train of Notorieties recorded by Mathew) be well reconciled, to the to tal Silence of St. Luke, in relation to them all ; Laftly, that horrible Fad of Herod's ordering all the Infants, of a whole Town and Neighbourhood to be flam, is fubjed to great Difficulty ; for how could fo ex traordinary a Fad happen in the World, and no Hiftorian, Sacred or Profane, come to the Knowledge of it, fave this Author only ? I John ix. 29. * Chap. ii. •^ But [ 7^] But to let alone other.Obfervations of this Nature, That which hath occafioned the moft lafting Difputes, among the Antients, and created the greateft Sufpicion, in fober- minded and judicious Men, of the Genui- liefs of this Second, as alfo of the ftrft Chapter of St. Mathew'i Gofpel, is this ; That neither of them were to be found, either in the Nazaren, or Ebionite Gofpel, which was undoubtedly the Antient Hebrew of the Holy Apoftle, nor, which is more furprizing, in any one of the Old MS. Copies of the Gofpel According fo Mark, which by moft Divines antient and mo dern, is conceived to be but an Epitome of Mathew'^. Now tho' thofe two Seds, the Nazarens and Ebionites, confider'd as Heretics, may be fufpeded to have wickedly retrench'd their Copies ; yet who will dare to conceive the fame of St. Mark, whofe Abridgment hath been all along held Sacred ? Will any one prefume to fay, he hath facrilegioufly diminifh'd two entire Chapters of his Ori ginal Author ? I fhould be glad to fee a fair Solution of thefe Difficulties, often prefs'd by Heretics ; efpecially as the Letter- writer knows, they have driven many of the pious Laiefy, and fome alfo of the learned Clergy, to the Neceffity, either of renouncing the whole Gofpel as infpir'd, or elfe of giving up thefe two firft Chapters as Interpolations; without which they think it cannot be defended. Tho' [ 73 ] Tho' others of the Clergy have been perfuaded, the Apoftles were not fo per petually infpir'd, as to be without all Er ror and Miftake. Therefore Epifcopius (one of the ableft Divines of the lafl Age) refleding on fotne indefenftble 'Errors in the New Teftament, and admitting them ne verthelefs to be genuine, bbferves againft thofe, who out of a ridiculous Piety,labour'd in vain to account for them ': That 'twas much better, and would caufe lefs Scan-' dal, to acktwwledge fairly, fome Failings in the Canonical Books, rather than fty to ab furd Interpretations, by which the Sujpicitin of a Failing, is not only not remov'd, but in creased; and when the Fault is not acknow^ ledged, it looks (fays he) as if we were not in good Earneft for Truth.— — Neither do I think it necejfary (fays * Erafmus) we fhould attribute ev^efy Thing in the Apoftles to Mi racle. They were Men, fome Things they were ignorant of, and in others miftaken ' JJnus Chriftus caruit omni Furore, & qui fcis an hanc Laudem, omnibus modis abfolutam, ftbi fervari voluit? To the like Effed Gro^ tius, Jerome, and alfo Origen, and feveral of the Greek Fathers. But I have been led infenfibly to a much greater Length, in producing the Argu ments of Heretics, for the Letter-writer's ^ Inftitut. Theol. lib, 4. ^. 232. * Comment. ABs x. 5 Idem in Epift. ad Eckium. K Obfer- [ 74 1 ... Obfervation, againft another Edition of his laft Paftoral Letter, thanl at firft propos 'd. I had Thoughts indeed, when I firft begun, to have gone thro' the whole fiv^.' Gojpel, and have cited Verbatim, not only the Inter polations, but all pretended Inconfiftencies taken notice ofy either by Heretics, or our own Commentators, and by them collated with the Reft of Scripture. But as fuch Citations I found were like to fwell to a great Bulk ; fo I apprehend more than enough has been faid, to Anjhioer the main Defign of this Treatife ; which is to Evince the Neceffity of another Sort of Defence, for the Truth and Autority of Gofpel S- ftory z'^amfi Infidels, than is made in the laft- Paftoral Letter. — 'The Writer whereof may know. That Men are not to be led now, as in times of Ignorance, by the loofe Traditions of the Fathers ; who as