ing any dubious point from Canonical Scripture, So that 'tis poffible that thefe Paffages, fo like to fome yet extant in the Gospels, might be taken notwithstanding from others which we have not. This Learned Gentleman forgets himself, in faying that the Apocryphal Citations in the forementioned Authors are no where to be found in our Gospels, if by Apocryphal he understands (as in all reafon he should) thofe that refer to the Story of Chrift and his Apostles. I deny not that the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament is often quoted both by Barnabas and Clemens: But they are fo far from making to his purpofe, that they overthrow his Conclufions from them: for if the Canon of the Old Teftament was established when thofe Writers cited from the Apocrypha relating to it, why might not the fame thing happen when the Canon of the New Teftament was determined? Why might they not then alfo have Quotations from fome Apocryphal Writings relating to the Actions and Doctrine of our Saviour? I might inftance in Clemens Alexandrinus making that use of the Apocryphal Books, as if they were the Works of the Apoftles, in thofe Ages when there was a known diftinction between them, and their Authority not the fame. The reafon of their writing at this rate, is not owing to the doubtful Authority of the Scripture, but an unhappy Cuftom of those times, and now and then to an ill habit of the Authors themselves: For it is abfurd to make use of a weak Authority, and which was questioned, to prove any thing of moment, unless in ArI guments ad hominem, as they are called. cannot conceive why this acute Writer should fufpect the Citations, correfponding with our Gofpels, to be taken from others, when there are no Apocryphal Tracts now extant, in which they may be found; nor is there any indication of it from thofe very Authors; and especially when they have feveral Quota tions even from the Apoftolical Epiftles. But 'tis poffible they may be taken from fome fuch Apocrypha. I deny it not; but is there any Argument from a bare Poffibility? What can there be of established credit in Antiquity, or what not reckoned a Forgery, if it be fufficient to fay, 'Tis poffible it may be fo? Very few Fables among the Legends, as they are called, can be rejected at this rate, if it be sifficient to have then received, that they contain not any thing impoffible. Nor can I conceive why the Jews might draw proofs from their Divine Books in matters of Religion, and they not from the Gofpels, whofe Authors were known, and the Truth of what thofe Gofpels contain, uncon tefted. Needed they fo much time to be fatisfied that the Authority of Christ in the Gospels, which were owned as genuine, was beyond the Authority of the whole World befides? 'Twere intolerable Dulness indeed (to fay no worfe) not to imbrace immediately fo bright a Truth, or to make any fcruple. of ufing that Authority. But, continues this Learned Author, to infance no more in uncanonical Books, 'tis evident from those that are Canonical, of fomewhat later dute, that the Gospels were not made publick to the Churches, nor in common ufe with Ecclefiifiicat Writers. They have not adorn'd their Books with Quotations from the New Testament, as is customary among modern Writers, and as they were wont to do from the Scriptures, which they acknowledged. They cite very frequently from the Old Testament, and would undoubtedly from the New, if it had been owned as Canonical, and so distinguished from other Writings. St. Paul repeats the Words of the Lord, Acts 20. 35. Which granting he might have from fome Book, yet certainly from none of the Gospels. that are now extant. We have very few Writers remaining of the first Century, befides the Compilers of the New Testament; and those we have, as they are cited by Mr. Dodwel, are Clemens, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp. Clemens indeed hath more Citations from the Old Teftament, and alludes to it more frequently than to the New, from which he hath very few Texts. However, he hath two Quotations from thence, and refers to it pretty often, as any one may fee that cafts his eye upon the Margin of the Amfterdam, or Cotelerius's Edition. He names not his Author in the New nor in the Old Teftament: And should I grant that Clemens had not feen all the Gofpels, it will conclude nothing against me, if he put out his Epiftle fome time after the opinion; Deftruction of Jerufalem, as is the generat opinion or prefently after the publication of the Gospels: Then poffibly he might have feen only Luke's, which is cited by him, the foon after the three former were publickly read in the Churches, and generally known. But I determine nothing in this matter. Barnabas cites much more frequently from the Old Testament than the New; but almost throughout his whole Epifle he is difputing with the Jews, against whom it were ridiculous to bring Allegations from the New