[ocr errors]

19. I need not say he received the first epistle of St. Peter.

20. He once quotes St. John's first epistle in this manner : • For · he says in one of his • epistles,

“ That which was from the beginning, which we have seen.” Therefore he received more than one.

21. It is probable that Theophylact received all the seven epistles.

22. But I cannot say that he received the book of the Revelation: I do not remember that he has any where quoted it; which, I think, he would have done, if it had been of authority with him. However I put in the margin a reference or two, to be considered by those who please; but I do not reckon them very material. Perhaps he was of the same opinion with St. Chrysostom concerning the book of the Revelation.

žs. Theophylact quotes no forged Christian writings, or apocryphal books of the New Testament. He cuts off a good number of them by that observation upon John i. 31...34, that • Christ wrought no miracle in his infancy, or before the time of his public ministry; about which he is clear and positive. We formerly saw a like observation in Chrysostom.

24. He seldom quotes any apocryphal books of the Old Testament. A passage of Ecclesiasticus is cited as the saying of a wise man.

25. I shall now take a few remarkable passages.

26. In the preface to St. Matthew's gospel : · And' was not one evangelist sufficient? Yes. • Nevertheless, for making the truth more manifest, four were permitted to write: for when you see these four not conferring together, nor meeting in the same place, but separate from each other, writing the same things as with one mouth, are you not led to admire the truth of the gospel, and to say that they spake by the Holy Ghost ? Do not say to me that they do not • agree in every thing; for wherein do they differ ? Does one say that Christ was born, and * another not? or does one say that he rose from the dead, and another that he did not rise?

By no means; for they agree in the necessary and principal things: and if they do not differ • in the principal things, why should you wonder that they vary in lesser matters ? For that very * reason they are the more credible, in that they do not agree in all things ; for then it would • have been thought that they had met and consulted together: but now one has written what • another has omitted, and therefore they seem to differ in some things.' This should be compared with a passage of Chrysostom 3 formerly transcribed.

27. Upon Matth. ii. 11, he says, When the child was born, the Virgin laid him in a stable, not finding any house to be in. But afterwards he thinks it likely they found room in a house, and there the magians of the east found him.

28. Upon Matth. v, 44: · To · love some men, and those our friends, and hate others, is a • mark of imperfection: he is perfect who loves all men.'

29. He finely explains those words of our Lord, Mark x. 40. “ It is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared;" and his observations upon this place may be compared with what he says upon · Matth. xx. 23.

30. Upon Luke xxi. 37, 38: Our Lord,' says Theophylact, said many excellent things • to those who came to him in the temple : and from this and other places, we may conclude

therefore, that the evangelists have related a few things only; for though the Lord preached • almost three years, if a man should say, that all which they have recorded might be spoken in • the compass of one day, he would not speak much beside the truth.'

For certain, the evangelical writings, in which conciseness and fulness are united, deserve the highest commendations.

From that passage it appears that Theophylact did not compute our Saviour's ministry to have lasted three years and more, but somewhat less than three years: accordingly, he does not suppose the Jewish feast, mentioned by St. John, v. 1, to have been a passover, but" some other feast, possibly pentecost, as he conjectures. Of this point I have spoken ° formerly.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

31. The section concerning the woman taken in adultery, which we have in Jolm viii. at the beginning, is not explained by · Theophylact.

32. I now beg leave to mention a general observation. Theophylact's Commentaries are very useful and valuable: but it seems to me, that too much respect has been shewn to his prefaces to the four gospels, where he determines the times of the several evangelists' writing. Just and useful observations, right or probable interpretations of scripture, may be received from any man, let him live when he will, but, as an historian, the testimony of a man, who speaks of things done a thousand years before his time, is of little value, unless it be derived from more ancient writers. Mill, in his Prolegomena, says, that • Theophylact is the first who has assigned the precise year in which each evangelist published his gospel ; and yet he has placed Theophylact's prefaces, where those determinations are made, at the head of the several gospels in his edition, without any remarks; and many have followed Theophylact in that point, though Mill had more judgment: but the early date of the gospels is popular, and it has become almost a general opinion. Upon this point some observations were mentioned in the chapter of Eusebius of Cæsarea.



1. EuthyniUS < was a monk who lived at Constantinople in the latter part of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century. He wrote a work entitled Panoplia, against all heretics; Commentaries upon the Psalms, and upon the gospels, collected chiefly out of Chrysostom and other ancient writers; and also some other books. His works are not yet published in the original Greek, that I know of, but only in Latin versions; though Mill, and R. Simon, and some others, who had access to manuscripts, have quoted several passages from him in Greek.