they were void for the moft part, of all critical Knowledge^ fo were they alfo . Herefies and Enemies to the Catholic Church ; — There is not a fingle Father, quoted by the Letter-writer, but whom he knows to have been Heterodox in Opinion, and an Inftdel, with regard to the Effentials of our prefent Chriftianity. Now what can their Teftimony avail, either to confirm the Orthodox Believer, or to con vince other Species of Heretics of the Autority of the Gofpel here treated of? While thefe pretend to fhew, even from thofe Fathers themfelves, fo many Improprieties [ 75 ] prieties and Miftakes confefs'd in it; befides frequent Clafhings with the other Infpir'd Writings ; and tho' perhaps it will be allow'd to agree with them ^metimes in the Main, yet (fay they) the Difagreement that is, demonftrates Error in the Cafe, and that all its Words always, are not to be taken for Oracles. But I fay enough has been urg'd on. the part of Heretics in relation to our Author's Abilities, for compofing Sacred Hiftory. 'T would be an endlefs Work to go thro' all the Remarks and Exceptions they make, to the feveral parts of thisGo/^^/.— The Learn ed ' Frederic Spanheim (the Father a very Or thodox Divine) hath raifed near one Hundred ObjeBions, or Doubts (he calls them) touch-r ing the Autority of this Gofpel, in the Solu tion of which, he exhaufts above 900 Pages in two 4to Volumes, with very little fatisfadion (as appears) either to himfelf or others:— Could the dubious Gentleman have rais'd in himfelf, but one Doubt more, and purfu'd it clofe, 'tis likely it had happi ly abforb'd, and put an end to all the reft ; but that, alas! never entered into his Head. Of fuch infinite Force is Education, and fo effeBually doth it darken the Minds of Meu.^ Thus I have finifh'd my Inquiry into the Autority of the Gofpel According to Mathew, with the ftrideft regard to Truth; and * In his Traft intitled, Dubia Evangelica, confifting of s Vols, in Suarta, Printed at Geneva 1639. K 2 tho* [ 76 ] tho' I have laid fome Strefs and Emphafis, on the Arguments of Heretics, and may feem in the purfuit of Argument to lean on their Side ; yet this I declare is for the fake of Difpute only, in order if poffible to extradt the Truth, which every Man, more efpecially in this glorious Kingdom of Light and Liberty, hath both the Right and the Means to know; but which however can be no other ways come at, than by rigid Inquiries of this kind. Thus Cotta, rho' a Prieft, undertook to argue with l^albus, againft the very Being and Providence of the Gods ; but feignedly, and purely to fetisfy his:own Mind in fome points. Non> ex Animo, Jed fimulate. — > ' Non tatr^ re^ feller e (Balhi O.rationem,)quam ea^uce minus intellexit, requirere. 'Tis true The Arguments here urg'd, are moft of them antient, and the pretended Contradidions, Miftakes, or Inadvertencies- (call 'em what you will) fuch only, as have been long fince animadverted' upon: Neverthelefs^, with Grief I fay it, they have. never yet met- with, a tolerable Anfwer, or Solution/; on the contrary, we fee fome of the moft celebrated Divines, have not only confefs'd thofe Contradidions, &c. — - but have ventur'd to father 'em, even upon the Wifdom of the Holy Ghoft himfelf, as per mitting them originally to fall, from the Evangelift' s Fen, in order to clear the Gofpel. * Cic. de Nat. Dear. 3. i. > . Writers / [ 77 ] Writers of all Confederacy and make their Gofpels go down the better ; ' to avoid which Blafphemy, and to clear the infpired Writings of a Charge fo heavy, is the great Reafon, of my laying hold of the prefent Occafion, to fet forth Some few only of the Faults in our firft Gxfpel, Heretics moft infift on; to the end the Paftoral Letter-writer, now his Hand's in, may, if he thinks fit, imploy his great Abilities, in their utter Extindion; and have the fole Merit, of eftablifhing the Firft Book of the New Teftament, on a much better Foot, than it hath ever yet- ftood, fince its original Publication. He may perhaps be fenfible of his own Inadvertence in