« AnteriorContinuar »
them, supposing the one to have made use of the other's Gof. pel. Hence it was justly argued by Mr. Dodwell; That “ the later Evangelists did not see the writings of the former ; « for if they had, it is impossible there should have been fo « many seeming contradictions, which have exercised the « minds of learned men almoft ever since the first conftitu« tion of the Canon.” To the same purpose fays Mr. Le Clerc b; “ It is not credible that Mark or Luke had seen the « Gospel according to St. Matthew, who otherwise would « have avoided-all seeming clashings."
CHA P. ix.
The fourth Argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel is not an
Epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. because it has a great many Histories, which are not in St. Matthew. A Catalogue of them. The fifth Argument, viz, that it wants several remarkable Histories..
Arg. IV. O T, Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St.
Matthew's, because he hath related several verg considerable histories, of which there is not the least mention made by St. Matthew. I have already proved, that he does, for the most part, add many more particular circumstances to his stories, than St. Matthew. I shall now shew, that he relates several entire histories, which $t. Matthew does not; not only a few additions which St. Peter informed him of (as Mr.Whilton • supposes), but many remarkable and useful stories. This
* Ut ne quidem refciverint ingenia exercuerint, Dissert. 1. in recentiores Evangelistæ, quid fcrip. Iren. §. 39. fiffent de iisdem rebus antiquiores; B. In his third Dissertation, conaliter foret, ne tot effent ivartioWarñ, . cerning the Four Gospels, annexed quæ fere a prima rique Canonis to his Harinony. ponftitutione eruditoruin hoininum
observation observation will be sufficiently supported by the following instances.
A Catalogue of some histories in St. Mark's Gospel, which are
not in St. Matthew. Chap. I. 21, &c. The history of our Saviour's casting the unclean fpirit out of the man, in the fynagogue at Capernaum.
Ver. 35, &c. The account of our Lord's retiring to a folitary place to pray, and Peter and many others following him.
Ch. III. 13, &c. Our Saviour's going up to a mountain to pray, there first choofing his twelve disciples; their names, commiffion, office, &c. · Ch. IV. 26, &c. The parable of the kingdom of heaven coming without observation.
Ch. VI. 12, 13. The Disciples going out to preach, cafting out devils, recovering many that were fick, by anointing with oil.
Ver. 30, &c. The Apostles' report of their success, &c.
Ch. VII. 2, &c. The Pharisees observe our Lord's Disciples eating with unwashen hands, and the custom of the Jews in this matter, ver. 3, 4.
Ver. 32, &c. The miracle of the deaf and dumb person being restored to his hearing and speech.
Ch. VIII. 22, &c. The history of a blind person restored to his fight at Bethsaida.
Ch. IX. 14, 15. The Disciples difpute with the Scribes, and Chrift's enquiry into it.
Ver. 33, &c. The Disciples' dispute among themselves by the way, who should be the greatest.
Ver. 38, &c. The story of John's forbidding a person to cast out devils in the name of Christ, with Christ's difcourse to John thereupon.
Ch. X. 10, &c. The Disciples' enquiry about the bufiness of divorce.
Ch. XII. 41, &c. Our Saviour's observing the money cast into the treafury, the widow's mite, &c.
Ch. XIV. 51, 52. The account of the young man, that appeared naked with a linen cloth about his body, at the time when our Saviour was taken.
Ch, XVI. 9, &c. Christ's first appearance, after his resurrection, to Mary Magdalen,
Ver. 12. His appearing to the two Disciples, on the road.
These several histories (besides a great many particular circumstances already mentioned) are in St. Mark, and not in St. Matthew; which certainly never would have been, if he had designed his Gospel only for an abridgment of St. Mat. thew's. It is a thing unusual ; nay, I believe I may venture to say, it is a thing which never has been known, for an epitomizer to make such large additions to the history, which he abridges. St. Mark's Gospel therefore is not an epitome of St. Matthew's. He
Arg. V. Perhaps, on the other hand, it may add to the improbability of St. Mark's Gospel being an epitome of St. Matthew's, that there are several things wanting in it, and not so much as hinted at, which are in St. Matthew. He that undertakes to epitomize a history, ought not to omit any confiderable part of it. Now it is evident, that St. Mark has not the least remote regard to many of the parts of St. Matthew's Gospel. As near as I can guess, St. Matthew is about one fourth part larger than Şt. Mark, and those things in which he is larger are some sermons and discourses of our Lord, especially the Sermon on the Mount; besides, St. Mark entirely omitteth the genealogy, and the birth of Christ with all its circumstances. There are also two or three miracles, mentioned by St. Matthew, and not by St. Mark. Now if St. Mark had St. Matthew's Gospel lying before him, and defigned to make an abridgment of it, it is strange he should en-, tirely omit, and not so much as slightly mention these things. He could not think that, which an inspired writer had penned, not worthy his notice ; if therefore he had had St. Matthew by him when he wrote, it is reasonable to suppose he would have mentioned these things, though he had omitted some circumstances, and done it more briefly. If any person wère now to make an epitome of St. Matthew, and were in this
respect to make it like St. Mark's, I am sure every one would blame it, as not duly done. Mr. Whiston has made an epitome of the Gospel history; and it is no compliment at all, nor a character so great, as that ingenious performance deferves, to say, it is a much better epitome of the Gospels (not only in this respect, but many others) than St. Mark's Gospel is of St. Matthew's. A just epitomizer should have at least the general heads of the history, which he abridges, in his epitome; St. Mark has not so much as this, and therefore Father Simon hath reasoned very justly on this matter a ; “ It is, “ says he, worth observing, that St. Mark cannot pass for a “ fimple abbreviator of St. Matthew, because he insists more “ at large, than he doth in some places; besides, if he had only " a design to publish' an epitome of St. Matthew's Gospel, “ he would not have taken away the entire genealogy of Je“ sus Christ, which makes one of the most principal parts of " it: it is not the custom of those that epitomize the works " of others, to retrench the most considerable part of them.".
a Critic. Histor. of the New Teft. Par. 1. c. 10. p. 89.
The fixth Argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel is not an Epis
tome of St. Matthew's, viz. because that supposition makes its Inspiration more dubious and uncertain ; it makes the Author look like a Plagiary. Two Objections against this Argument answered. The seventh Argument, the fupposing this Gospel an Epitome detracts from its Honour and Usefulness. Spia noza and Father Simor for this reason affert most of the Books of the Old Testament, to be only Epitomes, made out of Records that are loft. Lastly, the fuppofing this Gospel an Epitome, invalidates in a great Measure its Testimony to the Truth of Christianity. The Evangelifts did not fee one an
other's Gospels. Arg. VI. OT, Mark's Gospel is not an epitome or abridg
ment of $t. Matthew's; because the supposing it to be so, makes its inspiration, more dubious and uncertain. That this Gospel (as well as the other historical books, which are received into the Canon of the Old and New Testament) was wrote under the conduct and immediate influences of the divine Spirit, is what I must at present take for granted. Mr. Whiston, when he wrote the proposition, which I am now endeavouring to disprove, believed the writers of the Gospel history to be inspired a ; and therefore it is not at all necessary I should now undertake the proof of this matter. There is only one thing I would offer to Mr. Whiston's consideration on this head, and that is, that many of the most antient and genuine writers of the Christian Church (such as Mr. Whiston himself reckons most valuable) give us abundant evidence that they believed, nay, and sometimes expressly make mention of, the inspiration of the Gospel history ..
a P. 112.
o In this number are Clemens Romanus, Irenæus, Juitin Martyr,
and many others, who lived not much later than them.