Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

Gofpel according to the Hebrews was reckoned the true and authentic Gofpel of Matthew.

To this Hebrew tranflation of St. Matthew's Gospel, poffibly, are owing divers things faid by the ancients: as that Matthew published his Gospel at Jerufalem, or in Judea, for the Jewith believers, and at their request, before he went abroad to other people. I fay, I do fufpect the truth of these, and fome other like things, faid of St. Matthew, and his Gofpel. All which may have had their rife from the Hebrew edition of his Gofpel, which they imagined to be the original. For I think, that St. Matthew's, and all the other Gofpels were writ, and intended, for believers of all nations. His Gofpel was writ for the Jews, but not for them only, but for Gentils alfo: as manifeftly appears from the Gofpet itself, or the things contained in it.

I am alfo ready to fay, with (c) Mr. Bafnage, that I do not know where it was published, whether in Judea, or fomewhere elfe. But as I think, the Nazaren Gospel to be St. Matthew's Gofpel tranflated from Greek, with (d) the addition of fome other things, taken from the other Gofpels, and from tradition: fo I reckon, that the Gofpel of Matthew, writ in Greek, was the Gofpel, which first came into their hands, and which they gladly received, and made ufe of. I say again, the notion of St. Matthew's writing in Hebrew, probably, had it's rife from the Hebrew edition of his Gospel. For allowing that date of his Gofpel, which to me appears moft probable, I cannot conceive the reafon, why Matthew fhould write in Hebrew any more than any of the other Evangelifts. For it may be reckoned highly probable, or even certain, that he underfood Greek, before he was called by Chrift to be an Apoftle. Whilft a Publican, he would have frequent occafions both to write and speak Greek. And could not discharge his office, without understanding that language.

This Hebrew Gofpel may likewife have been the cause, why fo many ancient Chriftian writers fay, that Matthew wrote firft. This may be true. But I do not think it was faid upon the ground of any certain knowledge, or good information. I apprehend it not to be eafie to fay, which Gospel was first writ. For all the first three Gofpels were writ about the fame time. And St. Luke's, for any thing that I know, may have been writ first. Which (e) was the opinion of Mr. Bafnage.

In Evangelio, juxta Hebræos... quo utuntur ufque hodie Nazareni, fecundum Apoftolos, five ut plerique juxta Matthæum. Adv. Pelag. l. 3. fub in T. 4. p. 533.

(c) Annum tamen perinde atque locum, ubi a Matthæo conditum eft, in incerto effe, faciles patimur. Ann. 64. num. xii.

(d) Diftinguendum enim inter hoc Evangelium, quale initio fuit, & illud, quale paullatim fiebat, Nazarais varia addentibus. . . Primitus nihil habuit, nifi quod in Græco nunc legimus. . . Porro Nazarei plufcula fuis locis interferuerunt, quæ ab Apoftolis vel Apoftolicis viris, fando accepiffent. G. J. Vof De Geneal. J. C. cap. ii. num. i,

(e) Aun. 60. num. 31.

СНАР.

CHA P. VI.

Of the Time, when the Apostles left Judea, to go and preach the Gospel in other Countreys.

S many ancient Chriftian writers, whom we have lately quoted,

Afay, that St. Matthew, having, preached fome while in Judea,

was defired by the believers there, to leave with them in writing, before he went away, a historie of what he had taught by word of mouth: this may not be an improper place to enquire, how long it was after the afcenfion of Jefus, before Matthew, and the other Apofties, left Judea, to go abroad into foreign countreys.

And first of all, we will obferve fome remarkable paffages of ancient writers, relating to this matter. And then, fecondly, we will confider what light the book of the Acts.may afford upon this fubject.

Clement of Alexandria, about 194. quotes from a work, entitled the Preaching of Peter, this paffage: "Therefore (a) Peter fays, that the "Lord faid to the Apoftles: If any Ifraelite will repent, and believe "in God through my name, his fins fhall be forgiven. After twelve "years go ye out into the world, that none may fay: We have not "heard.'