pubiifhing a little too haftily, his laft Epiftolary Performance ; in which had he been fufficiently Provident, he fhould have guarded beforehand, againft the very Sufpicion of being Apocryphal, to which he knew any one Book of the New-Teftament, was more than ordinarily liable, and endea- vour'd at leaft, to remove fome of thofe unanfwer'd Objedions, ^ which that Sufpi^ cion yet fubfifts. At his firft fetting out, he promifed to enter into the Matter fully and diftinBly, in order to give us a clear View of the Evi dences both of the Truth and Autority of the Writings of the New Teftament : But it was the general Obfervation (long before this Inquiry was thought of) that he had fail'd [ 78 ] fail'd egregloufly in the Undertaking ; and that he was fo far, from having entered into the Matter fully, that he had produc'd neither Evidence nor Argument to the Pointy in ^eftion, nor attended even to his own Pofitions In a Word, that he had treat ed the Subjed fo loofely, as to be thought by fome, not to be in earneft ; which puts rne in Mind of what the Reverend Mr. Baxter apdy fays on the like Occafion. Few Chriftians (fays that pious ^ Man) have any other than the Popijh implicit Faith in this Point, nor any better Arguments than .the Papifts, to prove the Scriptures the Word of God ; they have receiv'd it by Tradition, md think it impious to doubt of it, and there fore believe it. Tho' we could per fuade Peo ple never fo confidently, that Scripture is the Word of God, and yet give no Reafon, why they, jhould believe this, rather than any o- ther Book to be that Word, as it would prove in them no right way of Believing, fo is it in its, no Right way of Teaching. It's Jlrange (continues he) to confider how we all abhor that Piece ^ Popery, which refolves our Faith, into that of the Church ; and yet that we do, for the Generality of us Profef- fbrs, content our felves with the fame Kind of Faith: Tea, and many Minifters, never yet gave their People better Grounds, than to tell them, it , is damnable to deny it ; but help^ them not to the neceftary Antecedents of Faith. This ^ Saints Reft. Part 2. S. i . 2. [ 79 ] This general Condud of the Clergy; which Mr. Baxter defervedly complains of, is certainly tl^e Ground-work of all Infide lity; no Faith being lafting, but that which is folidly founded, upon the ReaJ'on and E- vidence of Things ; and confequently^ that the flovenly imprudent Treatment the Scriptures have from Time to Time met with, from thofe, who profefs to preach, and write in Defence of them, hath not only greatly contributed to that Infidelity, but hath wounded their Autority more, than all the Efforts of Heretics and In fidels. If their People fay only they Believe, few of our Priefts cave upon what Grobnds ; they demand not a Rational Faith, but avoid and condemn it in all their Pradice, and thofe that contend for it ; what they for the moft part reft upon, for the Convidion of Sceptics, is Church Teftimony, or the Tradition and Autority of the Fa thers: If thefe are defpis'd, their laft Shift is, to threaten Damnation, and to falute thofe who but continue to doubt, with the charitable Names of Libertines and Atheifts. But as foul Language feldom hath other Effed, than to Irritate and Provoke, fa the Letter-writer, who cannot be wholly ex- cufed from it, is here call'd upon, to reply to this Treatife, mean as it is, for the tender Inftrudlon, if he pleafes, of Unbelievers; V (that [ 8° ] (thatis) to fiipply the Defcds, of his Jaft moft; imperfed and fuperficial Epiftle, wrote in Defence of the whole Canon of the New Teftament, efpecially with regard to the fingle Book here examined,, upon the old Objedions, of Heretics and In fidels, which he may know fly abroad and prevail now, more than ever; in which only he will prove himfelf worthy of that Superintendancyhe claims over a numerous People, and alfo to be infpir'd, with that Care, and Charity, which a Sudceffor of the -Apoftles, fhould extend to all Mea. . . - FINIS. — '<£ YALE UNIVERSITY L 3 9002 08837 8246