|
The Authority and Necessity of the Scriptures
dd. Scripture. Some may ask, why the Scripture expresses
things so unintelligibly? It tells us of Christ’s living in us, of our
being united to him, of being the same spirit, and uses many other such
like expressions. Why does it not call directly by their intelligible
names, those things that lie hid under these expressions? I answer
[that] then we should have a hundred pages to express what is implied in
these words: “ye are the temple of the Holy Ghost,” neither would it
after all be understood by the one fourth part of mankind. Whereas, as
it is expressed, it serves as well to practice, it we will believe what
God says that, some way or other, we are inhabited by the Holy Ghost as
a temple, and therefore ought to keep ourselves holy and pure. And we
are united to Christ as much as members are to the head, and therefore
ought to rejoice, seeing we know that this union proceeds from his love
to us, and that the effects of it are joy, happiness, spiritual and
eternal life, etc. By such similitudes, a vast volume is represented to
our minds in three words, and things that we are not able to behold
directly, are presented before us in lively pictures.
6. Scripture. There is a strange and unaccountable kind of
enchantment, if I may so speak, in scripture history, which although it
is destitute of all rhetorical ornaments, makes it vastly more pleasant,
agreeable, easy, and natural than any other history whatever. It shines
bright with the amiable simplicity of truth. There is something in the
relation that, at the same time, very much pleases and engages the
reader, and evidences the truth of the fact. It is impossible to tell
fully what I mean, to any that have not taken notice of it before. One
reason doubtless is this: the Scripture sets forth things just as they
happened, with the minute circumstances of time, place, situation,
gesture, habit, etc. in such a natural method that we seem to be
actually present, and we insensibly fancy, not that we are readers, but
spectators, yea, actors in the business. These little circumstances
wonderfully help to brighten the ideas of the more principal parts of
the history. And although the Scripture goes beyond other histories in
mentioning such circumstances, yet no circumstances are mentioned, but
those that wonderfully brighten the whole. So the story is told very
fully and without in the least crowding things together, before one has
fully taken up what was last related, and yet told in much less room
than anyone else could tell it. Not withstanding the minute
circumstances mentioned, which other historians leave out, it leads
along our ideas so naturally and easily, that they seem to go neither
too fast nor too slow. One seems to know as exactly how it is from the
relation, as if he saw it. The mind is so led on that sometimes we seem
to have a full, large, and particular history of a long time. So that if
we should shut the book immediately, without taking particular notice,
we should not suppose the story had been told in half so little room,
and yet a long train of ideas is communicated. The story is so narrated
that our mind, although some facts are not mentioned, yet naturally
traces the whole transaction. And although it be thus skillfully
contrived, yet things are told in such a simple, plain manner, that the
least child can understand them. This is a perfection in the sacred
writers, which no other authors can equal, because in order to it, an
infinite understanding is necessary.
351. End of the World. Millenium. Scripture. It is an
argument with me, that the world is not yet very near its end, and that
the church has made no greater progress in understanding the mysteries
of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, in all their parts, were made for the
use of the church here on earth, and it seems reasonable to suppose that
God will, by degrees, unveil their meaning to his church. It was made
mysterious, in many places having great difficulties, that his people
might have exercise for their pious wisdom and study, and that his
church might make progress in the understanding of it, as the
philosophical world makes progress in the understanding of the book of
nature, and in unfolding its mysteries. A divine wisdom appears in
ordering it thus. How much better is it to have divine truth and light
break forth in this way, than it would have been to have had it shine at
once to everyone, without any labor or industry of the understanding? It
would be less delightful, and less prized and admired, and would have
been less to the glory of God.
It
seems to be evident that the church is not as yet arrived to that
perfection in understanding the Scriptures, which we can imagine is the
highest that God ever intended the church should come to. There are a
multitude of things in the Old Testament, which the church then did not
understand, but were reserved to be unfolded in the Christian church,
such as most of their types, and shadows, and prophecies, which make up
the greatest part of the Old Testament. So I believe there are now many
truths that remain to be discovered by the church, in the glorious times
that are approaching.
Another thing from which we may draw the same conclusion, is that it is
the manner of God to keep his church on earth in hope of a still more
glorious state: and so their prayers are enlivened, when they pray that
the interest of religion may be promoted, and God’s kingdom may come.
God kept the church, under the Old Testament, in hope of the times of
the Messiah. The disciples of Christ were kept in hope of the conversion
of the Roman empire, which was effected about three hundred years after.
