Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

wonder if all this took up a year, or thereabouts.

The third Paffover is that which St. John mentions, Chap. 6. 4. and which was near at hand, when the five thousand men, befides Women and Children, were entertain'd by him, and fatisfied with five Loaves and two Fishes. Then, after his ufual custom, he went to teach at Capernaum, and elsewhere, fuch as were delighted with hearing thofe things that appertained to their Salvation. At the Feast of the Paffover he repaired to Jerufalem, if we judg of this Year by his Practice in the others: And returning from thence, he went into that part of Galilee which is neareft to the Borders of the Tyrians and Sidonians, where he was lefs known. From thence he returned to the Lake of Gennefareth, and tarried a long time in the Region of Decapolis. Then he failed over the Lake, often changing his place, in all likelihood to avoid too great a Concourfe, which perhaps might have occafioned a Sedition, which his Adverfaries would doubtlefs have imputed to him, fince afterwards for a far lefs reafon they accus'd him of High Treafon before Pontius Pilate For which reafon he would not be called the Meffiuh, and forbad many of his Miracles to be spread abroad, that he might not be followed by a Multitude who feem'd eagerly bent upon a change of Government. After wards he went to Paneas to the Fountains of Jordan, and fome days afterwards was transfigured on a Mountain of Galilee, and took many Journies to and fro thro Galilee; and then, in the beginning of Oktober, at the middle of the Feaft of Tabernacles, he fhewed himself openly at Jerufalem, having fent into all parts feventy Difciples, who probably returned to him after the Feaft, as he was going into GaLilee. Then at the Feaft of Dedication he went up again to Jerufalem by eafy Journies (teaching in every Town and Village) where he arriv'd in the beginning of December. He returned again into Galilee, and from thence he paffed over into Judea, defigning fhortly after to come back again into Galilee, from whence he went again into Judea to raife Lazarus from the Dead; and having rais'd him,he retir'd into the Defert of Jericho until the time of the Paffover, viz. of the fourth, in which he fuf fer'd.

From this fhort Narrative of the Journies of Chrift, it appears that Jefus made more Journies in that interval of time between the third and fourth or last Passover, than he had in the foregoing years; which might be for two very important reafons: One was, becaufe the time of his Departure from the World drawing near, he himself was willing to spread the Gospel as far as might be through Paleftine, that he might lay a fure and firin Foundation of that Building which his Apofties were afterwards to finish. The cther, that by frequent changing of places he might avoid too great a Concourfe of men to him, and disappoint the Defigns of fuch as bore the Roman Yoke very uneafily, of which fort were very many in Judea, or rather indeed almost all the Jews: for when the Fame of his Miracles was spread far and near, very many fufpected he was the true Meffiah, and fome there were that did not in the leaft doubt it. Now the Meffiah was generally look'd upon as one who was to be a Deliverer of the Jews, and under whofe conduct they were to fubdue all the reft of Mankind. So that if he had taken up his refidence in one place, he would always have been encompaffed with a Multitude of men, who could not fo cafily follow him when he remov'd from place to place. Wherever he had fettled, the Malecontents would have flock'd to him as to an appointed and notified Rendevouz, and have ftirred up a Sedition whether he would or no. Which how prejudicial it might have been to the growth of the Chriftian Church, it is not neceffary for me to inlarge upon.

I must now clear fome things which may be, and perhaps are actually objected against my account of the Paffovers, by which I said the time of Chrift's Miniftry was to be diftinguished. There are fome will have it that Chrift fpeaking those words, John 4.13. De not ve fay there are yet four months, and then cometh the Harvest? means, that in that time when he paffed through Samaria, there were yet remaining four months to his fecond Pallover; but I have hinted in my History of the Gofpel, that that was a proverbial Saying drawn from the Barly Harveft, of which you may confult Lightfoot in his Hora Hebraice upon St. John's Gofpel, altho he is of another mind.

