Though there were, even in the Apoftles' time, feOf the harmony of the four gofpels. veral treatises handed about, under the name of gospels (i), yet the primitive Chriftians did unanimously receive but four; namely, thofe of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John. This we find attefted by four of the ancientest fathers of the church. The first is St. Irenæus (k), who lived in the fecond century, and who exprefsly fays, that there were no other gospels but the four jult now mentioned; and he adds, that this tradition is fo much the more to be depended on, becaufe the hereticks themselves acknowledged these gofpels. The fecond is Tertullian (/), an author of the fame century, who fays, that the gofpel was written by two apoftles, St. Matthew, and St. John; and by two of their difciples, St. Mark, and St. Luke. The third is Origen (m), who tells us that he learned from tradition, that none but our four gofpels are received by the univerfal church. The laft is Eufebius (n), who, writing in the fourth century, teftifies that in St. John's time the four gofpels were received all over the world, and that this Apoftle had given them the feal of his approbation. As the churches kept very carefully the original copies, this was a very fure and eafy method to diftinguish the true from the counterfeit gofpels, and to discover the forgeries of hereticks (a). Befides, by St. Paul ordering that this epiftle should be read by all the faithful (p), we may reasonably fuppofe, that the gospels were fo too, as foon as they appeared in the world. And that it was fo, is evident from the teftimony of Juftin Martyr (9), who wrote in the fecond century; when giving an account of the religious offices of Chriftians, he fays, that the apoftolical monuments, that is, the gofpels, and perhaps the Acts, were read every funday. The fixteenth canon of the council of Laodicea injoins, that the gofpels, with the other fcriptures, fhould be read on the fabbath-day, which the Chriftians then obferved. This canon feems plainly to infinuate, that it was ufual to read the gofpels on fundays, but that on faturdays, to comply with the Jews, they read only the books of the Old Testament. From all thefe particulars it is manifeft, that the canon of the gofpels was already made at that time. The date of it may be fixed to St. John's approbation, juft before mentioned. St. Ignatius (r), who was cotemporary with the Apoftles, at leaft with St. John, fpeaks of the evangelical canon, under the name of gospel, as fome authors have obferved. St. Irenæus (s) ftiles the gapel the pillar and ground of the faith; whereby he means the four Evangelifts, as he explains his meaning more fully afterwards. Eufebius (t), when speaking of the four gof (Luke i. 1. (k) Iren. iii. 11. (1) Tertull. adv. Març. iv. 1. (m) Origen. ap. Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. vi. 25. (n) Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. iii. 24. (0) This was Tertullian's method. Præfcr. Hæret. c. 21. (p) Coloff. iv. 16. 1 Thef. v. I 27. (4) Juft. Martyr. Apoll. 11. p. 77. pels, (r) Ignat. Ep. ad Philipp. & alibi. See Dr. Mill Prolegom. N. T. Oxos, Fol. xxiv. (s) Iren. ii. 1. pels, ufes the word canon. It would have been a very hard matter to have been impofed upon at that time by falfe gofpels (*). Befides, it was an easy matter to judge by thofe very compofures, that they were no way fuitable to the character of the Evangelifts, of which they were but imperfect copies. If there was any good thing in them, it was blended with a parcel of fables, and with other filly and trifling things, which were unbecoming the gravity and fimplicity, as well as the wifdom of the facred writers. Thus have we both internal and external proofs of these writings being forged and fictitious, as we have on the other hand fubftantial arguments of each of these kinds for the truth of the books of the New Teftament. Thofe that have read the hiftory of the gofpel, have undoubtedly obferved, that though the four Evangelifts are perfectly agreed in the main, yet there is fome difference between them; either becaufe fome take notice of circumftances that had been omitted by the reft, or elfe follow a different order and method in relating the matters they treat of. This hath, from the earliest ages of the church, fet men upon comparing the gofpels together, in order to fhew the harmony and agreement between them. The firft that undertook a work of this nature; as we are informed by Eufebius (u), was Tatian, who lived in the fecond century, and was the difciple of Juftin Martyr; his performance he intitled, one gofpel out of four, or the chain of the four Evangelifts (*): But as Tatian fell into fome heretical opinions, and had even fuppreffed the genealogies of JESUS CHRIST, and whatever proved that he was of the family of David, his compofure foon came to nothing. It was however ftill extant in Theodoret's time, who fays that it used to be read in churches (w), but that he deftroyed all the copies of it, to