But it seems to me not likely that the church from that time should have
no more to hope for from God’s Word, no higher advancement, till
consummation of all things. Indeed, there will be a great but short
apostasy, a little before the end of the world, but then it is probable
that the thing the church will hope and long for, will be Christ’s last
coming, to advance his church to its highest and its everlasting glory,
for that will then appear to be the only remedy. For the church will
expect no more from the clear light and truth which will have been so
gloriously displayed already, under the millennium. Another end of thus
keeping his church in hope is to quicken and enliven their endeavors to
propagate religion, and to advance the kingdom of Jesus. It is a great
encouragement to such endeavors, to think that such times are coming,
wherein Christianity shall prevail over all enemies. And it would be a
great discouragement to the labors of nations or pious magistrates and
divines to endeavor to advance Christ’s kingdom if they understood that
it was not to be advanced. And indeed, the keeping alive such hopes in
the church, has a tendency to enliven all piety and religion in the
general, amongst God’s people.
426. When we inquire whether or not we have scripture grounds for
any doctrine, the question is whether or not the Scripture exhibits it
any way to the eye of the mind, or to the eye of reason? We have no
grounds to assert that it was God’s intent, by the Scripture, in so many
terms, to declare every doctrine that he would have us believe. There
are many things the Scripture may suppose that we know already. God may
reveal things in Scripture, which way he pleases. If by what he there
reveals, the thing is any way clearly discovered to the understanding,
or eye of the mind, it is our duty to receive it as his revelation.
1060. Authenticity of the Gospels and Syrian Translation. The
greatest part of Christians were very early agreed what books were
canonical and to be looked upon as the rule of their faith.
It
is impossible, in the nature of things, but some churches must receive
the books long after others, as they lay at a greater distance from the
places where they were written, or had less convenience of
communication with them. Besides, as Christianity for a long time
labored under the disadvantages of continual persecution, no general
councils could be convened, and so there could be no public
notification of universal agreement in this matter. But notwithstanding
all these things, it is yet discoverable that as soon as can be
supposed, after the writing the books, the Christians, in all countries,
remarkably agreed in receiving them as canonical. For a proof of which,
I observe:
1.
That in the few genuine writings of the first ages now extant, the same
books are cited as Scripture. It is indeed with just reason, commonly
presumed, that the first writers cited the now received books of the
canon, and others promiscuously. But as I shall hereafter show this to
be a mistake, so it will be enough here to observe that they were
generally agreed in receiving the same books for canonical, which we now
do. And this appears from their agreement to cite them, as everyone
must acknowledge, who has but cast his eye upon the writings of the
first centuries. To say nothing of the apostolic fathers, such as
Clemens, Barnabas, etc., it is evident that Justin Martyr at Neapolis,
Theophilus at Antioch, Irenaeus in France, Clemens at Alexandria,
Tertullian at Carthage (who all lived within 120 or 130 years our
Lord’s ascension, and some of them much sooner and but a very short
time after the writing of the books), have all, though in very remote
countries, quoted many or most, if not all the same books as Scripture.
The same might be observed concerning Origen, Cyprian, and other
writers of the next century. It has been already proved, by Mr. Nye and
Mr. Le Clerk, that the writers of the apostolic age were well
acquainted with, because they frequently cite, several books of our
present canon. And if it had not been so, it would have been impossible
for them to have spread so much by the middle of the second century, as
to have been quoted by all the writers of it, in whatever countries
they lived.
2.
Several of the first writers of Christianity have left us, in their
works, catalogues of the sacred books of the New Testament, which
though made in countries at a vast distance from each other, do very
little differ….
I
shall only instance now in those of Origen and Eusebius, which he that
will be at the pains to compare, will easily perceive to be very nearly
the same. So great were the pains and care of those early Christians,
to be well assured what were the genuine writings of the apostles, and
to distinguish them from all pretended revelations of designing men,
and the forgeries they published under sacred titles. Thus, when a
presbyter of Asia had published a spurious piece, under the name of
Paul, he was immediately convicted, and notice of the forgery was soon
conveyed to Carthage and the churches of Africa.
Corollary. Hence it follows, that the primitive Christians are
proper judges to determine what book is canonical, and what not. For
nothing can be more absurd than to suppose, in those early ages, an
agreement so universal, without good and solid foundation. Or, in other
words, it is next to impossible either that so great a number of men
should agree in a cheat, or be imposed upon by a cheat. But there are
some particular circumstances that make the inference more clear as to
the Christian books than others: such as the prodigious esteem the
books at first were received with, the constant use that was made of
them in their religious assemblies, the translations made of them very
early into other languages, etc. [See Jones’s Canon of the New
Testament, part i. chap. v.]
The
omission of a book in some one or two particular catalogues cannot, with
any reason, be urged against its canonical authority, if it be found in
all, or most of the others, and any good reason can be assigned for the
omission, where it occurs. Thus, for instance, the Revelation is
omitted, either perhaps because it was not known to the author, or its
credit was not sufficiently established in the country where he lived,
or perhaps which may be as probable as the other, because it being so
full of mysteries, few or none were judged proper or able to read it to
any purpose. This was certainly the case in England. This book being,
for this reason, omitted in the public calendar for reading the
Scriptures, though it be received into the canon. If, therefore, these
or any such good reasons can be assigned for the omission of a book in
a particular catalogue, it will be very unfair to infer that such book
is apocryphal, especially when it is to be found in many or most other
catalogues.