My

My opinion is that that Feaft was the fecond Paffover, which John (peaks of, chap.5.1. But fome learned men, who think otherways, object first against it, that this Evangelift, as oft as he speaks of the Paflover elsewhere, calls it by its proper name, as Chap. 2. 13. & 11. 55. Which, fuppofe it be granted, it does not follow that St. John fhould not ex-. prefs himself otherwife in one particular place, efpecially fince the Expreffion is proper, and eafily offers it felf. Befides, they are mistaken; for in chap. 4. 45. ogrn, the Feaft, is twice called the Paffover. But then, fay they, the Article is prefixed. I grant it: but it is alfo omitted in other places, where there is mention made of this Feaft, as H. Grotius obferves, Mar. 15. 6. Luke 23. 17. And if we fuppofé John fpake after the fame manner, is there any thing strange or unreasonable in it?

Secondly, fay they, Chryfoftom, Cyril of Alexandria, and fome other Interpreters, think that the Evangelift fpeaks of fome other Feaft of the Jews. Eut theirs, and other Interpreters Authority, not fupported by Reafon, is a very weak argument of the Truth, fince no one can deny that they had no other Memoirs to affift them befide what we still have, namely, the Gospels; not to mention their being men obnoxious to error, and that they have very often erred in the Interpretation of the Scrip

tures.

Their third Objection is, that fifty Verfes after (viz. in Chap. 6. 4.) there is again mention made of the Paflover. But what hinders but that the Paffover of the year following may be meant in this latter place? But, fay they, upon this fuppofition the Evangelift feems to have taken notice of too few things during the interval between these Paffovers. Now I think this was very rationally defign'd by him, which was for the most part to take notice of thofe things that had been omitted by the other Evangelifts. And tho I fhould grant that John mentions only the fecond Paffover in Chap. 6.4. yet they muft own that he repeats but a few of Chrift's Sermons that he made between the two Paffovers, and, according to their opinions, begins to speak of 'em at Chap. 2. 4. and leaves off at the beginning of the 6th Chapter, efpecially if we compare 'em with thofe in the other Evangelifts.

Fourthly, Others object, that if John Spoke of the Feast of the Paffover, Chap. 2. 13. in Chap. 5. 1. he comes to the Feaft of Pentecoft, and without doubt speaks of that, the time correfponding thereunto. Perhaps they that had read only John, might be perfuaded of this; but whoever has read the Journies of Chrift in the others, and compared em together, will find it abfurd that his Miniftry fhould be contracted within the narrow compafs of the interval between the two Paffovers, as they would have it who make these Objections; whofe Opinion is defended by the Learned Ger. Jo. Voffius, in his Book of the time of our Lord's Paffion.

Fifthly, The fame perfons urge, that St John, in Chap. 6. 4. does not speak of any middle Paffover, between the first mentioned in Chap. 2. and the laft in Chap. 11, and 12. becaufe in fuch a cafe he would not have contented himself barely to fay the Paffover was at hand, but would have fubjoin'd fome of thofe things which happened at that Feaft of the Paffover. But fuppofe nothing memorable happened at that time; certainly it was not neceffary that Jefus fhould have done any thing at that time at Jerufalem, which ought to have been committed to writing."

Sixthly, They go on and tell us, No confequence can be drawn from the method that John writ in: As if there were no confequence at all from the mention afterwards made of the Feast of Tabernacles and the Dedication, that any other Paffover should be spoken of here befides that in which he fuffered, becaufe there may be a placing of that which fhould be last first, au'segov gov, of which fort are many elsewhere in the Evangelifts. I confess that Matthew has frequently fuch invertings of the Order, in rehearsing of the Sermons of Chrift; but in no place occurs any fuch inverfion in the ftating of the time, as must be in this place. The reafon is, becaufe fuch an ambiguous account would have been altogether ufelefs, from which we could by no means collect what Year was meant. Befides, John in his Narration is more obfer. vant of the Order of the times thau St. Matthew in his; and his Hiftory feems to be very cautioufly diftinguifh'd according to the times of the Feafts, that he might fupply what Eeee

was

was wanting in the other Gofpels, as I fhall thew in my following Differtation.