bring the four gofpels in the room of the abridgment which that heretick had made of them. In the 3d century, Ammonius, a Chriftian philofopher of Alexandria, publifhed a harmony, which, in the ixth century, was illuftrated with notes, by Zacharias Chryfopolitanus. Eufebius (x) hath transmitted to us an excellent fragment of a letter written alfo in the 3d century by Julius Africanus, wherein he reconciles St. Matthew, and St. Luke in the genealogies they have given of JESUS CHRIST. This fragment is well worth reading (t). In the fourth century, St. Auguftin (y) compofed a very good treatife in three books concerning the agreement between the four Evangelifts, wherein he answers the objections of the heathens, who made the feeming contradiction between the Evangelifts (*) Which were collected together by Dr. Albert Fabricius, in his Codex Apocryphus N. Teft. Hamb. 1703. See likewife Dr. Grabe's Spicilegium. Oxon. (z) Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. iv. 29. (*) There is in the 1ft. vol. of Bibliotheca Patrum, a harmony afcribed to Tatian, but it is none of his. (w) Theodoret. Hær. Fab. 1. i. c. 20. (x) Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. i. 7. (+) You have it in Dupin's Biblioth. of the Eccl. Hift. vol. 1. under the word Julius Africanus. (y) Aug. Tom. iii. Part. z. gelifts a pretence for their unbelief. We may likewife rank among the harmonies, a hiftory of the gospels written in verfe by Juvencus a Spanish prieft, who lived under the reign of Conftantine the Great. And we may also pafs the fame judgment upon an excellent book compofed by Helychius patriarch of Jerufalem (2) in the beginning of the feventh century, wherein several paffages in the gofpels, that feem to contradict one another, are very ingeniously reconciled. In the twelfth century, a harmony of the four Evangelifts was compiled by order of Lewis the Pious (*). There is to be feen in fome libraries a harmony written in Latin in the fame century by an English priest, and tranflated into English by Wickliff. Among John Gerfon's works there is a harmony extant, composed by that author, under the name of one gospel out of four; and alfo among thofe of John Hus a history of JESUS CHRIST, taken out of the four Evangelifts. Since the reformation, harmonies are vaftly multiplied. Proteftants and Papifts having fhewed a very commendable emulation in this refpect. For harmonies of the gospels have been compiled in all countries and languages. As they are in every body's hands, it would be needless to give an account of them here. They are all good in their kind, but it is very natural to fuppofe that the lait must be the moft exact and compleat. Nothing can certainly be more ufeful or convenient, than to have a coherent account of the actions, miracles, and preaching of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST. It muft befides be no fmall fatisfaction to fee at one view in a harmony, an exact agreement between four hiftorians who have written the fame hiftory in different times and places. But it would therefore be unreasonable to fuppofe that there is no difference between them, especially as to order of time. The reafon is this, that thefe divine authors have not had so much regard to order of time as to the things themselves, fo that they have almost always related matters of fact, according as occafion offered. Perhaps alfo the fame things have happened more than once, they are confequently related at different times. This is the opinion of feveral authors concerning the beatitudes (a), and other paffages of the New Teftament. St. Matthew for inftance tells us (b), that it was to the twelve Apofiles JESUS CHRIST faid, I fend you as sheep in the midst of wolves; whereas, according to St. Luke, this was fpoken to the feventy difciples (c). Nothing can be more natural than to fuppofe that it was faid to both of them at different times. Befides, when a hiftorian omits any one circumftance, which is taken notice of by another, it doth not at all follow that the latter hath invented it. Thus St. Matthew (d) fpeaks of two perfons poffeffed with devils, which were cured by JESUS CHRIST in the country of the Gergefenes; whereas St. Mark and St. Luke mention but one (e): all that can be inferred from this, is, that there are some circumftances in this hiftory, (z) Cotel. Monum. Eccl. Græc. Tom. iii. (*) The MS. of it is in St. Paul's library at Leipfick. (e) Mark v. 1. Luke viii. 26. (d) Matt. viii. 28. biftory, which have been omitted by one of the Evangelifts, and taken notice of by the other. Had St. Mark and St. Luke said, that there was no more than one perfon poffeffed, they would indeed have contradicted St. Matthew; but because they speak but of one, it doth not at all follow that there were not two. St. Luke alone makes mention of the feventy disciples (ƒ). Now what confequence can be drawn from hence? No other certainly than this, that there is that circumftance more in St. Luke, than in the reft of the Evangelifts. Befides, a thing is often