2. In his preface to St. Matthew's gospel he says, that · Matthew wrote at the request of • the Jewish believers in Judea. He seems to say in the same place, that Mark wrote his gospel at the request of the believers in Egypt. He likewise says, that ' Matthew's gospel was first written, and in Judea, for the Jewish believers, in Hebrew, eight years after our Lord's ascension: afterwards his gospel was translated into the Greek language.

3. The 6 evangelist Mark he supposeth to be the nephew of Barnabas, often mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's epistles ; he supposeth him likewise to be the same who is mentioned by Peter at the end of his first epistle. He says his gospel was written about ten years after our Lord's ascension, at Rome, as some said, or in Egypt, according to others. He says, that at the

a Vid.
p. 674.

est evangelium, post octo annos Christi in cælos assumti. • Theophylactus hic noster, omnium (quod sciam) primus, Scripsit autem ad illos, qui ex Judæis crediderant, ut prædixidesignat ipsum præcise annum, quo evangelistæ singuli sua mus, Hebræâ usus linguâ ac contexturâ. Postea vero in conscripserint evangelia. Matthæum evangelium suum scrip- nostram linguam traductum est. Id. ib. p. 458. A. Conf. sisse ait anno post ascensionem Christi octavo ; Marcum Testimonia ap.

Mill. N. T. decimo; Lucam decimo quinto; Joannem trigesimo secundo. 8 Marcus, filius Mariæ, quæ in domo guâ benigne apostolos Et ad hujus calculum se componunt MSS. plurimi in notatis excipiebat. Vocabacur autem et Joannes, quemadmodum in ad calcem evangeliorum. Mill. Prol. 1). 1072.

Actis apostolorum invenimus ... Et cirea principia quidem c See vol. ii. p. 388, 389.

conjunctus est Barnabæ avunculo suo, et Paulo, sicuti liber d Vid. Cav. H. L. T. j. Du Pin. Bibl. des Aut Ec. T. ix.

Actorum testatur, et Paulus in epistolis mentionem faciens. . . p. 197. Fabr. Bib. Gr. 1. v. c. 11. T. vii. p. 460, &c. P. Deinde cum Petro Romæ conversatus est, quemadmodum Simon Hist. Critic, des commentat. du N. T. ch. 29. p. prior ejus epistola demonstrat, quâ etiam filium suum juxta 469, &c.

spiritum Marcum appellavit. A quo insuper totum evangelii e Matthæum enim, qui ex Judæis crediderant, obsecraverunt, sermonem didicit, et postmodum evangelium conscripsit, sent scriptam relinqueret ipsis evangelii historiam, quam eos cundum Clementem Stromaticum, in ipsâ Roma ; juxta verbo docuerat. Similiter et Marcum, qui in Ægypto edocti Chrysostomum ac:em in Ægypto, rogatus a fratribus, qui fuerant. Euthym. in iv. Evangelia ap. Bib. PP. Max. T. xix. ibidem morabantur, post decimum a Salvatoris assumtione an.

num. Ibid. p. 597. G. H. | Primus autem scripsit Matthæus quod nune præ manibus


P. 487. G.


first Mark was much with his uncle Barnabas, and Paul: afterwards he was with Peter at Rome, as the first epistle of that apostle shews, whom he also there calls his son; from whom also he received the whole history of the gospel.

4. If Mark was at first much with Barnabas and Paul, and not with Peter till afterwards, that does not favour the supposition, that his gospel was written within ten years after our Lord's ascension ; for, according to the general and almost universally concurring testimony of ancient authors, Mark received his gospel from the apostle Peter, as is also said by this writer himself.

5. Having explained St. Mark's gospel to the end of ver. 8th of the 16th chapter, he says, * Some“ expositors affirm this to be the conclusion of Mark's gospel, and that what follows has · been added since: nevertheless it ought to be explained by us, as it contains nothing contrary to truth.'

6. Luke," he says, was a native of Antioch, and a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and, as some say, one of his seventy disciples, as well as Mark; he was afterwards very intimate with Paul. He wrote his gospel, with Paul's permission, fifteen years after our Lord's ascension.