The next paffage is that of Apollonius, undoubtedly, in part contemporarie with Clement, and placed by Cave at the year 192. by me at 211. as near the time of his writing against the Montanifis.. "Moreover, fays (b) Eufebe, he relates as from tradition, that our "Saviour commanded his Apoftles, not to depart from Jerufalem for "the space of twelve years." Which paffage has been already cited in this (c) work.

By these two paffages Cave was induced to think, that (d) for twelve years after Chrift's afcenfion the Apostles did not depart from the neighborhood of Jerufalem. Suppofing our Saviour to have been crucified, and to have afcended to heaven in the year 29. of the vulgar æra, which was a common opinion of the ancients, these twelve years ended in the year 41. Supposing those great events to have happened in the year 33. which is a common opinion of learned moderns, thofe twelve years would reach to the year 45.

Befide thofe two paffages alleged by Cave, and other learned men, I shall take notice of fome others alfo.

Origen fays in general, "That (e) when the Jews did not receive the word, the Apoftles went to the Gentils."

Chryfoftom

(α) Δια αυτό φησιν ο πέτρος, ειρηκέναι τὸν κύριον τοῖς ἀποτόλοις Ἐὰν μὲν ἦν τις θελήσῃ τὰ ἰσραήλ μετανοήσαι [forte μετακνήσας] διὰ τὸ ὀνόματός με πισίνα ειν εἰς τὸν θεὸν, ἀφεθήσονται αυτῷ ἁιμαρτίαι. Μετὰ δώδεκα έτη ἐξέλθετε εἰς κόσο peso, pun tas linn" Oux ixsoauer. Clem. Str. 1. 6. p. 636. Conf. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 5. . et Grabe Spic. T. i. p. 67.

(b) H. E. 1. 5. cap. 18. p. 136.

(d) Hift. Lit. T.i. p. 5. et 13.

(c) Ch. xxxi. Vol. iii.p. 16.

(ε) . . μὴ παραδεξαμένων ἰδάιων τὸν λίγον, ἀπεληλύθεσαν εις τὰ ἔθνη, In

Matth. T. i. p. 225. E. Huct.

VOL. II.

D

Chryfoftom in a homilie upon A&ts xi. 19. and what follows, fpeaks to this purpose." They heard, that Samaria had received the word, and they fent Peter and John. They heard what had happened at Anti"och, and they fent Barnabas. For (f) that was a great distance. And "it was not fit, that the Apoftles fhould go fo far as yet, left they "fhould have been efteemed deferters, and thought to have fled from "their own people. But it then became neceffarie for them to feparate, [or go from thence] when the Jews fhewed themselves to be "incurable."

In the Pafchal Chronicle are the expreffions, fpeaking of Paul. "Afterwards (g) he coming to Jerufalem with Barnabas, and finding there "Peter, and the reft of the Apoftles, with James the Lord's brother, the "Apostles fend an epiftle to Antioch in Syria, eftablishing their church. " And Paul and Barnabas carry the epistle to Antioch, as the Acts fhew. "By this it appears, that the Apostles then wrote their catholic epiftles, "before their difperfion."

Such are the paffages of ancient writers, which must be reckoned to be of fome weight.

Let us now obferve the hiftorie in the Acts. And it seems to me, there is reafon to conclude, that the Apostles ftaid in Judea, till after the Council at Jerufalem, of which an account is given in the xv. chapter of that book. For St. Luke does continually speak of the Apoftles, as being at Jerufalem, or near it. Acts viii. i. And at that time, there was a great perfecution against the church which was at Jerufalem. And they were all fcattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles. One of those persons, who then left Jerufalem, was Philip, the Deacon and Evangelift: who went to Samaria, and preached Chrift unto them, and with good effect. Whereupon at ver. 14.