taken for a contradiction when it is not really fo, or at least but a feeming one. St. Matthew tells us that the miracle just now mentioned was done in the country of the Gergefenes, whereas, according to St. Mark and St. Luke, it was in that of the Gadarenes ;. but Gadara being in the land of the Gergefenes, there is no manner of contradiction here. The fame Evangelift fays (g), that it was the mother of Zebedee's children which came to defire of JESUS CHRIST, that her two fons might fit down, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left in his kingdom; but St. Mark tells us (b), that the fons E themselves made this request. These two accounts are no way contradictory. The mother, and the children being together, they jointly put up their petitions. Befides, nothing is more common in the ftyle of the eaftern nations, than to fay that a man hath done a thing himself, when he hath caused it to be done by another. The fons of Zebedee therefore having got their mother to make JESUS CHRIST this request, are here faid to have done it themfelves. Which, by the way, clears up a feeming contradiction that occurs in the hiftory of the centurion, who is by one of the Evangelifts faid to have gone himself to JESUS CHRIST, and by another to have fent to him (i). St. Matthew affirms, that Judas hanged himself (k), and St. Luke that he caft himself headlong, and his bowels gufhed out (1). It is really ftrange, that large volumes fhould have been written to remove a difficulty which is only imaginary, and hath no other foundation than an extreme fondness for gain-faying, there being feveral ways of reconciling the two Evangelifts, as we have obferved in our notes on thofe places. The Evangelifts may have had alfo particular reafons for fuppreffing or relating fome circumftances. St. John for inftance obferves, that it was St. Peter who cut off Malchus's ear, but the other Evangelifts fay only that it was one of thofe that were with JESUS (m). A very probable reafon may be affigned for this difference. St. Peter being yet alive when the other Evangelifts wrote, they did not think it proper to name him, because the law took cognizance of what he had done; but St. John having written fince St. Peter's death, had no need of using the fame caution (*). There are likewife in the accounts of the death, refurrection, and apparitions (g) Mat. xx. 21. (b) Mark x. 37. (ƒ) Luke x. 1. apparitions of JESUS CHRIST after it, fome particulars wherein the Evangelifts feem to differ one from another. But we may fafely affirm, that there is none of those pretended contradictions, but what might be eafily reconciled, would men but read the books of the New Teftament with the fame candour and impartiality, as they perufe profane hiftorians, when they feem to contradict one another (†). We may even reap thefe two advantages from the difference between the Evangelifts. 1. The fame inference may be drawn from it, as from the difference of their ftile, That they did not write by concert, or by any mutual agreement. 2. One of the Evangelifts explaining fome particulars more fully than the others have done, and fome relating fuch and fuch matters of fact with a greater exactnefs, and defcribing them fuller with all their circumftances, than the reft of thofe facred writers may do, we are hereby induced to read all the four gofpels, which we should be apt to neglect, were they all exactly alike, WE The Geography of the New Teftament, E have already had an occafion of speaking of the feveral names which the land of Ifrael went by, and likewife of the fituation of Jerufalem, and the neighbouring parts, as the Mount of Olives, Bethany, Emmaus, &c. In treating of it at prefent, we shall denote it by the name of Palestine (*), which is more common; and Thall only give a general defcription thereof, as far as may ferve to give an account of the journeyings of our Saviour Jesus CHRIST. As the ancient Jews had no true notion of the extent of the world, and were befides no great geographers, they fancied that Palestine stood in the middle of the world (+), as Jerufalem did in the middle of idea. Theodoret, in his comment on the prophet Ezekiel, affigns this country the fame fituation, when he fays, that the Jews have Alia on the east and north, Europe on the weft, and Africa on the fouth. Paleftine (4) There are very good rules for reconciling the Evangelifts, in a harmony printed at Amfterdam in 1699, in fol. (*) Though Paleftine, properly fo called, be only the country that was inhabited by the Jews on this fide Jordan, and which was formerly in the pol feffion of the Philidlines, yet this name hath fince been given to all Judea, as well on this as the other fide Jordan. (†) This is a piece of folly which feveral nations have been guilty of. See Reland Palaæft. Sac. 1. i. c. 1o. The Jews grounded their pretenfions on two paffages of the prophet Ezekiel, wherein mention is only made of the na tions that were round the land of Ifrael, and not of the whole world. Ezek. v. 5, 6. xxxviii. 12. |