The
catalogues drawn up by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 370), — by
Epophanius, bishop of Salamis (A. D. 370), — by Jerome, of Dalmatia (A.
D. 382), — by Ruffin, presbyter of Aquilegium (A D. 390), — by
Augustine, bishop of Hippo (A. D. 394), — by forty-four bishops,
assembled in the 3d council of Carthage (A. D. 416), were perfectly the
same with ours now received. [See Jones’s Canon of the New Testament,
part i. chap. viii.]
An
universal agreement of writers, in the most remote countries, in quoting
the same books as Scripture and no other as such, is, if the fact be
true, a very plain and demonstrative indication of the right canon. It
is not at all necessary I should here go about to prove the fact,
viz. that the writers of the four first centuries have cited such
and such books and universally omitted others. This I hope to make good
hereafter. And I cannot but think it worth observing that Eusebius (to
whom, above all others, we are indebted for our helps to establish the
canon), makes frequent use of the same proposition to distinguish
between those books that are, or are not, to be received. So, for
instance, he proves the first epistle of Peter to be genuine, because
the most ancient writers of Christianity, before his time, made
continual use of it in their writings as an undoubted book. And a
little afterwards, he proves the acts of Peter (the gospel, the
preaching and the revelation of Peter), to be apocryphal, because none
of the writers of the Christian church have, in their writings, taken
any testimonies out of those books. And elsewhere, having mentioned
several spurious books under the apostles names, such as the gospels of
Peter, Thomas, and Matthias, and the acts of Andrew, John and others,
he rejects them, because no ecclesiastical writer has made any use of
them in his writings. See Jones’s Canon of the New Testament,
part i, chap. ix.
Those books are canonical which the primitive Christians read in their
churches or public assemblies as the Scriptures, or Word of God.
As
it was the constant practice of the Jewish church in their synagogues,
so it was of the Christians in their religious meetings, to read the
sacred Scriptures. This practice is clearly proved from Col. 4:16,
where St. Paul mentions the reading publicly in the church of the
Colossians and Laodiceans, his epistle to the former, as also an epistle
from the latter in the church of the former. This we find in the
beginning of the second century, from Justin Martyr: “On the day, says
he, which is called Sunday, there is a meeting of all the Christians
who live either in cities or country places, and the memoirs of the
apostles and writings of the prophets are read.” So Tertullian, giving
an account of the Christian’s meetings, says: “They assembled to read
the Scriptures and to offer up prayers.” And in another place, among
the solemn exercises of the Lord’s day, he reckons reading the
Scriptures, singing psalms, etc. The same account we have in Cyprian,
the ancient book, under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite and several
other ancient writers cited by Pamelius in his learned notes on
Tertullian’s apology. Now, I say, these books are to be received by us
as canonical, forasmuch as this practice of reading the Scriptures was
so very early that it is hardly possible to suppose the churches [were]
imposed upon by any spurious and forged pieces…. Hence, in the middle of
the fourth century, it was decreed in the council of Laodicea, in their
fifty-ninth canon, that “no private psalms should be read in the
churches, nor any books without the canon, but only the canonical ones
of the Old and New Testament.” Jones’s Canon of the New Testament,
part i, chap. x.
The
translation of the books of the New Testament into Syriac, is of very
considerable service in determining and fixing the canon of those
books.
The
truth of this proposition depends upon the antiquity of the version. For
if the most ancient Christians are to be judges, and their testimony is
to be translated into their own language, and if such collection of
books was made by the eastern churches in the time, or at least near
the time, of the apostles, it must consequently be of great weight in
deciding this matter. I shall endeavor therefore to show that the
Syriac version was made in or near the apostles times, and in order to
this, I shall first produce all that is historical concerning it. And
as to the history of this version, it is a constant and ancient
tradition among the Syrians that it was made by St. Mark. This account
we have from Pestellus, who traveled into the eastern parts of the
world in order to inform himself of all that he could among them, who
declares that the Syrians delivered it to him as an ancient tradition,
that St. Mark translated his own gospel and the rest of the books of the
New Testament into his own country’s language, that is the Galilean or
Syriac. The first time the Europeans became acquainted with this
version was in the year of Christ 1562. On this occasion, Ignatius, a
patriarch of Antioch, hearing of the advantages of printing, sent a
certain priest of Mesopotamia, called Moses Meridinaeus, into Europe
with a copy of the Syriac Testament, to be printed for the benefit of
the Christians of those eastern parts of the world. After this, some
ancient manuscripts of it, that had lain hid in Europe, were noticed.
And as to the antiquity of this version, I shall:
1.
Mention the opinion of learned men.
