a с And for giving the greatest satisfaction to all my readers, I shall transcribe below at large the sentiments of several to this purpose, such as that of the late Mr. Jones, and Estius, Mill, 'Dodwell, and Basnage; though the thing appears to me very obvious: and if so, we have gained very nearly the date of one of the four gospels. с f Grotius supposeth, that when Paul left Rome, he went into Spain: and that at the same time Luke went into Greece, and there wrote both his gospel and the Acts. Jerom supposeth, that' the book of the Acts was written at Rome. But that makes no difference in point of time; since he allows, that it reaches to the end of St. Paul's two years' imprisonment at Rome. This one consideration, so far as I am able to judge, overthrows the opinion, that St. Luke's gospel was written about fifteen years after our Lord's ascension. Yea, it evidently shows, that it was not written till the year 60, or afterwards. And the beginning of St. Luke's gospel affords an argument, that the other two gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark were not written sooner: for this evangelist knew nothing of them. Consequently, they were not then written and published, or, but lately; every word of his introduction shews this: let us observe it. "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us......It seemed good unto me also, having had perfect understanding of all things, from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus: that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." When St. Luke says, that many had undertaken to write histories of our Saviour, he cannot mean Matthew alone, nor Matthew and Mark only, for they are not many. He must intend them, and others, or some different from them: which last will appear most likely, if we consider what there follows. h Of those many he says, they had taken in hand,' undertaken, or attempted. St. Luke would not have spoken thus of Matthew, or Mark. Indeed, we may suppose, that those narrations, to which St. Luke refers, were not false and fabulous, nor heretical: but they were defective. i Grotius says, the word is of a middle meaning; and that it does not necessarily imply, that the writers, here intended, had failed to perform what they undertook. Nevertheless the ancient Christians, to several of whom the Greek language was natural, understood the word differently. And their judgments must be of value in this case. Origen's observations upon St. Luke's introduction may be seen, Vol. i. p. 552, 553, where he says, St. Luke's expression, " taken in hand," implies a tacit accusation of those, who, without the gift ' of the Holy Ghost, took upon them to write gospels. For Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, Hence we see near to what time this history of the Acts was written: viz. either in the year 62, or not long after; it being altogether probable, that St. Luke would not defer writing long after his departure from St. Paul; 'which seems to have been now, when the apostle was set at liberty from his confinement at Rome.... That he wrote both the gospel and the Acts in the same year, seems very probable; as it is certain, that one of them is only to be ⚫ looked upon as the second part, or continuation of the other.' Jones' New and Full Method, &c. Part. iv. ch. xvi. vol. iii. p. 158. See him also ch. xi. p. 115. b Deinde, nec satis constat, Evangelium Lucæ jam tum editum fuisse, quando Paulus hanc epistolam scripsit. Nam Acta quidem Apostolica scripsisse videtur statim post Evangelium, tamquam ejusdem voluminis libros primum et secundum. Scripsit autem Acta post biennium Pauli Romæ commorantis, id est, multis annis post hanc epistolam. Quare circa idem tempus Evangelium ab eo scriptum fuisse, credibile est. Est. ad 2 Cor. viii. 18. c Voluminis hujus D. Lucæ partem posteriorem, seu λoov SEUTEPGY quod attinet, librum dico Actuum Apostolorum, haud dubium est.... quin is scriptus sit statim post λoуоν пρштоν, sive evangelium. Mill. Prol. num. 121. Sunt enim Acta dEUTEpos ejusdem operis λoyos, cujus #OWTOY λoyov ipse suum agnoscit_evangelium. Act. i. 1. Dodw. Diss. Iren, i. num. xxxix. • Non multum vero interjectum fuisse temporis inter Actorum Apostolicorum et evangelii confectionem, conjectura ex præfatione ad Theophilum duci potest. Primum quidem librum confeci'. . . . Actuum ergo liber continuatio est, seriesque evangelii.. . . Multum vero abiisse temporis antequam a priore libro omnibus numeris expleto ad posteriorem transiret Lucas, nullâ ratione cogimur ad credendum, &c. Basnag. Ann. 60. num. xxviii. Librum autem et hunc, et qui de Actibus Apostolorum, scriptum arbitror, non multo postquam Paulus Roma abiit in Hispaniam. Nam in id tempus desinit Actuum liber, qui si serius scriptus esset, in ulteriora etiam tempora