Teftament. Hermas hath nothing from either Teftament, being entirely bufied in relating his Vifions, and Doctrines revealed to him by the Angels. Ignatius quotes both Teftaments, and feems more frequently to have refpect to the New; I mean in his genuin Epiftles, as I have obferved before, for I am not concerned for the fpurious. Polycarp in above twenty places alludes to the New Teftament, or gives the very words, and scarce refers once to the Old. The Reader may confult the Editions I have mentioned, as being the moft accurate of all; and if he concurs nor with me, I do not defire him to give any more credit to me. I am therefore of opinion that this Learned Gentleman was mistaken by trusting too much to his Memory. As for the words repeated by Paul, Alts 20. they are fhort, and as it were proverbial, and to might cally be remembred, which our author does not deny, who thus proceeds: The Gospels were fo buried from the World, by lying bid in certain Corners of it, in which they were written, that the Evangelijis who followed after had not the least knowledg of the Campofitions of thofe that went before them Otherwife their Works had not been fo full of feeming Contrarieties, which have ever since the first fettling of the Canon employed the Difqui fitions of to ruany Learned mon. Certainly if Luke had seen our Lord's Genealogy in Matthew, he would never have given us an ther quite different from it, without mentioning the least reason of it: And in giving us in bis Preface the cause of his Undertaking, viz. that be was encouraged thereto by affiance from the Declarations of those that were Eye-witneffes; he plainly intimates that the Writers of the Gofpels he had feen had been deftitute of those helps; that is, that they were not Eye-witneßes them felves, nor bad carefully and diligently confulted thaje that were; that therefore their Authority was weak, and their Accounts of uncertain credit. So that Luke muft needs have feen fome other Evangelishs befides thofe mbaje Gospels are yet extant. To prevent the three Evangelifts from a mutual tight of their respective Works, it was not neceffary that their Works thould have been hid in fome fecret Corners of the World: 'Twas fufficient for that purpose that they might be written at the fame time in remote Countries, and feverally published by each particular Evangelift before he had feca the performance of the others, which, as I have already faid, might probably have happened before the conclufion of Nero's Reign. I don't know why we may not give this account of the defign of the Evangelifts, as well as that which Mr. Dodel gives. Car tainly 'tis more agreeable to the Lives of the Evangelifts, who spent their time in travelling and propagating the Gospel through all Nations, to think that they would hardly leave fuch excellent Books, and fo very neceffary (as has been fhewn) to Believers, hid in fome fecret Corners; but rather take them along with them, and order their Difciples to tranfcribe them, that they might be dif persid further than they oculd go themselves, and enlighten with the Evangelical Rays thole who could not come at the Authors, whether Apoftles or other Evangelifts. As for the Writers mentioned in Luke's Preface, I contefs they were not Eye-witneffes; but if we attentively confider the words of this Evange lift, we hall find he only charges them with being fomewhat negligent of Order, and for fome Omiffions. But he does not say, they confulted not ocular Witnesses, or writ not the truth: He only days, that upon a careful enquiry from fuch Wicnelles, he himself had undertook to compose a more exact and fullor History of our Saviour. I refer the Beaders to the Commentators upon this place of Sc. Luke. St. Matthew, fays our Learned Author, whe alone of the Euangelifts that are received, preceded St. Luke, was himself an Eye-witness, and therefore cannot be underflood here. St, John wrote long after S.Luke, and even S. Mark, if S. Luke Luke compos'd his Gospel that Year he finishi'd his Alts of the Apostles, as foems to me very probable: For the Alls are the feu Teg aby☺ of his Treatife, of which he calls his Gospel the TOWTOV λózov. His Gospel was afterwards feparated from the A&ts, and put with the other Evangelifts in a Volume together, for the better and more ready comparing of places. Fon which reafon I am of opinion, fince the Ads carry no Natne prefix'd, that the Author was not difputed; for being put to the former Treatife, he needed not be recited in the front of the latter, being fufficiently, declared to be the Author of both before they were taken afunder. Likewife Luke had finish'd his Gospel in the 2d year of Paul's Captivity for fo far has he continu'd his Hiflory. Now Mark feems to have written his fome time after the Death of Peter, or not long before. I do not think that Matthem was here defigned by Luke; but that he was the more antiene Writer, I never faw