The
first is Tremellius, who published and translated it into Latin,
and says of it that it “seems every way probable that it was made in
the very infancy of the church of Christ, either by the apostles
themselves or their disciples, unless we will imagine them in their
writings to have had a concern only for the churches of foreign nations,
and none for those of their own country.”
Our
learned Fuller calls it “a most ancient, a very excellent, and truly
divine monument of Christianity.” Alsted: “The Syriac version of
the New Testament is to be attributed to the church of Antioch, while
yet in its infancy, and to those in that city who were first called
Christians. And though the author of it be not certainly known, yet it
is very likely it was made by some of the apostles or their disciples.
Jacobus Martinis, in his preface to Trastius’s edition: “It is a
version but the first and most ancient of all. It is a version
preferable to all others. It is a version made either by one of the
evangelists, or by some of the Christians at Antioch, who had the
opportunity of consulting with the apostles there.”
Frederick Spanheim, the father, had the same opinion of its
antiquity. Bishop Walton has attempted to prove that it was made
in the apostles times. Frederick Spanheim, the son, in his
ecclesiastical history, places this version in the second century after
Christ, assenting to the agreed opinion of learned men that it was made
very near the apostles times. Father Simon allows its claim to
the greatest antiquity just, and [he] well observes that it preceded
all those schisms, which afterwards divided the eastern nations into
different sects. And this, he adds, is the cause that they all equally
esteem it.
Such have been the received sentiments of the learned concerning this
version.
2.
It was absolutely needful that such a version should be made in or near
the apostles times, and therefore very probable that one was then made.
It
was at that time the language of the first Christian churches and those
innumerable multitudes that were converted to Christianity in
Jerusalem, Galilee, Caesarea, Damascus, Antioch and all the country
round about. It was the language spoken by the Jews in those countries,
as well as the Gentiles that were the original natives. Here were the
first converts to Christianity made and the first Christian churches
founded, and it is unreasonable to suppose that they were long
destitute of those books which contained the records of what Christ had
said and done, and the foundations of their religion.
3.
The Christians of Syria were wont to read the sacred Scriptures of the
New Testament in their churches and public assemblies, very soon after
the apostles times, and therefore a translation of them was made into
the Syriac language. This is manifest by a passage of Justin Martyr,
who lived in the beginning of the second century and plainly speaks of
himself as being a disciple of the apostles…. This is constantly
asserted by the Syrian churches from whom we had it, and there was no
more probability of the Syrian churches losing their translation than
of the Western churches losing their Greek copies. For the same reason
as Greek copies did multiply, the Syriac ones would multiply too.
4.
There are some internal characters in the translation itself, that
evidence its great antiquity. Particularly, the name “Ptolemais,” (Acts
21:7) is rendered by its ancient Jewish name Aeo, which it is
not likely that it would be known by among Christians, long after the
destruction of Judea and Jerusalem, after which there was no body of
Christian Jews by themselves but they were mingled with Gentile
Christians. And in the translation of the Greek records…. We frequently
find in the New Testament the distinction of all mankind into Jews and
ĹëëçíáŹ, which
our translators render Jews and Gentiles. And so the word
Ĺčíç in the New
Testament denotes, in a peculiar sense, all nations besides the Jews.
In the ideas of both these words, the Jews implied something that was
bad, or which they looked upon all the world as profane, sinners,
unclean, etc. And agreeably to this, in the Syrian version, the word
Ĺëëçí is
translated very often by a word that signifies profane,
impious, or sinful, and in many places it is translated a
Syrian, Aramaeus, and the word
ĹčíéęďŹ is
translated profane or impious. And ĹčíéęůŹ,
which we translate after the manner of the Gentiles, Gal. 2:14,
is there translated after the manner of the Syrians, and
Ĺčíç is very
often rendered profane. Now none but the Christian Jews would
have formed a translation so exactly according to the Jewish notions
and phrases, and it is not likely that the Eastern Christians, though
they had some Jewish blood in them, would so naturally fall into such a
way of speaking, long after the wall of partition between Jews and
Gentiles was entirely broken down, which was kept up in some measure
till the destruction of Jerusalem, but then was utterly abolished
between Christians, Jews and others. But to put the matter out of doubt,
I will single out one word, viz. Armojo, which he most
commonly uses for Ĺëëçí,
which signifies a Syrian. Now to understand the reason of this
appellation, viz. why Gentiles and Syrian, or profane, were
among the Jews synonymous terms, we must observe that they always had a
contemptible opinion of the Syrians, as being idolaters. So we find in
Onkelos’s Chaldee version, the words uncircumcised and Syrian
are used promiscuously to denote any foreigner or profane person, Lev.
