ing them. All which will be taken down by us hereafter in proper places. Here is sufficient to induce us to think, that the written gospels, or histories of Jesus Christ, were not published till some good while after our Lord's ascension. For the apostles first preached, he says, before they wrote.

6

2. Says Eusebius in a long passage formerly quoted: Those admirable and truly divine men, the apostles of Christ, neither knew, nor attempted, to deliver the doctrine of their Master with the artifice and eloquence of ' words—Nor were they greatly concerned about the writing of books, being engaged in a more excellent ministry, which is above all human power. Insomuch, that Paul, 'the most able of all in the furniture both of words and 'thoughts, has left nothing in writing, beside a few epistles. -Nor were the rest of our Saviour's followers unacquainted with these things, as the seventy disciples, and many others, besides the twelve apostles. Nevertheless of all the 'disciples of our Lord, Matthew and John only have left us any memoirs: who too, as we have been informed, were compelled to write by a kind of necessity.' And what follows.

6

d

3. This passage should be compared with another of Origen: and they who please may also consult our remarks upon what has been now transcribed from Eusebius. Which may be of use to caution us, not to be too precipitate in giving a very early date to the gospels, as if they were written immediately after our Lord's ascension: when there is no reason to think, they were not written, till after numerous converts had been made, who expressed their desires to have written histories of what they had heard, for refreshing their memories.

4. Says Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, in the latter part of the fourth century, about the year 394. After f the Lord's ascension to heaven the disciples stayed a good 'while at Jerusalem, visiting the cities in its neighbourhood, preaching chiefly to the Jews: until the great Paul, called by the divine grace, was appointed to preach the gospel to Gentiles openly. And in process of time 'Divine Providence, not allowing them to be confined to any one part of the earth, made way for conducting 'them to remote countries: Peter went to Rome, the others ' elsewhere. John in particular took up his abode at Ephesus, visiting, however, at seasons, the several parts of

• Vol. iv. p. 95.

e Vol. iv. p. 109-115.

a Vol. ii. p. 494.

f Ib. p. 398.

6

'Asia-About this time the other evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, published their gospels, which were soon spread all over the world, and were received by all the faithful in general with great regard.'--He proceeds to say, that nevertheless, the christians in Asia, having brought those gospels to him, earnestly entreated him to 'write a farther account of such things as were needful to 'be known, and had been omitted by the rest: with which request he complied.'

6

This remarkable passage, upon which divers observations were made when it was first quoted, may dispose us to think, that all the four gospels were written about the same time, and that none of them were published till after, or about the sixtieth year of our Lord's nativity.

5. By divers ancient christian writers it is said that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the desire of the brethren of Rome, wrote a short gospel, according to what he had heard related by Peter. So Jerom, beside others, as before quoted in his book of Illustrious Men.

St. Peter, I reckon, did not come to Rome before the reign of Nero, probably, not till the second time that Paul was in that city, in the year 63, or 64. And yet, at this time, the christians at Rome desired Mark to give them in writing an account of Peter's preaching, for refreshing their memories concerning what the apostle had said of Christ, and his doctrine. The consequence is manifest. They had not then any written gospel in their hands; nor did they know that there was one. 'The truth is,' says Mr. Jones,i if St. Mark, or any one else, had had St. Matthew's gos'pel, at Rome, there would have been no need of St. Mark's 'writing.'

These are general observations in the ancients, or deduced from them, which may be of no small use to lead us to the true time of writing the first three gospels.

See Vol. ii. p. 121, 122, 225-232.

h Vol. iv. ch. cxiv. num. viii. 2.

Vol. iv. p. 188, &c.

i Vindication of the former Part of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 54. ch. vi.

SECT. III.

That the first three gospels were published before the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in the year of the christian epoch LXX.

a

CONCERNING this I transcribe below a very good argument of Le Clerc, from his dissertation upon the four evangelists.

b

The Jewish war began, according to Josephus, in the month of May, in the 66th year of the christian epoch, and ended in September, in the year 70, in the desolation of the city of Jerusalem, and the temple. And I think, it may be shown to be very probable, that the first three gospels were written before the year 66, when the final troubles and calamities of the Jewish people were coming on.