narrationem protenderet. Puto autem, Româ iisse Lucam in Achaiam, atque ibi ab eo conscriptos quos habemus libros. Grot. Pr. in Evang. Lucæ. 8 See Vol. ii. p. 552. h Quod istos ait Lucas, non satis commode præstitisse; minime tamen, opinor, fabulosas, imo etiam impias narrationes intelligens, tandem ecclesiæ, sub Nicodemi,.. Thomæ, Ægyptiorum nominibus impudentissime obtrusas. Nec tamen hic recte colligunt, Lucam post Matthæum et Marcum hanc suam historiam edidisse. Bez. in Luc. cap. i. ver. 1. ETEXεinoa, aggressi sunt.' Bene notavit vir eruditissimus, vocem esse mediam: neque enim ex eâ colligi posse, non præstitum ab illis scriptoribus quod aggressi sunt. Grot. in loc. a • and John, did not take in hand to write: but being full of the Holy Ghost, wrote gospels.' In which words, and afterwards, continually, he distinguisheth the four evangelists from the writers, referred to by St. Luke. To the like purpose Ambrose, who either copied, or closely imitated Origen. And, says Eusebius, Luke at the beginning assigns the reason of his writing, declaring, that whereas many others had rashly undertaken to compose relations of the things ⚫ which were most firmly believed, he therefore thought himself obliged, in order to divert us from 'the uncertain relations of others, to deliver in his gospel a certain account of those things, of which he was fully assured.' Which passage was transcribed by us formerly. And Epiphanius, whom I now place below, plainly affixed a disadvantageous meaning to this word. Beausobre readily allows, that we ought to follow the ancients in their interpretation of this word, and to suppose that St. Luke here speaks of some attempts, and essays, that had not been well executed. This may be sufficient to satisfy us, that St. Luke does not speak of any of our evangelists, Mr. Dodwell was of the same opinion. But we may have yet farther assurance of it by observing what St. Luke says of himself, and his own design; which is to this purpose, That it had seemed good to him to send to Theophilus in writing a distinct and particular history of Jesus Christ; that he might better know, and be 'more fully confirmed in the truth of those things, in which he had been instructed by word of 'mouth.' In my opinion this implies a supposition, that Theophilus had not yet in his hands any good written history of the words and works of Jesus Christ. Consequently St. Luke at the year 62, and possibly somewhat later, did not know of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's gospels: and therefore we must suppose that they were not yet written and published, or however but lately. For if they had been published several years, St. Luke, who had accompanied Paul in Greece, Asia, Palestine and Rome, could not have been unac quainted with them. This argument appears to me valid: at least I cannot discern where it fails. It has long seemed to me a clear and obvious argument, that the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark were not written till the year 60, or afterwards. For if they had been written sooner, they would by this time have been in the hands of St. Luke and Theophilus, and all the faithful in general: and St. Luke could not have expressed himself, as he does in this introduction; nor indeed would he have written any gospel at all. CHAP. V.. ST. MATTHEW, APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST. I. His History. II. Testimonies of ancient Writers to his gospel. III. Remarks upon them, for discerning the Time of this Gospel. IV. Characters of Time in the Gospel itself. V. The Language in which it was written.. i k 1. MATTHEW called also. Levi, son of Alpheus, was a publican, or toll-gatherer under the Romans. He was, undoubtedly, a native of Galilee, as the rest of Christ's apostles were: but of what city in that country, or of which tribe of the people of Israel, is not known. autrement. Origène de même, dans sa préface sur S. Luc. f Ut plane alios fuisse necesse sit evangelicæ historiæ scriptores a Lucâ visos, a nostris, quos habemus, Evangelistis. Diss. Iren. i. num. xxxix. 