7. He says, that` St. John's gospel was not written until many years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

8. Of the noted various reading in St. John's gospel he expresseth himself after this manner. Having explained ch. vii. 52, he adds, “It" ought to be observed, that what follows here to those • words, “ then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world,” are either * wanting in the more exact copies, or marked with a dagger in the margin, denoting them to be

spurious and interpolated : of which it is some argument, that this place is not explained by • former interpreters ; nevertheless, as it may be useful, we shall explain it.



1. Nicephorus, son of Callistus Xanthopulus, a learned monk of Constantinople, is placed by H. Wharton,' in his Appendix to Cave, at the year 1333; but as the emperor, to whom his work is dedicated, is & computed to have died in 1327, I shall place him a few years sooner, in 1325.

He wrote in the Greek language an Ecclesiastical History in eighteen books, from the nativity of Christ to the year 610, collected, as he says, " out of Eusebius of Cæsarea, Socrates, Sozomen, Philostorgius, Theodoret, Euagrius, and others.

2. From him I shall transcribe an article concerning the books of the New Testament, omitting some particulars, which render his narration prolix, and which are not now needful to be taken by us at large, after having seen what is said by Eusebius, and otħer ecclesiastical writers of former times.

a Quidam autem interpretum asserunt, hoc in loco com- • Præsens autem evangelium multis annis post capta Jeropletuin esse Marci evangelium, quæ vero sequuntur recen- solyma conscripsit. Ib. p. 663. E. tiorem esse additionem. Oportet tamen et hanc explanare, Scire autem oportet, quod ea quæ ab hoc loco babentur quum veritati nihil repugnet. p. 614. B.

usque ad eum quo dicitur : 'Iterum ergo loquutus est illis b Beatus Lucas Antiochensis fuit genere. Omnem autem • Jesus dicens : Ego lux mundi :' in exactioribus exemplaribus sermonis disciplinam adeptus, medicinam etiam corporum aut non inveniuntnr, aut obelo confossa sunt, eo quod illegididicit, ac postmodum animarum quoque medicinam asse- tima videantur et addita. Et hujus argumentum est, quod quutus est. Primum, quidem Christo adhæsit, et ab eo pie- nullus ea sit interpretatus, &c. Ibid. 690. G. tatis semina suscepit. Postea vero Paulo duci conjunctus, e Vid. Pagi ann. 610. n. vii. Fabric. Bib. Gr. I. v. cap. 4. maximeque familiaris effectus est, ac discipulus ejus, comes- T. vi. p. 130, &c. Du Pin Bib. des Aut. Ec. T. xi. p. 98. que itineris

. Dicunt autem quidam, et maxime Origenes, i Cav. H. L. in App. p. 33. quod Marcus et Lucas ante dominicam passionem inter sep- & Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, Callistides, sive Cal. tuaginta discipulos connumerati sunt. Post quindecim vero listi Xanthopuli filius, historiam suam obtulit Andronico annos a salvatoris assumtione, permissu Pauli

, conscripsit Palæologo Imperatori jam seni, qui A. C. 1327, septuagenario evangelium ad Theophilum, fidelissimum, Deique amantissi- major obiit. Fabr. ubi supr. p. 130. mum. Ibid. p. 615.B.

h Vid. H. E. L. i. cap. 1. p. 35, 36. Paris. 1630.

3. In the 45th chapter of the second book of his History he says, • Thus we have spoken of * the twelve apostles, and their names : ita is now proper to shew, who of them have left writingg ' which are in the Testament; such as the four sacred gospels, the divine Acts of tlte apostles,

and the catholic epistles, and the rest, and their order; and also such as are spurious, and are * rejected by the church. And in the first place, of the divine gospels: two only of the twelve, • Matthew and John, have left memoirs of our Lord's life on earth ; and two of the Seventy, • Mark and Luke; and it is said that they were all compelled to write, as it were out of necessity. • Matthew first, who had been a publican, and had preached the saving word to the Jews, when • he was about to go abroad among Gentiles, thought it best to write in his native language an • account of his preaching, to supply the want of his presence : which he did at about fifteen years after our Saviour's ascension. Long after this Mark and Luke published their gospels, at the command (or by the direction] of Peter and Paul. John, who had hitherto preached by • word of mouth only, wrote the last of all, about six and thirty years after the Lord's ascension * to heaven.' [Then he gives an account of the other three gospels having been brought to John, and the reasons which induced John to write another gospel after them.] · These are the 'genuine gospels of the apostles, delivered to us from the beginning, and acknowledged by the