But, fay they further, if we compare John and Luke together, it will plainly appear that the Paffover here mentioned is that of our Saviour's Crucifixion, which was then near at hand For John fays, Chap. 6. that when the Paffover was now at hand Chrift fed five thousand men with five Loaves and two Fishes. And Luke fpeaks of the fame Miracle, together with other things done at that time, Chap. 9. and afterwards fubjoins in the fame Chapter, v. 51. that this was done when the time was come when he should be received up. And what else can be meant by it, than that the laft Paffover was near at hand? So they argue, as if it were neceffary that what St. Luke fpeaks of in that place fhould be referred to things immediatly foregoing; for the proof of which they bring no argument. But I have fo placed thefe things in my Harmony, as to have a reference to the following Acts of Jefus, and what he did not fix months before his Crucifixion, when he had now preached the Gofpel about thirty months, as is manifeft from Page 281.

Thefe are the Anfwers we had to make to thofe Learned Men, who contend that there were but two, or at most three Paffovers celebrated, within the time of Christ's Miniftry: But nothing does better confute their Objections, than the very Order of the Hiftory, and of the Journies of Chrift; which I have already briefly delivered, and which whofoever will give himself the trouble to Ferufe my History, will eafily perceive.

V. I am now in the lift place to give fome account why I have referred the laft Paffover of Chrift to the twenty ninth Year of the Vulgar Ara; which altho it be evident from what has been already faid, yet I fhall confirm it by the Teftimonies of the Antients. I am not ignorant that they have made many and great mistakes in matters of Chronology, and that we are not rafhly to rely upon them: nay, in this very bufinefs of the Year of Chrift's Death (as I fhall fhew by and by) they were under a manifeft mistake. But there are two things to be diftinguifht in what they have faid of this matter for there are fome things

which they could by no means collect from the Golpels, but only receive from antient Report; but other things there are which they endeavoured to deduce from the Gofpels. The latter cannot have a greater force with us than the Reafons on which they depend; and if they are weak, the Inferences from them will be weak alfo; but if weighty, the Confequences are not to be rejected as frivolous: For fince the Antients had no more infallible Rules of reafoning or arguing than we have, and were no more exempted from the danger of crring than the Moderns, they are to be judged of by the fame rules that we are, and to be followed when they argue right, and forfaken when they do not, as the modern Interpreters of Scripture are wont to be. Eut there are befides among the Antients certain Dates of times which they received from their Ancestors, or had taken out of Books that are now loft.

There is no reafon for our rejecting thefe as dubious, if they carry no abfurdity along with 'em, and accord with other Hiftories, whofe Truth is fufficiently proved, and efpecially if delivered by very many that altogether agree: For from whom fhall we have a more certain account of the Tranfactions of former times, than from fuch as lived not long after, if we have no contemporary Witnefles? Which is chiefly to be understood of those things that have in 'em no appearance of Falfhood, neither are of that nature as to be the interest of any Party to reprefent them to the credulous Vulgar with falfe Interpolations. Now that I may diftinguish thefe two things in myCitations from the Antients concerning the year in which Christ died, I muft fet down their own Words: Eut I fhall confine my felf to the most antient Writers, because the Authority of those of later date who have copied them without any Examination is of far lefs weight, and I will firft cite the Teftimonies of the Greek, and afterwards thofe of the Latin Authors.

In the first place let's hear what Clemens of Alexandria fays, who in his Chronology of the Roman Emperors down to his time, has thefe words: von RugC nuw! TO yow rai xo's ETI (of Auguftus, viz. from the taking of Alexandria, from the Conqueft of which place it was the custom in Egypt to rec

kon

kon the years of Auguftus) or new or ixindow απογραφος γυέθαι, ότι Αυγός. Οπ δὲ στ' ἀληθές εςιν ἐν τῷ Ευαγελίῳ καὶ Λοκαν γέγραπται ὅπως ETH SE TEV TEXT