25:47, because they were their nearest neighbors and idolaters. By this
it is evident that the Syrian interpreter was a Christian Jew that
lived either before, or not long after, the destruction of Judea by the
Romans. The word is so translated Syrian, instead of Gentile,
in Acts 16:1, 3; Acts 19:10, 17; 20:21; Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10; 1 Cor. 1:22,
etc.; 1 Cor. 10:32; 12:13; Gal. 2:3, 14; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11. It
cannot be objected that the translator knew no other Syriac words
whereby to translate the above-mentioned Greek ones. For it is certain
that he not only knew others, but with a great deal of accuracy and
justice, had made use of them. That when the word
Ĺëëçí, in the
New Testament, is put to denote those who were properly Grecians, or
inhabitants of Greece, he makes use of a word nearly the same with
ÉůíęďŹ, a
Greek, properly so called. So when Paul divides all mankind into Greeks
and Barbarians, the Syriac interpreter uses that word, Rom. 1:14; Col.
3:11; so when the proper natives of Greece are meant, as Acts 14:1, or
17:4, 12, etc.; and so when the Greek language is spoken of in the New
Testament, as Luke 23:38 and John 19:20; Acts 19:29; 21:37. This is a
most convincing argument that where he translates the word Ĺëëçí
in the other manner, he spoke according to the language of the Jews, and
therefore that he lived in the time above-mentioned.
5.
There is a most remarkable agreement between the Syriac tradition and
our best and most ancient copies of the New Testament, as with Beza’s
famous manuscript, which he gave to the university of Cambridge,
undoubtedly the oldest now in the world. The same may be said of
several other ancient copies.
6.
It is an argument of the great antiquity of this translation that it has
not in it the four Catholic epistles, viz. the second of Peter,
the second and third of John, and the epistle of Jude, nor the
Revelation. Now these being wanting must necessarily proceed from one
of these causes: 1st. Because they were not written when the version was
made, or 2nd. Because the knowledge of them was not yet come to the
Syrian churches, or 3rd. Because they were not yet universally received
into the number of the canonical books. Now whichsoever of these be
said, the antiquity of the version will be sufficiently established.
But the first of these seems most probable, because as I shall hereafter
show, the churches of Syria did both know and receive several of these
books, at least, as canonical, in the second century, as it is certain
they do now, though it seems they are not ordinarily bound with the
others in the same volume and read in their churches. This argument was
thought so conclusive by Tremellius, and our learned Bishop Walton, that
from it they were persuaded to believe this version was made in the
apostle’s times. — See Jones’s Canon of the New Testament, p. 14
and following chapters.
What follows is extracted from the Bishop of London’s third pastoral
letter, p. 14, etc.
We
find all the four gospels, under the names of the several evangelists,
distinctly spoken of by the most early writers of the church [Clement,
Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Origen], as the known and undoubted
records of our Savior’s life and actions, and as such received by all
the Christian churches and read in their public assemblies….
As
to St. Matthew’s gospel in particular, Mr. Jones observes that it is in
all the catalogues of the sacred books. It is often cited in the
writings of the that are called the apostolic fathers, viz.
Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, the Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, and St.
Ignatius, concerning whom Mr. Jones says that though he did not believe
the writings under their names were all genuine, and of that age to
which they pretend, yet they are undoubtedly very ancient and referred
to by some of the earliest fathers…. The citations of the fathers of
the following centuries, as Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, Austin and others,
are omitted, there being innumerable places wherein they cite this, as
well as the other gospels.
St.
Matthew’s gospel is canonical because it was read as Scripture in the
assemblies or churches of the primitive Christians. Justin Martyr, who
cites the gospel under the name of Memoirs or Commentaries of the
apostles, tells us that on every Sunday, there was an assembly of the
neighboring Christians, and the Memoirs or Commentaries of the apostles
were read…. Cyril of Jerusalem, who flourished in anno 340, enumerating
the books which ought to be read in church, says, “Among the New
Testament books, there were only four gospels, and that all others were
spurious and hurtful.”
Eusebius, in his ecclesiastical history, says that Bartholomew the
apostle, when he went forth to preach and propagate the Christian
faith, took along with him the gospel of St. Matthew, and particularly
that he preached according to this gospel among the Indians…. This is
also related by Jerome, which seems clearly to prove that St. Matthew’s
gospel met with suitable reception and was esteemed of the greatest
authority, even in the apostles times. Eusebius furthermore relates
that Papias, who was (according to Irenaeus) a disciple of John and an
acquaintance of Polycarp, intimates very clearly that St. Matthew’s
gospel was in common use in his time, and that Hegesippus, a writer of
the second century, “wrote some dissertations upon the gospel of
Hebrews, or the gospel of Matthew, which the Nazarenes made use of.”….
Many of the most ancient manuscripts of this gospel do agree with
Eusebius that Matthew’s gospel was written in the eighth year of our
Savior’s ascension. Thus it is in Beza’s manuscript, the oldest now in
the world. So it is in the end of several very ancient Greek manuscripts
which Father Simon saw and more which are cited and referred to by Dr.