Now

when the Apofiles, which were at Jerufalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they fent unto them Peter and John. This needs no Comment. Here is proof, that when the reft of the difciples were fcattered abroad, Peter and Johm, and the other Apoftles, were ftill at Jerufalem.

In Acts ix. 26... 30. is St. Luke's account of Paul's coming to Jerufalem, after his converfion. Where he says, that the difciples were afraid of him. . . . . But Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apofiles. St. Paul fpeaking of the fame journey, Gal. i. 18. 19. fays: Then after three years I went up to Jerufalem, to fee Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, fave James the Lord's brother. Here we find, that at this time, three years after his conver

どん

fion,

(f) Πολύ γὰρ τὸ διάσημα, καὶ ἐκ ἔδει τῆς ἀποσόλες τέως χωρισθῆναι ἐκεῖθεν, ἵνα μὴ νομισθῶσιν εἶναι φυγάδες, καὶ πὺς αὐτῶν πεφευγέναι· τότε αναγκαίως χωρίς ζονται, ὅτε λοιπὸν ανίατα ἔχειν ἐδόκει τα κατ' αυτές. In Aa. hom. 25. Tom. 9 p. 202. 203.

(g) Μετέπειτα ἐλθὼν ἐις ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ βαρνάβα, καὶ ἐυρὼν πέτρον καὶ τὰς λοιπὲς ἀποσόλες ἅμα ἰακώβῳ τῷ ἀδελφῳ τῷ κυρία, γράφουσιν ἐπιτολὴν ὁι αποτο λοι εις αντιόχειαν τῆς συρίας, θεμελιέντες τὴν αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ διακονῶσι τὴν ἐπιςολὴν εἰς ἀντιόχειαν αυτός πᾶυλος και Βαρνάβας, ὡς δηλᾶσιν αι πράξεις. Εκ τότε δείκνυται, ὅτι καὶ τὰς καθολικὰς αὐτῶν ἐν ἀποσόλοι τότε γράφεσιν πρὸ τῆς δια moçãs dutüv. Chr. Pafch. p. 233. B. C.

fion, Paul faw two Apoftles only, Peter and James. But St. Luke's words, as feems to me, imply, that all the Apoftles were then at Jerufalem, though Paul faw two only, the rest for some reasons declining to fhew themselves in perfon to him. Dr. Doddridge has this note upon ch. ix. 27. "Paul himself tells us, that upon his going up to Jerufalem, "he faw no other Apoftles, but Peter and James. Gal. i. 19. Beza "well observes, we are quite uncertain, on what occafion, the reft were "then abfent from Jerufalem. Had they been there, though Paul staid "but about a fortnight, he would no doubt have feen them." Neverthelefs the folution of this difficulty appears to me very eafy. The Apoftles were now all at Jerufalem, or near it. But they lived privately, because it was a time of perfecution. The great perfecution against the church, which began with the death of Stephen, was not yet over. The Apoftles therefore could not appear abroad without danger. And fufficient, that they spoke to Paul, and received him, by Peter and James. Which I take to be the true import of St. Luke's expreffion. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the Apostles.

After Peter had been at the houfe of Cornelius, it is faid, Acts xi. 1. And the Apostles and brethren that were in Judea, heard, that the Gentils alfa bad received the word. Another proof, that all the Apoftles, or moft of them, were still at Jerufalem. But I do not fuppofe, that the Apofles, like many other of the Jewish believers, were offended at what Peter had done. Or, if they were at first somewhat offended, they were foon, and easily satisfied, and were very willing to teftify their approba

tion of Peter's conduct.

From the 12. chapter of the Acts we know, that James fon of Zebedee, and brother of John, and Peter, were at Jerufalem, in the year 44. or thereabout, near the end of the reign of Herod Agrippa: the former of whom was beheaded, and the other imprifoned. And at ver. 17. is mention made of another James, fupposed to be the Lord's brother, and always refident at Jerufalem.