671 Tibegir Katous, eyevero pña Kugie ces Ιωάννην - Ζαχαρία εν xy man in The aut v I'nous ESTÓW THÌ TO BLnoua, ὡς ἐτῶν λ'. καὶ ὅτι ἐνιαυτὸν μόνον ἔδε αυτὸν κηρύξαι καὶ τότο γέγραπται ὅτως. Ενιαυτὸν δεκτὸν Κυρία κηρύξαι απέςειλεν με. Τέτο και ὁ Προφήτης εἶπεν, καὶ τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον. πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ ἔν ἔτι Τιβερίκ, και πεντεκαιδεκάτω (Read Texsidéna Tois 6, unlefs, which is πεντεκαιδέκατος not to be fuppos'd, Clemens plainly doted in thus wretchedly difagreeing with himself in the compafs of a few Lines) Augs πληρῶνται τα τριάκοντα ἔτη, ἕως ὅ ἔπαθεν. αφ' *' δὲ ἔπαθεν, ἕως τὸ καταςροφῆς Ιερκσαλήμ γίνονTRIETH μB', unves y. i. c. But our Lord was born in the twenty eighth Year (from the Victory near Allium, according to the Egyptians) when Registers of the Inhabitants were first commanded to be made in the time of Auguftus. And that this is true, it is written in the Gospel of St. Luke: But in the fifteenth Year of Tiberius Cafar came the word of the Lord to John the Son of Zacharias. And again in the Same Evangelist: Jefus was coming to his Baptifm about thirty years of age. And that he ought to preach only for a year, this also is written: He fent me to preach the acceptable Year of the Lord. The Prophet spoke of this, as doth the Gospel alfo. Therefore in the fifteenth Tear of Tiberius, reckoning alfo fifteen under Auguftus, are compleated the thirty Years till his Suffering: And from his Paffion to the Destruction of Jerufalem, are two and forty years and three months. In which Paffage there are many things to be taken notice of.

1. Clemens had heard (or he from whom he took this Chronology) that Chrift was born about the 28th year from the Victory at Allium; which is true, if you count the very Year of that Victory, and adding 27 Years to it, you will light upon the Year 750 V. C. or Julian 42. a few months before which I have already fhewn that Chrift was born. But mifreckoning of the Altium Years after the Alexandrian manner, he has deferred the Birthday of Jefus Chrift to the Year following, till which Herod did not live; whereas it is

manifeft that Chrift was born before Herod's Death.

2. For asyouer, beginning, which is in Luke, and in all the Copies now extant among us, and was in the Books of the antient Interpreters, Clemens reads guer, coming, to which he fubjoins, for explanation fake, ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, to the Baptifm. Which Paf fage feems to have been correated by him by conjecture, left, if chrift fhould be faid to begin to be about thirty years of age, it fhould neceffarily follow, that year ending, he muft at least be faid to have begun his 31ft Year, which would have utterly deftroyed Clemens's Chronology But if you fuppofe that Chrift had not país'd his 29th Year about the time of the frft Palfover, it will neceffarily follow that at the other Paffover when he died, he muft have been thirty years old.

3. Every one fees how frivolous that Argument is,taken from a place in Ifaiah, and feems to have been copied by Clemens from fome Valentinian: for thus the Valentinians argued,as Irenæus tells us, Lib. 11. c. 38. where he rightly confutes 'em: They fay that he suffered in the twelfth Month, so that he continued preaching but one year after his Baptism; and they endeavour to confirm this out of the Prophet: for it is written, That it was called the acceptable Year of the Lord, and the Day of Recom pence, being truly blind-For the Prophet neither Speaks of the Day, which confifts of twelve Hours, nor of the Year that has twelve Months. For they themselves confefs that the Prophets fpake many things in Parables and Allegories, and not according to the literal meaning of the words. Therefore that is called the Day of recompence, in which God will render to (that is, judg) every one according to his Works: And the acceptable Year of the Lord is the time, in which those are called who believe in him, and are made acceptable to God; that is, all the time from his coming until the end, &c. Afterwards in the following Chapter he fhews that in John's Gofpel there is mention made of three Paffovers and then adds, But every one will confess that these three times of the Paffover are not one year, Upon which account I wonder the most Learned Ger. Fo. Voffius fhould rank Irenaus amongst thofe who find four Paffovers in the time of Christ's Miniftry. See his Book of Reec 2

the

the time of our Lord's Paffion, §. 19. But this by the by.