Mill. The old Arabic version joins in the same account, viz.
that he, Matthew, wrote his gospel in Palestine, eight years after our
Savior’s ascension. Theophylact and Euthymius also assert this gospel
to have been written in the eighth year after Christ’s ascension. And it
may not be foreign to the purpose to observe how diligent and careful
Eusebius was in collecting his accounts of this sort, and that though
there are some mistakes in his works, yet, for the most part, he is
very accurate and exact, as a chronologer and historian. But Irenaeus
seems not so exact, and in the next words gives an evidently false
account of the time of St. Mark’s writing of his gospel. See Jones’s
Canon of the New Testament, part iv, chap. v.
It
is exceedingly natural to suppose that these two things together would
soon lead the apostles to write some history of the acts and doctrine
and sufferings of Christ, their great Lord, and the head of the
Christian church: viz. First, their unavoidable experience of
the need of such a thing. And secondly, the example of the penmen of the
Old Testament, in writing the history of Abraham, Moses, David,
Solomon, and others, whose persons and actions they esteemed of vastly
less importance than those of the Son of God, who was greater than
Jonas, or David, or Solomon, or Moses or Abraham.
It
is a great argument that there were some genuine gospels, or authentic
histories of Christ’s life and death, that the Christian church had
under the name of gospels, that there were such a multitude of forged
fabulous accounts, or histories, of Christ, all under the same name of
gospels. These fictions are evidently counterfeits and imitations of
something that was looked on by all as true and undoubted. And that
there should be such a multitude of counterfeits and imitations of
these gospels, shows not only that there were genuine gospels, but also
shows the great value and importance of these genuine gospels, and the
high repute they had in the Christian churches.
Mr.
Jones mentions the following spurious gospels, now not extant, mentioned
by the writers of the primitive church. By the writers of the second
century: the gospel of Judas Iscariot, the gospel of Truth, the gospel
of the Egyptians, the gospel of Valentinus, and the gospel of Marcion.
By writers of the third century: the gospel of the Twelve Apostles, the
gospel of Basilides, the gospel of Thomas, and the gospel of Matthias.
By writers of the fourth century: the gospel of Scythianus, the gospel
of Bartholomew, the gospel of Apelles, the gospel of Lucianus, the
gospel of Hesychius, the gospel of Perfection, the gospel of Eve, the
gospel of Philip, the gospel of Ebonites, the gospel of Jude, the
gospel of Encratites, the gospel of Cerinthus, the gospel of Merinthus,
the gospel of Thaddeus, the gospel of Barnabas, and the gospel of
Andrew. And some he mentions besides, that are now extant, as the
gospel of our Savior’s infancy and the gospel of Nicodemus.
St.
Mark’s gospel is also evidently canonical, because it is in all the
catalogues of canonical books that we have in the writings of the
primitive Christians, and it is one of those four gospels that are
spoken of so often by the fathers, as those only that ought to be
received as above. And it is in the Syriac version of the New Testament,
and (which is remarkable) though there be so few passages in Mark,
which are not in St. Matthew’s gospel more largely, and St. Matthew’s
gospel be first and written by an apostle, and so more likely to be
taken notice of, yet St. Mark’s gospel is often cited by the fathers as
Justin Martyr once does in these words: “It is said that he changed the
name of one of his apostles into Peter, and the fact is related in his
commentaries or gospel.”
This is not in Matthew, but in Mark 3:16, and though it be in Luke, yet
it is evident that Justin refers to Mark and not to Luke’s gospel,
which he calls the commentaries or gospel of Peter. For Mark’s gospel,
and not Luke’s, was so called by the fathers. Irenaeus, in his
writings, cites six places that are only in St. Mark’s gospel and twice
cites him by name. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his little tract, had cited
a long paragraph out of Mark’s gospel, viz. Mark 10:17-32, and
then adds, “These things are written in the gospel according to Mark.”
Tertullian has cited nine places in St. Mark’s gospel that are not in
any other. It would be superfluous and endless labor to go in like
manner through all the writers of the four first centuries. Origen,
Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Austin, etc. have made too
many references to this gospel, to require a collection of them all.
As
to the penman of this gospel, the name is mentioned four times in the
Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12:12, 25; Acts 15:37, 39). The same person
is also mentioned in Acts 13:5, 13; thrice in St. Paul’s epistles (Col.