proved. What the Greeks, that came after, have invented. of their own concerning the time of the Gofpels, is altogether groundless. Mr. Dodwels Conjecture from the As is far from being abfurd, but is not too hastily to be admitted. Luke indeed fpeaks of himfelf, that he had finish'd his former Treatife of our Saviour's Hiftory, but it follows not that he means with reference to the very fame Piece, of which the A&s must needs be the latter part. For why might not the Piece St. Luke fpeaks of be the first he had publifh'd, and therefore fo nam'd, and not as the first part of one Tract, of which the Acts were the fecond? Nor is it neceffary that this latter Treatise fhould be finish'd the fame year with the former, which might have come out apart fome time before, being an entire Work of it felf: the feparating the Acts from the Gospel being a pure Invention, for this only reafon, that the Author's Name is not prefixt; whereas that might be well enough omitted, feeing the Book was addreft to Theophilus, which plainly fhows the fame to be Author of that and the Gospel, both being dedicated to one and the fame, if fo be this Theophilus be the real Name of the Party to whom they were dedicated, and nota fictitious Word. For the time of Mark's writ ing, enough has been faid already. But, Mr. Dadmel fubjoins, we may from. hence, suspect that the other Evangelifts had no feen one anothers Writings, in that they all repor what was done only in the first Year of his MiniStry: The Acts of the following Tears, and of the Paffovers being to be had in John alone; from whence one might be apt indeed to conclude, that they had been all read by John, and that he approv'd of them, and supplied what was wanting in their Goffels 'Tis true indeed that John has preferv'd the memory of the Paffovers; but 'tis a mistake to think that he only has given an account of the other Years of Chrift's Miniftry, or that the other Evangelifts took notice only of the first. My Harmony is a manifeft confutation of this miftake, and leaves no room for doubting in the cafe. This perhaps may be reasonably prefum'd. of John, who wrote fo late, when the Gospels com pos'd in certain Provinces of the Roman Empire, might be farther propagated. But I fear we have not so much reafon to imagine, that he fet out what Evangelifts were to be Ganonical, and what not, and by his approbation recommended them to Pofterity: For 'tis hardly credible that the Evangelifts had been diftinguish'd when Ignas tius flourished, who seems to pay an equal defe rence to the Apocryphal and genuine Gospels. This laft is not justly faid of Ignatius, as I have before fhewn; and I fee no reafon to diftruft Eufebius, when he fays that the three former Evangelifts had been approv❜d, and recommended by St. John. Nay more, we may reafonably conclude, that only these were approv'd of by him; for 'tis not to be ima gin'd that this. Apostle, who had been witness to all the memorable Works and Sayings of Chrift, fhould be indifferent, whether true or falfe Accounts of thofe matters were fpread abroad, and generally believ'd by Chriftians; and this is the more credible, for that prefently after his time the four Gofpels we now have were only held to be genuine, and of uncontested credit, as this Learned Gentleman fhews us in the words following. Irenæus, whom I am upon, took the first notice of the fet number of the four Gospels already receiv'd and fixt. Juftin, that wrote before him, is not altogether fo clofe; be fometimes calls them the Memorials of the Apostles, 'Aosta Sunword'μara (Apol. 2. P. 98. Dial. with Trypho, pig. 327, 328, 329, 331.) borrowing the Title from Xenophon, who made a Book of the Suvnuovevμara, Memorials of Socrates his Mafter, as did the Apostles. (Apol. 2. p. 58.) οἱ ̓Απόςολοι, ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπομνήμασιν, ο καλεῖται Evania. The Apoftles in the Memorials collected from them, which are call'd Gofrels. Thus he attributes them to the Apostles, as containing their Doctrines and Senfe; but in a manner intimating, that others had a hand in the Collection, which were their Followers. Take his own words (Dial. p. 331.) in 20 Tois Songs. vevp.dow, à onμi wo 7 'Amsonwy auto x7 ἐκείνοις παρακολοθησάντων συντετάχθαι, &c. In the Memoirs, which I was fay ing were made into a Book by the Apostles and their Followers. Here he feems to have alluded to those words of S. Luke, de nouoi axonsnoti, Ch. 1. 