صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

1 Tim. 1.3 3. 14.

4. 13.

first Epiftle alfo: And that the fmall remainder of one or two befides, tho' they may allude to an Expreflion in the Epiftle, yet is that Allufion too remote to be much depended on in this cafe. So that 'tis fomewhat doubtful, whether this Epiftle be at all referr'd to in the fame Conftitutions: As the Time of its Writing was I think little different from that of the compleating the principal Parts thereof, and the adding many, if not all the Teftimonies and Quo tations thereto. But then, the Renfons why I place the rest of the Sacred Books fo dif ferently from others are thefe that follow.

(1) Timothy A. D. 57. This Epiftle is referr'd to 25 Times in the Conftitutions; and fo by that Rule ought to be very early. And that it was really Written fo early feems very plain. For Paul therein fays, that he had defired Timothy to abide at Ephesus; that be hoped to come to him (bortly; and exhorted him to give diligent Attendance on his Office till be came: Whereas about this very Year, we know from the Acts of the Apofles, he took his moft folemn farewel of the Prefbyters of Ephefus, and affurd them to 4.2017 their great Sorrow, that he knew that they all fould fee bis Face no more. Those who venture from very uncert in reafonings, to fet afide fo plain a Character as this, do by no incans fhew their fagacity and impartiality in thefe matters.

(2) Marks

(2) Mark's Golpel, A. D. 62. after that of Luke. This Time agrees well with the fmaller Number of Quotations, with Mark's following Luke's Order, even in Hiftories directly taken from Matthew; and with the original Order in the Conftitutions, when they are first named together, in the origi nal Direction for the Reading the facred Books in the publick Affemblies: My Cur δάκινα ή πρεσβυτερος ἀναγινωσκέτω τα ευαγ- Ι. Ι. 57. χόλια, ο εγώ ματ που ο και Ιωάννης εδώ μωρ. 262 ὑμῖν· καὶ ἃ οἱ ενεργοί παλι αρειληφότες κα τέλειψαν ὑμῖν, λακας το μάρκος.

d

(3) Clements 2 Epiftle, A. D. 62. That this Epiftle of Clement, Written to a Church or to Perfons- now utterly unknown, was early and Prior to his moft famous Epistle to the Corinthians, feems to me probable from the Arguments following. Herein are feveral References to paffages in the very firft Times of the Gofpel, and to Books now lost, which were earlier than the present Books of the New Teftament: And for the known Books none are quoted or alluded to but Three of the earlieft, the first Epistle to the Corinthians, with the Gofpels of Matthew and Luke: That is the very fame Books that are alfo referr❜d to, and alone refer'd to, in the firft and earliest Book of the Conftitutions alfo. That this and the other Epiftle of Clement are never quoted in the Conftitutions is not to be wondred at; fince their Author

[blocks in formation]

Prolegon.

appears to have been generally the Writer of the other, and fo not very likely to citę his own Authority for their Confirmation, 'Tis alfo to be noted that the firft Book of the Constitutions and this Epiftle, by citing the fame Three Books, particularly Matthew and Luke, without Mark and John, confirm the stating of thefe Matters in our present feries, and fairly imply, that Mark as well as John are later, not only than Matthew, but than Luke also.

(4) John's Gofpel, A. D. 63. That this Gospel was Written fo early, appears highly probable to me on the Accounts following. (1) The frequent Citation of it, and the Number of the Citations in the Conftitutions, no fewer than Fifty Five, plainly infer this degree of Antiquity. (2) Many of the Antient MSS. and Verfions affirm, that it was Written about the 30th. 31ft, or 32d. Year See Mills after our Saviours Afcenfion: Which agrees in Calce exactly to the Time here affign'd. (3) AlJoar. most all the Commentators fince Theophylact Whitty in agree to the fame Time. (4) John's IpeaPreface to king of the Pool of Bethesday, in the prefent Tenfes, and not, better agrees to the Time here affign'd, before the Destruction of Jerufalem, when that Pool and Porch were certainly in being, than to the Time afterward, when probably both were deftroyd. (5) That Occafion of John's Writing his Gofpel mention'd by the Antients,

Ibid. and

John.

John 5. 2.

22.

viz. the bringing the other Three Gospels to him, and his obferving their Deficiency See Mills as to the Acts of Chrift before the Baptifts Proleg. po Imprisonment, does much better agree with this Time, juft after the Publication of thofe Gospels, than with that above Thirty Years later, to which its Writing is now ordinarily afcrib'd. (6) That other occafion of its Writing mention'd by the Antients, viz. in Ibid. oppofition to the Herefies of Cerinthus and Ebion, who deny'd the Pre-existence and Divinity of our Saviour, does alfo better agree with the former Time, when thofe Herefies first sprang up, than to that fo much later, juft before the end of the Century, which is ufually affign'd to it. (7) No Original Writings of our Religion, which quote the other Three Gospels with any frequency do omit this: Nay I believe no fuch Writings quote thofe Three fo much oftner than they quote this, as to imply any fuch difference in the Time of their Writing as is ufually fuppos'd: Which yet muft in all probability have been the cafe, had the other Three Gofpels heen Publish'd between Thirty and Forty Years earlier than this before us. (8) After all, what fome very Antient Te- Ibid. in ftimonies fpeak of, that this Gofpel was Writ-Calce Joan. ten with the Apocalypfe in Patmus, a little before the Death of John, A. D. 96. is a plain mistake; fince the Apocalypfe it felf, which was feen in Patmus, was Written nor there D 4

but

but at Ephefus. And if that be fuppos'd a mistake as to place only, but not as to time, yet will this be eafily accounted for on our Hypothefis, wherein the firft Twenty Chapters are fuppos'd Written, A. D. 63. but the laft is freely own'd to be later, and not long before the Death of John: Which indeed its Nature and Circumftances plainly imply But fo, that it appears as an evident Appendix, added after the compiling the main part of the Book: Which indeed feems to be the cafe, as to the greateft part of the last Mar 16.9. Chapter of Mark alfo. And that this is not

20

a meer Hypothefis, made upon an emergent difficulty, in way of Evafion only, is evident, because these very Conftitutions, which have no fewer than Fifty Five Citations or References to this Gofpel, have yet not one Citation from, or Reference to that laft Chapter, as will eafily be obferv'd on a particular Examination: Which Remark highly deferves the Readers Reflection; and is a great Confirmation of the prefent Hypothefis, and alfo of the genuine Antiquity of these Conftitutions at the fame time.

Coroll. All thofe Hypothefes or Solutions of difficulties, which depend on the late Writing the main of John's Gofpel, after the Destruction of Jerufalem, are without Foundation, and must be laid afide; unless we fuppofe, that when he wrote his laft Chapter long afterward, he alter'd any of his former

« السابقةمتابعة »