4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phm. 24) and once by St. Peter (1 Pet. 4:13). The
ancients all agree that Mark the Evangelist was a companion or
interpreter of Peter. So Papias, Irenaeus, the author of the
Hypotyposes (which went under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus and was
supposed to be his by Eusebius, Origen, Jerome, and many others of the
fathers), which is confirmed by 1 Pet. 5:13, “The church that is at
Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my
son.” The name is the same in the original that elsewhere is rendered
Mark…. Eusebius relates that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome, when he was
there with Peter in the reign of Claudius, on the earnest request of
the people who desired to have truths they had heard written down, and
that Peter approved of it and confirmed the gospel that he had written…
It
is a great argument that St. Mark’s gospel was written honestly and that
it was no knavish forgery, that it is so much like St. Matthew’s, only
shorter. For what could induce a knave to go about to forge a history
of Christ’s life and death, having scarce anything remarkable in it,
but what was in an history already extant and very little differing
from it in any respect, only that it has not so much in it.?…. The
likeness between St. Mark’s and St. Matthew’s gospel argues the honesty
of the penman of St. Mark’s gospel, whether we suppose he had the other
before him or not. If he knew of the other and had it before him, then
if he had been a knave and wrote with a dishonest design, he would have
added some remarkable things of his own. For if St. Mark had written
with this design, he would not have said less than St. Matthew’s…. And
on the other supposition, viz. of his not knowing of the other,
or copying from it, its likeness with it is a demonstration that he did
not make or feign what he wrote. For it is impossible that two
impostors, without consulting with one another, should make two such
histories so much alike.
St.
Luke’s gospel also is to be esteemed canonical. For besides what has
been observed before of the Syriac version and the ancient catalogues,
and what has been observed above, concerning all the four gospels
together. This gospel is often cited by the fathers, in those things
that it contains that are not in the other gospels. Five such citations
are found in the epistles of Clemens Romanus. St. Ignatius cites St.
Luke in his epistle to the Smyrneans. Justin Martyr cites this gospel
nine times, and Irenaeus cites St. Luke’s above an hundred times…. The
citations out of this gospel in the works of Tertullian, Origen, Cyril,
Cyprian, Ambrose, Austin, Jerome, etc. are so very numerous, and so
easy to be observed everywhere in their writings, that I shall omit
making any collections out of them. These, as the preceding fathers,
appeal always to this gospel as Scripture, and no wonder they should,
when they were assured it was, as Eusebius calls it, an inspired
book. And that this book was read as Scripture in the churches of
the primitive Christians, there is the same evidence that there is for
the forementioned gospels. Marcion, the heretic, and his heretical
followers, had a different gospel of Luke from that which we now
receive, which has largely been refuted by Iranaeus, Tertullian, and
Epiphanius.
That St. Luke’s gospel should be so early counterfeited is an evidence
that there was a genuine gospel of St. Luke’s, and is also an evidence
of the value and importance of that genuine gospel.
The
penman of this gospel is mentioned, Col. 4:14, “Luke the beloved
physician, and Demas, greet you.” 2 Tim. 4:11, “only Luke is with me.”
See also Phm. 24. He was not a Jew, as is evident, because he intimates
that the dialect of the Jews was not his language, Acts 1:19. And St.
Paul distinguishes him from those of the circumcision, Col. 4:10-11,
compared with verse 14…. He was a long time the constant companion of
St. Paul in his travels. This is proved both by the New Testament and
the fathers. In the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 16:10, etc.), which book
at present I shall take for granted was written by Luke, we find him
accompanying St. Paul in his voyage from Troas to Macedonia, for he
speaks there in the first person plural. Acts chapters 20 and 21 tell us
of Luke’s accompanying Paul to Jerusalem, as Acts 27 does of his going
along with him to Rome. And accordingly, St. Paul, in several of his
epistles written from Rome, mentions St. Luke as being with him there.
The evangelist Luke seems to be spoken of by the apostle Paul as a man
of extraordinary note in the Christian church in general, as a person
of great integrity and faithfulness, and as, therefore, a fit person,
above any other, to be joined with the apostle in the care and disposal
of so great a sum as the collection made in Macedonia and Greece for
the saints at Jerusalem, 2 Cor. 8:18-20…. The particular view or design
which St. Luke had in this gospel seems to have been to confute the
many silly apocryphal gospels, which were then extant, and to prevent
the bad influences of them and their heretical doctrines upon the
Christian converts. This is what is so manifest from the first words of
the gospel, and the universal voice of antiquity, that I need say no
more.
As
to St. John’s gospel, there are the same arguments from the Syriac
version, the primitive catalogues of sacred books, and from what the
ancient fathers have testified concerning the four gospels together, to
prove the authority of this gospel, as of the preceding….
St.
Ignatius cites this gospel three times, Justin Martyr five times, and
Theophilus Antiochenus, in his second book to Autolychus, cites John
1:1-2, etc., and introduces it thus: “So the Holy Scriptures teach, and
all inspired writers, among whom is John, who saith, In the
beginning was the Word,” etc. Iranaeus has appealed to, or cited
this gospel in above one hundred and twenty several places, and eleven
times cites it by name, and several times cites this gospel under the
express and distinguishing name of Scripture…. The matter is so clear
and the citations so numerous in the writings of Tertullian, Origen,
Jerome, and Austin, etc. that I thought it needless to collect them.
