muft fuppofe, that they were not yet writ and published, or however, but lately. For if they had been published feveral years, St. Luke, who had accompanied Paul in Greece, Afia, Palestine, and Rome, could not have been unacquainted with them.

This argument appears to me valid. At left I cannot difcern, where it fails. It has long feemed to me a clear and obvious argument, that the Gofpels of St. Matthew and St. Mark were not writ till the year 60. or afterwards. For if they had been writ fooner, 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 expreffed himself, as he does in this introduction: nor indeed would he have writ any Gospel at all,

CHAP. V.

ST. MATTHEW, APOSTLE, and EVANGELIST.

III.

I. His Hiftorie. II. Teftimonies of ancient Writers to his Gofpel. Remarks upon them, for difcerning the Time of this Gospel. IV. Characters of Time in the Gospel itself. V. The Language, in which it was writ,

I. MATTHEW (A) called alfo (B) Levi, fon of (c) Alpheus, was a Publican, or (D) Toll-gatherer under the Romans. He was, undoubtedly, a native of Galilee, as the reft of Chrift's Apoftles were: but of what city in that countrey, or which tribe of the people of Ifrael, is not known.

As

(4) The hiftorie of our Lord's calling this difciple is in Matth. ix. 9... 13. Mark ii. 13. . . 16. Luke v. 27... 32.

(B) This Evangelift, in his account of his being called by Chrift, names himfelf 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 perfons: though he cannot deny, that the circumftances of the hiftorie lead us to think, one and the fame perfon to be intended. Video omnes hodie ita exiftimare, hunc eundem effe, quem Marcus & Lucas Levi nominant. Et fane congruunt circumftantiæ. Grot. ad Mat. ix. 9. It is obfervable, that Heracleon, the Valentinian, as cited by Clement of A. Str. 1. 4. p. 502. reckons among Apostles, who had not fuffered martyrdom, Matthew, Philip, Thomas, and Levi. By Levi, probably, Heracleon meant Lebbeus, otherwife called Thaddeus. Vid. Fabr. Bib. Gr. 1. 4. cap. 5. T. 3. p. 126. Coteler. Annot. in Conftitut. 1. 8. cap. 22. Dodw. Diff Iren. i. n. 24. It is certain, that Eufebe and Ferome thought Matthew and Levi to be only two names of one and the fame perfon. See in this work, vol. vii, p. 83. vol. x. p. 83. and 89. Moreover, in the catalogues of the Apoftles, 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 Apoftle was called in the former part of his life: and Matthew the name, by which he was best known afterwards. (See notes (c) and (D) p. 34.)

VOL. II.

As he lat at the Receipt of Custom, by the fea-fide, in the city of Capernaum, or near it, Jefus faid unto him: Follow me. And be arofe and fol lowed him. Which needs not to be understood to imply, that Matthew did not make up his accounts with thofe, by whom he had been employed, and inftrusted.

Afterwards (E) he made an entertainment, at his houfe, where Jefus was prefent, and likewife divers of his difciples. And there fat at table with them many Publicans, and others, of no very reputable character in the eye of the Pharifees, who were ftrict in external purifications, and other like obfervances. Matthew, it is likely, was willing to take leave of his former acquaintance in a civil manner. He was likewise desirous, that they fhould converfe with Jefus, hoping, that they might be taken with his difcourfe. And Jefus, with a view of doing good, and to fhew, that he did not difdain any man, made no exceptions to this defign 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, difcern fomewhat extraordinarie in Jefus, fo far as to induce them to think, it was not unreasonable in him to leave his former employment, for the fake

(c) That is faid by St. Mark only ch. ii. 14. But we do not perceive who Alpheus was. Tillemont obferves to this purpose. "St Mark gives him "the furname of Alpheus: tòv te ane. Which may have been the name "of his father. This has given occafion to fome of the ancients, and to all "the modern Greeks, to fay, that James the fon of Alpheus was his brother: "though it be entirely deititute of all probability. Quoiqu'il n'y ait en * cela aucune apparence." Tillem. S. Matt. init. Mem. T. i.

Dr. Doddridge, Family Expofitor. Sect. 44 Vol. i. p. 280. fays roundly, that Matthew, otherwife called Levi, was the fon of Alpheus, and the brother "of James. Comp. Mark iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. Acts i. 13." But I do not think thofe texts can afford fufficient proof, that Matthew, and James the fon of Alpheus, had the fame father, and were brothers. If that had been the cafe, 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 fufpect, that thefe words in Mark ii. 14. Jon of Alpheus, rov TO Apa, are an interpolation, fome how or other, undefignedly, and acciden tally inferted in that place. What is truly faid of James, has been alfo applied to Matthew. The curious may do well to confider, whether this conjecture be not countenanced by the fingularity of the thing, faid no where else, and by the various readings of that text, which may be feen in Beza, Mill, and Wetstein.

(D)" His office feems more particularly to have confifted in gathering the "customs of commodities, that came by the fea of Galilee, and the tribute, which paffengers were to pay, that went by water." Cave's Lives of the Apostles, p. 177

(E) That this entertainment was not made by Matthew on the very day that Chrift called him to attend on him, is argued by Mr. Jones in his Vindí cation of the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 129... 137. and by Dr. Doddridge, Family Expofitor, Vol. i. fect. LXXI. note (a), who says: It "is certain, the feaft was after the day of his calling, perhaps, fome months "after: when he had made up his accompts, and regularly paffed his bufinefs "into other hands: which, to be fure, from a principle of juftice, as well as "prudence, he would take care to do."

Lake of the companie of Jefus, and the advantages, which in time he might receive from him. The Pharifees made reflections. But our Lord vindicated himself. And all the three Evangelifts have recorded this inftance of our Lord's amiable familiarity and condefcenfion, which is one of the diftinctions of his thining character. And it is a proof, that at the time of their writing, feverally, their Gofpels, they were molded into the temper and principles of him, whofe hiftorie they

wrote.

Jefus now called Matthew to be with him, to be a witneffe of his words and works, and he put him into the number of his Apoftles. Thenceforward he continued with the Lord Jefus. And after his afcenfion, he was at Jerufalem, and partook of the gift of the Holy Ghost, with the other Apoftles. Together with them he bore teftimonie to the refurrection of Jefus: and, as may be fuppofed, preached for fome while at Jerufalem, and in the feveral 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 Apoftles, ch. x. he is the eighth in order. In St. Mark's ch. iii. and St. Luke's ch. vi. he is the feventh. He is also named in the eighth place, Acts i. 13. Nor is there any particular account in the Gofpels of the call of any of the Apoftles, except his, and four other, Andrew and Peter, and the two fons of Zebedee, who were called before (F).

Clement of Alexandria fays, that (a) the Apostle Matthew used a very fparing diet, eating no flesh, but only vegetables. But, perhaps, this is faid upon the ground only of fome uncertain tradition, not well attefted.

Socrates, in the fifth centurie, fays, that (b) when the Apoftles 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 (c) died a Martyr in Ethiopia, in a city called Nadabbar, or Naddaver: but by what kind of death, is altogether uncertain. However, fome others fpeak of his preaching, and dying in Parthia, or Perfia. And the diverfity of thofe accounts feems to fhew, that they all are without good foundation.

I think, it may be of ufe to take here at length a paffage of Eufebe, at the beginning of the third book of his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie, after having in the preceding book spoken of the many calamities in Judea, when the war was just breaking out. "This," fays he, "was the state of things with "the Jews. But the holy Apoftles and Difciples of our Saviour being difperfed abroad, preached in the whole world. Thomas, as we learn

" by

() St. John fays ch. i. 43. The day following, Jefus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and faith unto him: Follow me. If Philip was then called by our Lord to be an Apostle, he ought to be added to the others above named.

(α) Ματθαίον μὲν ἐν ὁ ἀπόσολον σπερμάτων, καὶ ἀκροδρύων, καὶ λαχάνων, ἄνει μeteráμCaves. Clem. Paed. 1. 2. p. 148. D.

(6) Ηνίκα οι απόςολον κλήρῳ τὴν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη πίρειαν ἐποιόντο, θωμᾶς μὲν τὸν πάρθων ἀποτολὴν ὑποδέχεται Ματθαῖος δὲ αιθιοπίας. κ. λ. Socr, H. E. 1. So 4, 19.

(c) See Cave's Liver of the Apofles, and his Hift. Lit.

"by tradition, had Parthia for his lot, Andrew Scythia, John Afia. Who "having lived there a long time died at Ephefus. Peter, as it feems, "preached to the difperfed Jews in Pontus and Galatia, Bithynia, Cappa"docia, and Afia. At length coming to Rome, he was crucified, with "his head downward, as he had defired. What need I to speak of Paul, "who fully preached the gofpel of Chrift from Jerufalem to Illyricum, "and at last died a Martyr at Rome, in the time of Nero? So fays Origen "exprefsly in the third tome of his Expofitions of the book of Genefis."

Thus writes our Ecclefiaftical Hiftorian. But, as Valefius obferves, it (d) is not eafie to determine exactly, where the quotation from Origen begins.

However, from this paffage, as it seems, we may conclude, that at the begining of the fourth centurie, there were not any certain and well attefted accounts of the places, out of Judea, in which many of the Apostles of Chrift preached. For if there had, Eufebe muft 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 paffage. Nor does Ferame in his article of St. Matthew, in his book of Illuftrious Men, formerly (e) transcribed at large, take any notice of the countreys, in which he preached. Nor do I recollect, that in any other of his genuine works he has faid any thing of the travels of this Apoftle.

Heracleon, a learned Valentinian, in the fecond centurie, as cited by Clement of Alexandria, reckons (f) Matthew among thofe Apoftles, who did not dye by martyrdom. Nor does Clement contradict him.

It is alfo obfervable, that (g) Chryfoftom has a commendation of Matthew, confifting of divers articles: his humility, mercifulneffe or liberality, piety, general benevolence, writing a Gofpel, finally, fortitude, inasmuch as he came from the prefence of the Council rejoycing: referring, I fuppofe, to Acts v. 41. But fays nothing of his martyrdom. Which may induce us to think, that there was not any tradition about it among Chriftians at that time, or that it was not much regarded.

II. Having thus given the hiftorie of this Apoftle, I proTeftimonies to his Gospel. ceed to the confideration of his Gofpel, one of the univer fally acknowledged books of the New Teftament. Two things principally are to be the fubjects of our inquirie, the time of writing it, and the language in which it was writ. And I propofe to recite here briefly all, or most of the authors, that have been largely quoted, in the former volumes, fo far as relates to thofe two particulars.

Papias, Bp. of Hierapolis, about A. D. 116. by fome fuppofed 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

(d) Cum Enfebius hic dicat, fuperiora ex libro tertio Explanationum Origenis in Genelim effe defumta, dubitari merito poteft, unde incipiant Origenis verba, &c. Valef. Annot. 3. cap. 1.

(c) Vol. x. p. 89. 90.

Clem. Str.

4) Οὐ γὰς πάντες δε σωζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν, καὶ καλον· ἐξ ὧν ματθαίου, Φίλλιππος, θωμάς, λευίς, αί άλλοι πολλοίο 1. 4. 502. B.

() In Bratth. hom. 48. al. 49. T. 7.p. 491.

which feem to have been collections of ancient ftories and traditions, makes (b) exprefs mention of Matthew's Gofpel, and fays, that he wrote the Divine Oracles in the Hebrew tongue.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, about the year 178, who was born in Afia, and in his youth was acquainted with Polycarp, difciple of St. John, fays: "Matthew (i) then among the Jews wrote a gofpel in their own language, "while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and found"ing [or establishing] the church there. And after their exit, [that is, "death, or departure] Mark also, the difciple 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 gofpel “preached by him. Afterwards John, the difciple of the Lord, who "leaned upon his breast, likewife published a Gofpel, whilft he dwelt at "Ephefus, in Afia." In another place he fays," the (k) Gospel accord"ing to Matthew was delivered to the Jews."

Origen, about 230. fays, "that (7) according to the tradition received "by him, the first Gospel was written by Matthew, once a Publican, "afterwards a Difciple of Jefus Chrift: who delivered it to the Jewish "believers, compofed in the Hebrew language." And in another place he fays, "that (m) Matthew wrote for the Hebrews."

Says Eufebe, about 315, Matthew (n) having first preached to the "Hebrews, when he was about to go to other people, delivered to them "in their own language the Gofpel according to him, by that writing fupplying the want of his prefence with thofe whom he was leaving.' Athanafius, in his Festal Epiftle () does not fay, where, or in what language, Matthew wrote. But in the Synopfis, afcribed to him, it is faid that (p) Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and published it at Jerufalem."

Cyril of Jerufalem fays, "that (4) Matthew wrote in Hebrew.”

Epiphanius likewife fays, " that (r) Matthew wrote in Hebrew." And afterwards, "Matthew (s) wrote firft, and Murk foon 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 Gofpet was not writ fo foon, as many later writers have fuppofed.

Gregorie Nazianzen, in his catalogue, fays, " that (t) Matthew wrote "for the Hebrews."

And Ebedjefu," that (u) Matthew, the first Evangelift, published his "Gofpel in Paleftine, writ in Hebrew."

(b) See of this work, Vol. i. p. 242. the fecond edition

Theodore

(1) Ὁ μὲν δὴ ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς ἐβράνοις τῇ αὐτῶν διαλέκτω καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκαν Αναγγελία, τα πέτρα, καὶ τὸ παύλε ἐν ξώμη ευαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελέντων τὴν ἐκκλη Clas. %. λ. Adv. Haer, l. 3. cap. i. Et ap. Euseb, l. 5. c. 8. And in this work Vol. i. p. 353.

(k) See Vol. i. p. 356.

(m) P. 278.

(0) Vol. viii. p. 227.

(2) P. 271.

(5) Ευθὺς δὲ μετὰ τὸν ματθαῖον

gun. Citat. ib. p. 305•` ̄

(1) Vol. iii. p. 235.

(n) Vol. vii. p. 92. See also p. 177. (p) P. 249.

(r) P. 304. and 305.

ἀκόλεθος γενόμενος ὁ μάρκος, τῷ ἁγίῳ πέτρα

() Vol. ix. p. 133. Comp. p. 134.

(u) P. 216.