8 The history of our Lord's calling this disciple is in Matt. ix: 9-13. Mark ii. 13-16, Luke v. 27–32. As he sat at the receipt of custom, by the sea side, in the city of Capernaum, or near it, "Jesus said unto him; follow me: and he arose, and followed him." Which needs not to be understood to imply, that Matthew did not make up his accounts with those, by whom he had been employed and entrusted. a Afterwards he made an entertainment, at his house, where Jesus was present, and likewise divers of his disciples. And there sat at table with them many publicans, and others, of no very reputable character in the eye of the pharisees, who were strict in external purifications, and other like observances. Matthew, it is likely, was willing to take leave of his former acquaintance in a civil Manner. He was likewise desirous that they should converse with Jesus, hoping that they might be taken with his discourse. And Jesus, with a view of doing good, and to show that he did not disdain any man, made no exceptions to this design of his new disciple. Nor is it unlikely, that the ends aimed at were obtained, in part at least. Matthew's former friends did, probably, discern somewhat extraordinary in Jesus, so far as to induce them to think it was not unreasonable in him to leave his former employment, for the sake of the company of Jesus, and the advantages, which in time he might receive from him. The pharisees made reflections: but our Lord vindicated himself. And all the three evangelists have recorded this instance of our Lord's amiable familiarity and condescension, which is one of the distinctions of his shining character. And it is a proof, that at the time of their writing, severally, their gospels, they were moulded into the temper and principles of him, whose history they wrote. Jesus now called Matthew to be with him, to be a witness of his words and works, and he put him into the number of his apostles. Thenceforward he continued with the Lord Jesus; and after his ascension, he was at Jerusalem, and partook of the gift of the Holy Ghost, with the other apostles. Together with them he bore testimony to the resurrection of Jesus: and, as may be supposed, preached for some while at Jerusalem, and in the several parts of Judea, confirming his doctrine with miracles, which God enabled him to perform in the name of Jesus. In his own catalogue of the twelve apostles, ch. x. he is the eighth in order. In St. Mark's, ch. iii. and St. Luke's, ch. vi. he is the seventh. He is also named in the eighth place, Acts i. 13. Nor is there any particular account in the gospels of the call of any of the apostles, except his and four others, Andrew and Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, who were called before." This evangelist, in his account of his being called by Christ, names himself Matthew, ch. ix. 9. But St. Mark and St. Luke in their accounts of it call him Levi. Mark ii. 14. Luke v. 27 & 29. This has induced Grotius to argue, that Matthew and Levi are different persons: though he cannot deny, that the circumstances of the history lead us to think, one and the same person to be intended. Video omnes hodie ita existimare, hunc eumdem esse, quem Marcus & Lucas Levi nominant. Et sane congruunt circumstantiæ. Grot. ad Matt. ix. 9. It is observable, that Heracleon, the Valentinian, as cited by Clement of A. Str. 1. 4. p. 502. reckons among apostles, who had not suffered martyrdom, Matthew, Philip, Thomas and Levi. By Levi, probably, Heracleon meant Lebbeus, otherwise called Thaddeus. Vide Fabr. Bib. Gr. 1. 4. cap. 5. T. III. p. 126. Coteler. Annot, in Constitut. 1. 8. cap. 22. Dodw. Diss. Iren. i. n. 24. It is certain, that Eusebius and Jerom thought Matthew and Levi to be only two names of one and the same person. See in this work, Vol. ii. p. 367, 550, 551. Moreover in the catalogues of the apostles, which are in Mark iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. Acts i. 13. is the name Matthew. It is likely, that Levi was the name by which the apostle was called in the former part of his life; and Matthew the name, by which he was best known afterwards. That is said by St. Mark only. ch. ii. 14. But we do not perceive who Alphæus was. Tillemont observes to this purpose. St. Mark gives him the surname of Alphæus : TOY TO Aλdale. Which may have been the name of his father. This has given occasion to some of the ancients, ' and to all the modern Greeks, to say, that James the son of Alphæus, was his brother: though it be entirely destitute of all probability. Quoiqu'il il n'y ait en cela aucune apparence.' Tillem, S. Matt. init. Mem. T. I. Dr. Doddridge, Family Expositor, sect. 44. Vol. I. p. 280. says roundly, that Matthew, otherwise cailed Levi, was the son of Alphæus, and the brother of James. Compare Mark iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. Acts i. 13.' But I do not think those texts can afford sufficient proof that Matthew, and James the son of Alphæus, had the same father, and were brothers. If that had been the case, their relation to each other would have been hinted, or plainly declared in the gospels. I do not love bold conjectures in others, and would not indulge myself in them. But I suspect, that these words in Mark ii. 14. son of Alphæus,' Toy T8 Aλçais, are an interpolation, some how or other, undesignedly, and accidentally inserted in that place. What is truly said of James, has been also applied to Matthew. The curious may do well to consider, whether this conjecture be not countenanced