whole church to be of unquestioned authority. The same Luke also composed the book of the • Acts of the apostles, and, as is said, at the command of Paul... The divine James, the Lord's

brother, composed one of the catholic epistles, which is sent to the twelve tribes. Peter published • two epistles, and the excellent John three: Jude, brother of James, and perhaps of the Lord

likewise, one. These seven epistles the church has long received as genuine, and readily * placeth them among the rightful books of the New Testament. To these are to be added the • fourteen epistles of the divine Paul.... Lastly, we know the Revelation of John also to have • been delivered to the church. All other are spurious and falsely inscribed ;' that is, all other, which bear the names of apostles, and thereby make a claim to be a part of sacred scripture.

4. In the next chapter, which is the concluding chapter of that book, he observes, and chiefly as from Eusebius of Cæsarea, 'that some of the ancients had rejected or doubted of divers of the forementioned books. The four gospels were received by all

, as also the book of the Acts. • The' writings, about which there were doubts, are these: the epistle of James the Lord's

brother, which is the first of the catholic epistles; and the seventh, which is the epistle • of Jude his brother ; and the second epistle of Peter. About receiving these some of the · ancients hesitated. Of the three epistles of John one only was received without contradiction; • the other two were ascribed by some to another John, an elder, who lived at Ephesus after • John.... And some have supposed, that the Revelation also was written by the same John. All • the epistles of Paul have been unquestioned, except that to the Hebrews....But though there 'were for a while doubts about these, we know that at length-they have been received by all the • churches under heaven with a firm assent; and they are esteemed as the inviolable principles • and elements of our religion. It is fit also that we should know what are the other writings, · which are spurious and falsely inscribed :' which he mentions so agreeably to Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, already transcribed into this work, that there is no necessity to take at length what follows.

5. What we learn from this writer of the fourteenth century is, that all the books of the New Testament, which are now received by us, were generally received then. We have also the satisfaction to find, that there were then no other books whatever, of authority, beside these; which were esteemed the inviolable principles and elements of our religion;' or the rule of Christian belief and practice; or, as he called them before, and again a likewise, “the books in the testa* ment,' a word, equivalent to canonical, as was formerly observed by us. Moreover, it affords reason to believe, that there never were any other writings received or quoted by Christians, as of authority, beside these; which he also calls the genuine scriptures of the church: for this studious monk represents here the genuineness of former times, as well as of his own. The genuineness of some of these had been doubted of; but there never were any others of authority beside them.

1 Οσοι γε μην συγγραμματα καλαλελοιπολες εισιν, α και ως 4 “Ας δε έπλα εσας, ως γνησιας η εκκλησια προσιείαι ανωθεν, ενδιαθηκα κατελεγησαν ελι δε και περι των ιερων τεσσάρων και εν τοις οικείους των της νεας διαθηκης ειλιων εγκρίνει ως ευαγγελιων, των τε θειων πραξεων απoσoλικων, και των επισο- μαλιςα. p. 215. D. λων των τε καθολικων, και της ταξεως αυίων, εξης μεν ενη δηλ8ν, • Υπαλον δε και την τ8 Ιωαννα Αποκαλυψιν επιςαμεθα όσα τε νοθα, και τη εκκλησια αποβλητα. .. Υπομνημαία μεν παραδεδομενην τη εκκλησια. Τα δε παρα ταυλα νοβα τε και των τα κυριε διαίριζων, δυο, ο μονες των δωδεκα ισμεν συγγρα

παρεγγραπία. Ιb. p.

216. A. Wapenas... L. ii. c. 45. p. 213.

* Εν αμφιβολοις δ' ησαν.

..Xia: L ii. c. 46. p. 216. B. 6 Χρονω δε πολλω ύςερον... Ιb. p. 213. C.

και Ταυλα μεν ει και αμφιβολα τους προτερον εδοξαν, αλλ' εν απα* Ταυλα γνησια των αποστολων ευαγγελια, και ανωθεν παραδεδομενα, και αναμφηρισα παρα πασης εκκλησιας γινωσκεται.

σαις ες ύσερον ταις υπ' ερανον εκκλησιαις το αντιρρήίον εσχηκολα Ο δ' αυλος Λεκας και το των αποφολικων Πραξεων βιβλιον

εγνωκαμεν και ως αρχαι και στοιχεια της καθ' ημας ευσεβειας

αιωνια διαμενεσι. κ. λ Ιb. p. 217. Β. C. συνίαττει, ως φασι, Παυλ8 κελευσανθος. Ιb. p. 15. C.