And there is the same evidence of this gospel’s being read as Scripture
in the assemblies or churches of the primitive Christians, as of the
other gospels…. And Origen says, “This gospel was received as among the
books that were admitted by all the churches in the world.”
The
penman of this gospel, by the account which other writers of the history
of the New Testament give us, was one of those apostles that were most
highly favored and honored of Christ. He was one of those three that
were admitted to be in the mount with Christ at his transfiguration,
and to be present with him when he raised Jairus’s daughter, whom he
took with him in his agony, and was sent with Peter to prepare his last
passover, Luke 22:8. After Christ’s ascension, he preached with Peter
in the temple and healed the lame man, preached to the people, was
apprehended of the Sadducees, imprisoned, and boldly pleaded in defense
of Christianity. He was the deputy of the apostles with Peter, to go to
Samaria to confirm the disciples there, and is one of those three whom
the apostle Paul speaks of as the main pillars, Gal. 2:9.
St.
John seems to have had two particular designs in writing his gospel,
viz. the confuting certain heretics and supplying the defects of
the history of Christ in the other gospels. Irenaeus tells us, “That
the evangelist designed, by his gospel, to confute the errors which
Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans had infused into the people, who imagined
that there was one God, who was the Creator, and another who was the
Christ, who descended upon Jesus the Son of the Creator.” ….Clemens
Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Jerome, etc. testify that he wrote his gospel
to supply the defects of the other gospels.
As
to the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke was the penman of the book so
called, as is apparent from the constant testimony of all antiquity,
the matter being never once questioned by any of the catholic church.
Irenaeus has, in several places, ascribed this history to St. Luke as
its author…. Terullian cites several places out of the Acts of the
Apostles, which he calls the commentary of Luke. Origen ascribes
the Acts of the apostles to Luke. Eusebius says, “Luke hath left us two
inspired volumes, viz. the gospel and the Acts. Jerome also
expressly asserts the Acts to be the composure of Luke. And several
ancient manuscript Greek copies, have the name of St. Luke prefixed to
the history, as also has the old Syriac version.
The
Acts of the Apostles contains the history of the infant state of the
Christian church for the space of about twenty-eight years. Luke begins
this history where his gospel left off, and ends it with the relation
of Paul’s being brought to Rome, and his abode there for the space of
two years. Hence we may see near to what time this history of the Acts
was written, viz. either in the year of Christ 62, or not long
after….
The
Acts of the Apostles are of canonical authority, because it is found in
all the catalogues of sacred books which we have in the writings of the
primitive Christians, is in the Syriac version, was read as Scripture
in the churches or assemblies of Christians of the first ages, and is
cited and appealed to as Scripture in the writings of the primitive
Christians [Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
etc.].
It
is a great evidence that there was some book of Acts that was very early
universally known and esteemed of great value and authority in the
Christian church and accounted a sacred book, [in] that there was such
a multitude of spurious books forged and published under the same name
of The Acts. Nothing that had not great repute would have set so
many to work to counterfeit it and make them so fond of paralleling
their spurious pieces with that book that was originally received, and
many of them bearing the very same name of the Acts of the Apostles….
Grotius De Verit. lib. xiii, chap. iii.
1332b. The Authorship of the Gospels. Concerning that
objection that the four gospels containing Christ’s prophecies were
written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and so after the existence
of the principal events seemingly foretold in the gospels: what is said
in the following quotation is worthy of notice.
“There is only one subterfuge remaining to our adversaries, viz.
that the gospels were written after the fulfillment of these things.
But,
1.
The most approved and most ancient writers extant, relate that at least
the three first evangelists wrote their gospels before the destruction
of Jerusalem.
2.
Several things argue that the Acts of the Apostles were written before
the destruction of Jerusalem. It is plain that this history was written
while Paul was a prisoner, because although all Paul’s acts are most
exactly related, yet there is no mention of his deliverance from bonds.
But the historian breaks off in the middle of his history. But Luke,
before he wrote the Acts of the Apostles, had already written his
gospel, and to that he immediately appeals in the beginning of the Acts.
But the gospel of Matthew is still more ancient. Hence all these must
have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
3.
Nor is it to be omitted that these very prophecies of Christ are so
composed that it very clearly appears from their manner that they were
by no means written after the abolition of that sacred constitution. For
in those prophecies, according to the prophetic style, the end of the
world is immediately joined with the end of the old typical world, as if
the one immediately followed the other, which would not have been done
if these prophecies had been published by impostors after the
destruction of Jerusalem. For in this case they would not have used the
style most commonly used by the prophets.
Another good argument in favor of the true time of the writing of the
gospels may be taken from the epistles of Paul. For the most of them
were written before his first imprisonment, which is certain, from the
most accurate chronologies. But he everywhere in his writings
presupposes the gospel history.” [Stapferi Theol. Polem. Tom. II.
p. 1127] |