by the singularity of the thing, said no where else, and by the various readings of that text, which may be seen in Beza, Mill, and Wetstein. His office seems more particularly to have consisted in 'gathering the customs of commodities, that came by the sea of Galilee, and the tribute, which passengers were to pay, that went by water.' Cave's Lives of the Apostles, P. 177. • That this entertainment was not made by Matthew on the very day that Christ called him to attend on him, is argued by Mr. Jones in his Vindication of the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 129-137. and by Dr. Doddridge, Family Expositor, Vol. I. sect. LXXI. note who says, 'It is certain, the feast was after the day of his calling, perhaps some months after when he had made up his accompts, ' and regularly passed his business into other hands: which, to be sure, from a principle of justice, as well as prudence, ' he would take care to do.' b St. John says, ch. i. 43, "The day following, Jesus Clement of Alexandria says, that the apostle Matthew used a very sparing diet, eating no flesh, but only vegetables. But perhaps this is said upon the ground only of some uncertain tradition not well attested. Socrates, in the fifth century, says, that when the apostles went abroad to preach to the Gentiles, Thomas took Parthia for his lot, Matthew Ethiopia, and Bartholomew India. And it is now a common opinion, that Matthew died a martyr in Ethiopia, in a city called Nadabbar, or Naddaver; but by what kind of death is altogether uncertain. However, some others speak of his preaching and dying in Parthia or Persia: and the diversity of those accounts seems to shew, that they all are without good foundation. I think it may be of use to take here at length a passage of Eusebius, at the beginning of the third book of his ecclesiastical history, after having in the preceding book spoken of the many calamities in Judea, when the war was just breaking out. This,' says he, was the 'state of things with the Jews. But the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour being dispersed abroad, preached in the whole world. Thomas, as we learn by tradition, had Parthia for his lot; Andrew, Scythia; John, Asia, who having lived there a long time died at Ephesus. Peter, as it seems, preached to the dispersed Jews in Pontus, and Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia: at length_coming to Rome, he was crucified, with his head downward, as ⚫ he had desired. What need I to speak of Paul, who fully preached the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and at last died a martyr at Rome, in the time of Nero? So says Origen expressly in the third tome of his expositions of the book of Genesis.' Thus writes our ecclesiastical historian. But, as Valesius observes, it is not easy to deter mine exactly where the quotation from Origen begins. However, from this passage, as it seems, we may conclude, that at the beginning of the fourth century, there were not any certain and well attested accounts of the places out of Judea, in which many of the apostles of Christ preached: for if there had, Eusebius must have been acquainted with them. In particular, we may hence infer, as I apprehend, that there was no certain account, whither Matthew went, when he left Judea; for there is no notice taken of him in this passage. Nor does Jerom in his article of St. Matthew, in his book of Illustrious Men, formerly transcribed at large, take any notice of the countries, in which he preached: nor do I recollect, that in any other of his genuine works he has said any thing of the travels of this apostle. f с Heracleon, a learned Valentinian, in the second century, as cited by Clement of Alexandria, reckons Matthew among those apostles, who did not die by martyrdom; nor does Clement contradict him. It is also observable, that Chrysostom has a commendation of Matthew, consisting of divers articles: his humility; mercifulness or liberality; piety; general benevolence; writing a gospel; finally, fortitude, inasmuch as "he came from the presence of the council rejoicing:" referring, I suppose, to Acts v. 41: but says nothing of his martyrdom. Which may induce us to think, that there was not any tradition about it among Christians at that time, or that it was not much regarded. II. Having thus given the history of this apostle, I proceed to the consideration of his gospel, one of the universally acknowledged books of the new Testament. Two things principally are to be the subjects of our enquiry, the time of writing it, and the language in which it was written. And I propose to recite here briefly all, or most of the authors, that have been largely quoted in the former volumes, so far as relates to those two particulars. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, about A. D. 116, by some supposed to have been acquainted with John the apostle, by others with John the elder only, in his five books, entitled Explications of the Oracles of the Lord, which seem to have been collections of ancient stories and would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him: follow me." If Philip was then called by our Lord to be an apostle, he ought to be added to the others abovenamed. • Ματθαι μεν εν ὁ αποςολος σπερμάτων, και ακρόδρυων, και λαχάνων, ανευ κρεων, μετελαμβανεν. Clem. Pæd. 1. 2. p. 148. D. b Ἡνικα οἱ αποςολοι κληρῳ την εις τα εθνη πορείαν εποιενίο, Θωμας μεν την Πάρθων αποςολήν ὑπεδέχετο· Ματθαίος δε Alloway. x. A. Socr. H. E. 1. 1. c. 19. a traditions, makes express mention of Matthew's gospel, and says, that he wrote the Divine Oracles in the Hebrew tongue. b Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, about the year 178, who was born in Asia, and in his youth was acquainted with Polycarp, disciple of St. John, says: Matthew, then among the Jews, wrote a gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding [or establishing] the church there. And after their exit, [that is, death, or departure,] Mark also the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing, the things that had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned upon his breast, likewise published a gospel, whilst he dwelt at Ephesus, in Asia.' In another place he says, the gospel according to Matthew was delivered to the Jews.' d Origen, about 230, says, that according to the tradition received by him, the first gospel was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards a disciple of Jesus Christ who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language.' And in another place that Matthew wrote for the Hebrews.' he says, с Says Eusebius, about 315, Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other people, delivered to them in their own language the gospel according to him, by that writing supplying the want of his presence with those whom he was leaving.' Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle does not say, where, or in what language Matthew wrote. But in the Synopsis, ascribed to him, it is said. that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and published it at Jerusalem.' i Cyril of Jerusalem says, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.' Epiphanius likewise says. that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.' And afterwards. • Matthew wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a follower of Peter at Rome.' If Mark did not write till after Peter came to Rome, and Matthew but a little before him; it follows, that Matthew's gospel was not written so soon, as many later writers have supposed. Gregory Nazianzen, in his catalogue, says, that Matthew wrote for the Hebrews.' And Ebedjesu, that Matthew, the first evangelist, published his gospel in Palestine, written in Hebrew.' n о m Theodore of Mopsuestia says, that for a good while the apostles preached chiefly to Jews in Judea. Afterwards Providence made way for conducting them to remote countries. Peter went to Rome, the rest elsewhere; John, in particular, took up his abode at Ephesus....About this time the other evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, published their gospels, which were soon spread all over the world.' This supposeth a late date of the gospels, as was argued Vol. ii. p. 529, that is after the beginning of Nero's reign, when Peter went to Rome, and not long before the war in Judea, which broke out in 66, about which time John left that country, and settled at Ephesus. Says Jerom in the prologue to his Commentary upon St. Matthew: The first evangelist is Matthew, the publican, surnamed Levi, who wrote his gospel in Judea, in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the sake of the Jews that believed in Jesus, and did not join the shadow of the law with the truth of the gospel.' To the like purpose in the article of St. Matthew, in his book of Ecclesiastical writers: Matthew called also Levi, of a publican made an apostle, first of all wrote a gospel in Judea in the Hebrew language, for the sake of those of the circumcision, who believed. Who afterwards translated it into Greek, is uncertain.' Chrysostom in the introduction to his homilies upon this gospel: Matthew is said to have written his gospel at the request of the Jewish believers, who desired him to put down in writing what he had taught them by word of mouth: and he is said to have written in Hebrew.' He speaks with hesitation, and is not positive about the occasion of writing this gospel, or the language in which it was written. Afterwards he says: In' what place each one of the evange lists wrote, cannot be said with certainty.' г |