of Zebedee's children. And whereas in John xix. 25, mention is made of Mary, wife or daughter of Cleophas, and 'sister' to our Lord's mother, he says, that by sister' must be there understood relation;' for that Mary is supposed to be daughter of Cleophas, brother of Joseph, whose widow he had married.

11. Theophylact says, there was this very extraordinary in John the evangelist, that he had three mothers; his own mother Salome, and Thunder, and the blessed Mary, forasmuch as the Lord said to him, " Behold thy mother," John xix. 27.

12. He likewise says, that there are four Marys mentioned in the gospels: our Lord's mother, Mary Magdalene, Mary daughter of Cleophas, and the sister of Lazarus.

13. In the argument or preface to the Acts of the Apostles Theophylact says, the writer is Luke, native of Antioch, by profession a physician. He here also says, that Paul wrote fourteen epistles: and indeed our author has explained them all.

14. I need not give a particular account of his several prefaces to St. Paul's epistles: I observe a few things only. 15. He says, the epistle to the Ephesians was written by the apostle Paul at Rome, when he was a prisoner.

16. Upon Coloss. iv. 14, he says, thate Luke, the physician there mentioned, is the evangelist; but he does not there say that he was a native or citizen of Antioch.

6

17. Upon Col. iv. 16, he writes, that' (or which') is the epistle from Laodicea? It is the first epistle to Timothy, for that was written from Laodicea. But some say it is an epistle which the Laodiceans had sent to Paul; though I do not know what they have to justify this opinion.' From all which it may be reckoned very probable, that Theophylact had never heard of any epistle of Paul to the Laodi

ceans.

18. The epistle of St. James is several times quoted in Theophylact's Commentaries: he quotes its expressly as written by James, the Lord's brother.

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

y Ib. p. 826. B. C.

* Μονος γαρ ούτος τρεις μητέρας αναφαίνεται έχων, την φυσικήν την Σαλώμην, την βροντην, υἱος γαρ βροντης δια ευαγγελις μεγαλοφωνίαν, και την Θεοτόκον, κ. λ. In Joh. p. 554. D. Ε. - ἡ Θεοτοκος—δευτερα ἡ Μαγδαληνη, τρίτη ἡ τε Κλεοπα, και τεταρτη ἡ το Λαζαρε αδελφη. In Jo. p. 826.

a

• Comment. in Act. Ap. p. 1. Colon. 1568. In Ep. Paul. Comm. p. 498. Londin. 1636. f P. 676.

VOL. V.

c Ibid. p. 3.

* Ib. p. 675.

In Evangel. p. 218. C.

M

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 re

ceived more than one.

999

21. It is probable that Theophylact received all the seven catholic 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 margini 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.

23. Theophylact quotes no forged christian writings of apocryphal books of the New Testament. He cuts off a good number of them by that observation upon John i. 3134, 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.

m

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 h Φησι γαρ εν μια των αυτό επιτολων. p. 555. C.

Marc. cap. ii. p. 201. B.

'0 ην απ' αρχής, ὁ ἑωρακαμεν. Ib. Vid. in Matth. cap. xxii. p. 128. E. In * Εντευθεν δε μανθάνομεν,

ότι τα λεγόμενα παιδικα τε Χριςε θαυματα ψευδη εισι, και παρα των θελόντων διαγελασθαι το μυςήριον συντεθεμενα. Ει γαρ ησαν αληθη, πως ηγνοειτο ποιων ταῦτα ὁ Κύριος. In Jo. c. i. p. 576. Ε.

See vol. iv. ch. cxviii. num. xv.

In Luc. c. xiv. p. 437. C.

α. Φησι γαρ και σοφος, κ. λ.

n In Matth. p. 3.

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° 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: Ourt 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.

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

W

32. I now beg leave to mention a general observation.

• See vol. iv. chap. cxviii. num. xviii.

a P. 33. E.

P. 509. B. C.

* P. 117, 118.

P P. 13. E.

w Vid. p. 674.

See vol. ii. ch. xxxvi. num. iii.'

Theophylact's Commentaries are very useful and valuable : but it seems to me, that too much respect has been shown 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.

CHAP. CLXIV.

EUTHYMIUS.

1. EUTHYMIUS 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

Theophylactus hic noster, omnium (quod sciam) primus, designat ipsum præcise annum, quo evangelista singuli sua conscripserint evangelia. Matthæum evangelium suum scripsisse ait anno post ascensionem Christi octavo; Marcum decimo; Lucam decimo quinto; Joannem trigesimo secundo. Et ad hujus calculum se componunt MSS. plurimi in notatis ad calcem evangeliorum. Mill. Prol. n. 1072.

y See vol. iv. p. 133–135.

a Vid. Cav. H. L. T.

ii. Du Pin, Bibl. des Aut. Ec. T. ix. p. 197. Fabr. Bib. Gr. 1. v. c. 11. T. vii. p. 460, &c. R. Simon Hist. Critic. des commentat. du N. T. ch. 29. p. 469, &c.

4

some others, who had access to manuscripts, have quoted several passages from him in Greek,

b

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 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 first Mark was much with his uncle Barnabas, and Paul: afterwards he was with Peter at Rome, as the first epistle of that apostle shows, 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.

Matthæum enim, qui ex Judæis crediderant, obsecraverunt, ut scriptam relinqueret ipsis evangelii historiam, quam eos verbo docuerat. Similiter et Marcum, qui in Ægypto edocti fuerant. Euthym. in iv. Evangelia, ap. Bib. PP. Max. T. xix. p. 487. G.

c Primus autem scripsit Matthæus quod nunc præ manibus est evangelium, post octo annos Christi in cœlos assumpti. Scripsit autem ad illos, qui ex Judæis crediderant, ut prædiximus, Hebræâ usus linguâ ac contexturâ. Postea vero in nostram linguam traductum est. Id. ib. p. 488. A. Conf. Testimonia, ap. Mill. N. T.

d Marcus, filius Mariæ, quæ in domo suâ benigne apostolos excipiebat. Vocabatur autem et Joannes, quemadmodum in Actis Apostolorum invenimus. -Et circa principia quidem conjunctus est Barnabæ avunculo suo, et Paulo, sicuti liber Actorum testatur, et Paulus in epistolis mentionem faciens. Deinde cum Petro Romæ conversatus est, quemadmodum prior ejus epistola demonstrat, quâ etiam filium suum juxta spiritum Marcum appellavit. A quo insuper totum evangelii sermonem didicit, et postmodum evangelium conscripsit, secundum Clementem Stromaticum, in ipsâ Româ; juxta Chrysostomum autem in Ægypto, rogatus a fratribus, qui ibidem morabantur, post decimum a Salvatoris assumtione annum. Ibid. p. 597. G. H.