3. It feemed good to me, carefully following, dc. And that it was ufual for thefe Gospels to be read openly in the Churches in Juftin's time, we may learn from his own Teftimony: The Commentaries of the Apostles, or the Werks of the Prophets, are read, as the time will permit. Now any body may fee from hence, that these fame Commentaries of the Apostles were held by the Chriflians in the fame (if not higher) veneration as the Books of the Prophets were by the Jews in their Synagogues. Irena is indeed the firit of Ecclefiaftical Writers, that are not loft, who took notice of the quaternary number of the Gofpels, yet it does not therefore follow, but feme body, in fo great a fcarcity of old Records, might have made this obfervation before him. There is not the leaft footstep in Juftin or Ireneus, that it was but of a late Inftitution for the four Gofpels we now have to be publickly read in their Affemblies. : But how shall we certainly know (you'll fay) that these very Gospels are meant by Juftin? First, from Irenaus his Cotemporary, who to be Jure was acquainted with them and likewife from Juftin himself, in his frequent Citations from our Gospels, which are faithfully quoted, and have very few Apocryphal Mixtures. And in deed his own words imply as much, throughly confider'd: For, frying that these Commentaries were written, fome by the Apofiles themselves, and feme by their Followers, if he meant an equal number of Apostles and their Followers, they will exactly agree with the Gospels we now have: So that 'tis highly credible he meant the fame; for two of ours were compos'd by the Apostles, and two by their Difciples. I wonder this Gentleman fhould hefitate in a point fo evident. Irenæus, in most of his Quotations, not only takes the very words oftentimes from our four Gofpels; but fpends the whole 11th Chapter of his 3d Bock in proving there. are no more Gofpels than four, and that 'tis not poffible there could be more: 'Tis certain that there are neither more nor fewer than thefe four Golpels. Afterwards, about the end of the Chapter, That thefe only are true, and of unfhaken credit, I have at large demonstrated; and it cannot be that there should be more or fewer than the abovementioned. These are not the Expreffions of one that had learn'd of his Parents, or Mafters, that a fet number of Gofpels had been lately appointed by the Catholick Church, and by their Authority eftalith'd. Had there been more formerly, and held of equal Authority with thefe, the Hereticks might have eatly confuted Irenaus, by replying, that this number was but of late inftitution, and that in truth there had been more formerly. A little after he proceeds. That about this time, namely about the end of Trajan's Reign, the Gospels were first collected into one body, may be gather'd from a remarkable place in Eufebius (Hist. Eccl. III. 37.) For at that time, when Ignatius fuffer'd, when the Prophet Quadratus flourif'd, when Papias had feen the Daughters of Philip that prophefied, which Notes mark out Trajan's time, as I have obferved; he tells us there were a great many more Difciples of the first Succeffion diligently imployed in propagating the Gospel all the World over: Some of which advanced upon the foundations of the Churches laid by the Apostles, fome diftributed their Eftates to the Poor, and quit. ting their Country, labour'd in the Office of Evangelijts. Which was of a double nature, one more antient, dijcharged by the very Apoftolical Evangelifts, in preaching the Word of Faith to those that had not yet heard of Chrift; another more recent, and perhaps peculiar to the Evangelifts of the following Age, to give a written Account of the Divine Gospels, flu 7 Deser Evafiwr wedidoval reagir. About this time therefore were they written, and more than Eufebius, in his Narrative of Ignatius his Who being worthy Difciples of fuch extraordi- dent Zeal for the Profeffion, had already fulfill'd our Saviour's Command, and divided their Poffeffions among the Poor. From all which is very plain, that his Difcourfe is concerning the most primitive Difciples, and not concerning I know not what Evangelifts of later ftanding in the fecond Century, which Mr. Dodwel is in queft of. And undoubtedly Eufebius alludes to the fame in what follows. Afterwards they discharg'd their Evangelical Miniftry abroad amongst those to whom the word of Faith had never bin declar'd, making it their diligent imployment to preach Chrift, and give a written account of his Divine Gospel. If this be fo, which Mr. Dodwel doth not deny, then the Difciples of the Apoftles were active from the very firft Age to propagate univerfally the Evangelical Books, unless a man will fancy that the Gofpels were not diffus'd till the end of Trajan's Reign, to give more plaufible colour to fome other Opinions of his own. Nor is this the firft mention of the publick reception of the Gofpels, as appears from the foregoing Allegations. There are fome other Notions advanced by this Learned Gentleman, which being of lefs weight, I fhall take no notice of, and conclude this long Differtation, hoping I have fo demonftrated the Gofpels to be genuine, fo vindicated their Authority, and accounted for their defign, and prov'd their being publickly receiv'd and made ufe of in the firft Age of Chriftianity, as to have left no difficulty remaining. K The End of the Third Differtation. LIII NOTES |