6. This article of Nicephorus, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, subjoined to all the rest, may serve for a conclusion of this book, as containing a summary account of what has been said, and representing what was to be proved; which, I hope, we have proved, and may reasonably put down here, Q. E. D.


Containing an account of the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret.

1. OBSERVING, upon a review, that I have hitherto given no distinct account of the ecclesiastical historians, Socrates and Sozomen, though they have been quoted several times, I shall do it now briefly; referring also to 4 some learned moderns, who may be consulted by those who have leisure.

Both those writers and Theodoret are continuators of Eusebius of Cæsarea : all three Aourished in the time of Theodosius the younger, whose reign commenced in 408, and ended in 450; and their histories were all published near the end of that reign. They are very valuable monuments of antiquity; but there are in them many stories of miracles; not well attested, and improbable in their circumstances.

Valesius and many other learned men have supposed that these three historians wrote one after another, first Socrates, then Sozomen, and lastly Theodoret, and that the latter borrowed from the other, and aimed to supply what had been omitted: but to me the opinion of Pagi appears more probable; which is, that they all set about their works severally about the same time, and all published at no great distance of time from each other, near the end of the reign of Theodosius, as before said.

II. Socrates was born and educated' at Constantinople: he studied & under the grammarians Helladius and Ammonius, both heathens, who, when their temples were destroyed at Alexandria, in 391, left that city, and came to reside at Constantinople. For a while Socrates pleaded causes: afterwards leaving the bar, he set about writing his Ecclesiastical History, which comprehends, in seven books, the space of about a hundred and three and thirty years, from the year 306, when Constantine was declared emperor, to the seventeenth consulship of Theodosius, or the year

of Christ 439; and he is spoken of by Cave as flourishing in that year. ... και τας αλλας ανlιλεχθεισας μεν, χρονων δε πλεισω Verum Theodoretus de Socratis et Sozomeni historia βεβαιωθεισας, και παρα πασι ταις ενδιαθήκαις καλαλεγεισας. supplenda non cogitavit. Sed, cum utroque longe doctior Ibid. p. 218. A. b Vol. ii. p. 393.

esset, et in Oriente versaretur, in quæ uterque incidit, vitavit: •... ως αν ταυτας τε ειδεναι εχομεν, δσαι γνησιαι της et quia res in Oriente, quam quae in urbe Regiâ gestæ, melius εκκλησιας γραφαι. Ιbid.

callebat, ideo in illis quam istis fusior et diligentior est. Contra Cav. Hist. Lit. Fabr. Bib. Gr. I. v. cap. 4. T. vi. p. 117 vero Socrates et Sozomenus easdem leviter attigere. Quare

129. H. Vales. de Vit, et scriptis Socrat. Sozom. et non dubito, quin tres isti scriptores, qui omnes sibi idem arguTheodoret. Pagi Ann. 427. n. xv. xvi. 439. n. ix. x. xi. mentum proposuere, non solum sub extremis Theodosii Basnag. Ann. 439. n. V. 440. n. vii. 430. o. vi. Du Pin. Bib. Junioris temporibus, quod de Socrate et Sozomeno infra T. iii. P. ii: Tillem. M. E. T. 15. Theodoret. J. Le Clerc. videbitur, sed etiam eodem tempore bistorias suas ecclesiasticas Bib. A. et M. T. xvi. p. 103....156.

in lucem emiserint. ... Ita non audiendus Valesius in eo quod e Socrates, Sozomenus, et Theodoretus, uno eodemque autumat, ex tribus historiæ ecclesiasticæ scriptoribus alterum tempore rerum ecclesiasticarum historiam scribere agressi sunt; alterius scrinia compilâsse, et ex illis eum, qui alteri aliquid idem omnes scribendi principium sumsere, eumdemque fere addidit, aut alterum interdum emendavit, hunc posteriorem finem historiæ suæ imposuere, ab iis temporibus exorsi, quibus videri scripsisse. Id. ib. n. xvi. Eusebius historiam suam terminaverat. Pagi Critic. in Baron. f Socrat. I. v. cap. 24.

8 Ib.
сар. .

16. ann, 427. n. xv.

bi Vid, I. vii. cap. ult.


« VorigeDoorgaan »