From the account of the Council of Jerufalem, and of the occafion of it, all the apostles appear to have been then in Judea, and at Jerufalem, or in its neighborhood. Acts xv. When therefore Paul and Barnabas bad no finall diffenfion and difputation with them, they determined, that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain other of them, fhould go up to Jerufalem, unto the Apaftles and Elders about this question. ver. 4. And when they were come to Jerufalem, they were received of the church, and or even the Apostles and Elders.... ver. 6. And the Apostles and Elders came together, that is, met in Council, for to confider of this matter... ver. 22. Then pleafed it the Apofiles, and Elders, with the whole church, to fend chofen men of their own companie, to Antioch... ver. 23. And they wrote letters by them after this manner: The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren fend greeting... ver. 33. And after they had tarried there a space, that is, at Antioch, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the Apostles.

In all thefe places the Apostles muft intend all the Apoftles, or the Apoftles in general. For how can the expreffion be understood otherwife?

If it should be faid, that the Apoftles might be at the Council at Jerufalem, though feveral of them had been before in other countreys: I

D 2

think,

[ocr errors]

think, that would be faid without ground and reafon. It does not ap pear, that the Apostles were fent to, invited, or called in from abroad, to attend this Council. But the Chriftians at Antioch fuppofed, or rather knew, that the Apoftles were at Jerufalem, and therefore directly fent thither to them.

Indeed none of the Apoftles are expressly named as fpeakers in the debates of the Council, befide Peter and James. But all the reft may have been there. So upon divers other occafions in the Gospels, and at the beginning of the Acts, Peter only fpake, though all the reft were prefent. In Gal. ii. 8. 9. 10. St. Paul giving an account of a journey to Jerufalem, fuppofed to be the fame with this to the Council, fpeaks of conferences, which he had with three, namely James, Cephas, and John, who feemed to be pillars. Here is one more mentioned as prefent at Jerufalem, befide the two before taken notice of. And there must have been others befide these three, who feemed to be pillars, or were the most emi

nent.

that

The first time, that we meet with the mention of any one of the twelve, as being out of Judea, is that in Gal. ii. 11. after this Council, as is generally allowed, when Peter was at Antioch. It is very obfervable, Acts xi. 19... 22. when tidings came to the ears of the Church at Jerufalem, many Gentils had been converted at Antioch by fome of those who were scattered abroad by the perfecution, they fent forth Barnabas, that he fhould go as far as Antioch. None of the Apoftles went, not so much as one, to accompany him. And afterwards ch. xiii. 1. 3. in the account of the extraordinarie miffion of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch to Cyprus, and other parts, there is no mention made of any Apoftle, as present at Antioch. And it is plain, there was not one there.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

All thefe confiderations induce me to think, that none of the twelve Apoftles left Judea to teach either Jews or Gentils in other Countreys, until after this Council.

Having now, as I apprehend, fhewn this to be very probable, I fhall mention fome remarks. Whereby there may be an opportunity for anfwering objections, though feveral have been already obviated.

1. There was a fitneffe in it. It was very proper, and even expedient, that the Apoftles should stay a good while in Judea, to affert and confirm the truth of Chrift's refurrection by teaching, and by miraculous works, and do their utmoft to bring the Jewish People to faith in Jefus as the Christ.

2. As this was fit, it is likely, that they had received fome commandfrom Chrift himself, or fome direction from the Holy Ghoft, to stay thus long in Judea.

3. There were confiderations, that would incline them to it, and induce them to do what was fit to be done, and was agreeable to the mind of Chrift. One was the difficulty of preaching the gospel in foreign countreys. This would induce them to ftay in Judea, till the circumkances of things facilitated their farther progreffe, or called them to it. Another

* Theodoret has a like argument: Εξ ὧν βάδιον καταδεῖν, ὡς ἐδέπω καταλέλοκαὶ τὴν ἰσδάιαν ο θείος αποτόλος ἰωάννης. Theod. Pr. in ep. ad Eph. Tom. 3R.290,

« AnteriorContinuar »