This must appear to have a great deal of probability, from the predictions therein recorded concerning the destruction of the temple, the overthrow of the city of Jerusalem, the ruin of the Jewish state and people in Judea, together with divers circumstances of these events, and many troubles and calamities preceding them. These predictions are recorded in his histories of our Saviour's ministry, which we call gospels, without any the least hint, either express and designed, or accidentally dropping from the writers, that those predictions had been fulfilled and verified, or that the things spoken of had happened. Those prophecies are recorded in Matt. xxiii. 34–39, and xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. St. Luke has also elsewhere recorded the affectionate concern which our Lord expressed in the view

a

Quinetiam, si ex veterum nonnullorum testimoniis antea adductis, de re judicemus, affirmabimus Matthæum, Marcum, et Lucam ante ultima Neronis tempora, quibus occisi sunt Petrus et Paulus, evangelia scripsisse. Quod non levi argumento confirmari potest, ducto ex Matt. cap. xxiv. Marc. xiii. Luc. xxi. ubi narratur Jerosolymæ excidii prædictio, quasi rei etiamnum futuræ eo tempore, quo evangelia ab iis scribebantur. Si enim eam prædicationem post eventum scripsissent evangelista memorati, verbulo saltem monuissent, prædictionem fuisse eventu confirmatam. Quod tantum abest ut faciant, ut Matthæus et Marcus hac admonitione, ó avaytvwokwv vouтw, qui legit, intelligat, quam subjiciunt præsagiis Jerosolymitanæ cladis, admonere videantur christianos in Judæâ viventes, ut diligenter futura illa præsagia attendant, quo possint vitæ suæ consulere. Vide Matt. xxiv. 15. Marc. xiii. 14. et ad ea loca interpretes. Cleric. Diss. iii. de quatuor evangeliis. num. vii. p. 541. b Vid. Joseph. Antiq. Jud. 1. 20. cap. xi. n. c. &c. B. i. l. 6. cap. x.

and prospect of those impending evils, ch. xiii. 34, 35, and xix. 41-44. These things are also referred to, and spoken of, in divers other discourses, some plain, some parabolical, or otherwise figurative: as Matt. xxi. 33-46; xxii. 17; Mark xii. 1-12 ; Luke xiii. 1–9; xx. 9—20; xxi. 5—13. In none of all which places does there appear any intima- . tion that the things spoken of were come to pass, and in recording the presages of this final and total overthrow of the Jewish nation, the historians have inserted warnings and admonitions, proper to excite the attention of readers, and induce those who lived in Judea, to take care of their own safety without delay. Matt. xxiv. 15-18, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place; (whoso readeth let him understand ;) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains. Let him which is on the house-top not come down to take any thing out of his bouse. Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes." And what follows. And to the like purpose in Mark xiii. 14-16. When these discourses were recorded, the things spoken of had not yet come to pass. There were men living to whom these admonitions might be useful for securing their safety.

Moreover, though these predictions must have been recorded, before they were accomplished, I think the fulfilment was then near at hand, and not far off. This seems to be implied in that expression: "Let him that readeth, understand." And indeed it must have been difficult and hazardous to publish such things in writing. How offensive these sayings must have been to the Jewish people, and perhaps to some others likewise, is easy to conceive from the nature of the things spoken of: and it may be confirmed by divers instances. When our Lord had spoken the parable of the vineyard, let out to husbandmen, recorded in Luke xx. 9-18, it is added by the evangelist, ver. 19, 20. "And the chief priests, and the scribes, the same hour sought to lay hands on him, but they feared the people; for they perceived, that he had spoken this parable against them. And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor." And among the odious charges brought against our Saviour by false witnesses, this was one," that he said: I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days," Matt. xxvi. 61. With this he was reproached likewise, when

hanging on the cross, ch. xxvii. 40. The like offensive charges were brought against Stephen. Acts vi. 14, "We have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us." And, possibly, he did say somewhat not very different. So likewise St. Matthew, and the other apostles, might repeat in the hearing of many what Christ had said to them, and in part to others also, concerning the overthrow of the temple, and the Jewish state: yea, very probably, they had often repeated these things to attentive hearers. But speaking and writing are different; and I apprehend it could not have been safe, nor prudent, to record these predictions (many of which are very plain, and all intelligible) soon after our Lord's ascension."

These prophecies therefore of our Lord, as recorded in the first three gospels, afford at once an argument, that they were written and published before the destruction of Jerusalem and that they were not published many years before it, or, however, not many years before the commencement of the war at the time above mentioned.

SECT. IV.

An argument showing the true time of writing the Gospels, taken from the Acts, and the beginning of St. Luke's gospel.

NONE can suppose that the book of the Acts of the Apostles was composed before the year 62, or 63, as the history is there brought down to the period of St. Paul's two years' imprisonment at Rome.

And, very probably, the gospel, to which St. Luke refers at the beginning of that book, had not been written long before. This I suppose to be now the common opinion of learned men. 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.

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