4. There is then no doubt but that Clemens has abfurdly contracted the time of Chrift's Preaching and Death into one Year, viz. the fifteenth of Tiberius: but it was a Tradition he had received from his Ancestors that Chrift died that year, which was very true, but not in that fifteenth Year which Luke ípeaks of, and which, as I have before fhewn, was the fifteenth Year of his Proconfular Power, not that which he entred upon after the Death of Auguftus. Which thing Clemens ought to have remembred, who, as I have before fhewn, was not altogether a ftranger to the twofold beginning of Tiberius. The Tradition he had from his Ancestors, as to Chrift's being born about the 28th Year of Auguftus from the victory at Adium, and as to his dying in the fifteenth of Tiberius, was true; but he did not throughly understand what these Years were, and he interpolated the Truth which he had received, by a wrong conclufion of his own.

5. I do not think him to have been fo weak a Chronologer, as to write erexaideT A'vys, in the 15th of Auguftus, when a little before he faid that Jefus was born in the 28th Year of that Emperor: but it is manifeft that his meaning was this, that the fifteen years that Jefus lived under Auguftus, and the other fifteen which he furvived him under the Principality of Tiberius, made up thirty years. Therefore we muft neceffarily read VTEX Jéxa Tois ôti Avys, unless any one will have it that Clemens reckons the years of Auguftus from his Death, by going backwards to his 28th year, which would be a very ftrange way of reckoning, and, if I am not mistaken, without any Precedent.

6. It is most true that from the year of Chrift's Death to the Destruction of Jerufalem were 42 years; and I believe that this alfo was derived from an antient Report, which arofe from the obfervation of the Chriftians of thofe times, who diligently took notice of the time of the compleating of that remarkable Prediction of Chrift, which is extant in Mat. 24. Clemens afterwards adds various opinions concerning the Day in which Chrift died; but they seem to be mere Conjectures,

and therefore I fhall not take notice of them.

My fecond Witnefs fhall be Julius Africa nus, who, in his fifth Volume of the Times, where he treated of the feventy Weeks, had this, which Jerom quotes out of him upon the 9th Chapter of Daniel. The Macedonians reigned three hundred years, and from thence to the fifteenth Year of Tiberius Cæfar, in which Chrift fuffered, are computed fixty years.

My third fhall be Origen, who in his 4th Book against Celfus, p. 174. Ed. Cantab. fpeaks to this effect: I compute, that from the year of the Crucifixion of Jefus to the Destruction of Jerufalem, were two and forty Years, which Year was the forty fecond before the utter fubverfion of the Jewish Nation, as we have already feen, being the fifteenth of Tiberius's after the Death of Auguftus.

Now to come to my Latin Witneffes, Irenæus fpeaks thus, whom I reckon among the Latins, because he lived in France, altho he wrote in Greek, Lib. 1. c. 25. Our Lord was born about the one and fortieth Year of Auguftus's Empire, viz. in the fortieth after the killing of Julius Cafar, as I have before fhewn. But he has made a great mistake, Lib. 2. c.39. where he fays that Chrift was crucified between the fortieth and fiftieth year of his Age, and yet that he was baptized in the thirtieth; which if it were true, Chrift must have died when neither Pontius Pilate was Procurator of JKdea, nor in Tiberius's Reign, than which there can be nothing more abfurd, as the Learned have long fince obferved. I thould not have taken any notice of this, had I not thought it ufeful to give one inftance of a palpable mistake thro Inadvertency mix'd with Truth from whence we may plainly fee that we are not to admit of, or reject every thing of the Ancients, but make a felect choice out of 'em. Now if Chrift was born in the fortieth Year of Auguftus after the death of Julius Cafar, that he died in the thirty third year of his age will be evident from what I have before faid concerning the Paffovers which he himself obferved.

Next to Irenæus comes Tertullian against the Jews, c. 8. After Augustus, who furvived the Nativity of Chrift, are compleated fifteen years, whofe Succeffor was Tiberius Cæfar-In the fifteenth year of his Reign Chrift fuffered, being

then

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »