b

d

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.

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 shows 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 ' 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, tanquam 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.

Voluminis hujus D. Lucæ partem posteriorem, seu Xoyov devrepov qued attinet, librum dico Actuum Apostolorum, haud dubium est- -quin is scriptus sit statim post Xoуоv πρτоv, sive evangelium. Mill. Prol. num. 121. 4 Sunt enim Acta δευτερος ejusdem operis λογος, cujus πρωτον λογον 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 abiise 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 Româ abiit in Hispaniam. Nam in id tempus desinit Actuum liber, qui si serius scriptus esset, in ulteriora etiam tempora narrationem protenderet. Puto autem, Romà iisse Lucam in Achaiam, atque ibi ab eo conscriptos quos habemus libros. Grot. Pr. in Evang. Lucæ. See Vol. iv. ch. cxiv. num. viii. 3.

1

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.

6

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.

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. ii. ch. xxxviii, num. xxiv. 1. where he says, St. Luke's expression, " taken in hand," implies a tacit ac⚫cusation of those, who, without the gift of the Holy Ghost, 'took upon them to write gospels. For Matthew, and Mark, ' and Luke, 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 be'ginning 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

k

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.

i

Eжεxεinoaν, 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.

* See Vol. iv. ch. cvi. num. iii.

- δηλων ως αρα πολλων και αλλων προπετέσερον επιτηδευκότων διηγησιν ποιησασθαι, ών αυτός πεπληροφορητω λογων, κ. λ. Euseb. 1. 3. c. 24. p. 96. C.

m

' 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. P Dodwell was of the same opinion.

6

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 unacquainted 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

n

-φασκων, επειδηπερ πολλοί επεχείρησαν να τινας επιχειρητας δείξη φημι δε τες περι Κηρινθον, και Μηρινθον, και τις αλλες. H. 51. num, vii. p. 428.

Ce mot Grec, eñɛxeipnoav, est certainment très équivoque, et peut fort bien signifier des tentatives malheureuses, des efforts qui ont mal réussi.' St. Epiphane ne l'a pas entendu autrement. Origène de même, dans sa préface sur S. Luc, et après lui la plupart des interprêtes Grecs. Quand il s'agit de la signification des termes Grecs, et que les auteurs Grecs, qui les expliquent, n'ont aucun intérêt à leur donner des sens forcés, ces derniers semblent dignes de créance. Beaus. Remarques sur Luc. ch. i. p. 100.

P Ut plane alios fuisse necesse sit evangelica historiæ scriptores a Lucâ visos, a nostris, quos habemus evangelistis. Diss. Iren. i. num. xxxix.

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.

a

b

с

I. MATTHEW, called also Levi, son of Alpheus, was a publican, or toll-gatherer under the Romans. He was,

d

The history of our Lord's calling this disciple is in Matt. ix. 9-13; Mark ii. 13-16; Luke v. 27-32.

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 eundem esse quem Marcus et 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 suf fered 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. iv. p. 91, 92, 439, 441. 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 : τον τε Αλφαίς. 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 called Levi, was the son of Alphæus, and the brother

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.

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.

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 unrea

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,' TOV T8 Alpais, 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.'