صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

hearers. But fpeaking and writing are different. And I apprehend, it could not have been fafe, nor prudent, to record thefe predictions, (many of which are very plain, and all intelligible,) soon after our Lord's af cenfion.

These prophecies therefore of our Lord, as recorded in the first three Gofpels, afford at once an argument, that they were written and published before the deftruction of Jerufalem: and that they were not published many years before it, or however, not many years before the commence. ment of the war at the time above-mentioned.

SECT. IV.

An Argument, fhewing the true Time of writing the Gospels, taken from the Acts, and the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel.

N

****ONE can fuppofe, that the book of the Acts of the Apoftles was compofed before the year 62. or 63. as the hiftorie is there **** brought down to the period of St. Paul's two years imprisonment at Rome.

And, very probably, the Gofpel, to which St. Luke refers at the beginning of that book, had not been writ long before. This I fuppofe to be now the common opinion of learned men. And for giving the greatest fatisfaction to all my readers, I fhall transcribe below at large the fentiments of several to this purpose, fuch as that of the late (e) Mr. Jones, and (ƒ) Eftius, (g) Mill, (*) Dodwell, and (h) Bafnage: though the thing

(e) "Hence we fee near to what time this hiftorie 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 feems to have been now, when the Apostle was fet at liberty from his confinement at Rome... That he wrote both the Gospel and the Acts in the fame year, seems very probable: as it is certain, that one of them is only to be looked upon as the fecond part, or continuation of the other." Jones New and Full Method, Sc. Part. 4. ch. xvi. Vol. 3. p. 158. See him also ch. xi. p. 115.

) Deinde, nec fatis conftat, Evangelium Lucæ jam tum editum fuiffe, quando Paulus hanc epiftolam fcripfit. Nam. Acta quidem Apoftolica fcripfiffe videtur ftatim poft Evangelium, tanquam ejufdem voluminis libros primum et fecundum. Scripfit autem Acta poft biennium Pauli Romæ commorantis, id eft, multis annis poft hanc epiftolam. Quare circa idem tempus Evangelium ab eo fcriptum fuiffe, credibile eft. Eft. ad 2. Cor. viii. 18.

(g) Voluminis hujus D. Lucæ partem pofteriorem, feu Aλóyor divrigor quod attinet, librum dico Actuum Apoftolorum, haud dubium eft. . . . quin is fcriptus fit ftatim poft xóyor wewror, five Evangelium. Mill. Prol. num. 121. (*) Sunt enim Ada δέυτερος ejufdem operis λόγος, cujus πρῶτον λόγον ipfe fuum agnofcit Evangelium, A&t. i. 1. Dodw. Diff. Iren. i. num. xxxix.

(b) Non multum vero interjectum fuiffe temporis inter Actorum Apoftolicorum et Evangelii confectionem, conjectura ex præfatione ad Theophilum duci poteft. Primum quidem librum confeci... A&tuum ergo liber continuatio eft, feriefque Evangelii,... Multum vero abiiffe temporis antequam a priore libro omnibus numeris expleto ad pofteriorem tranfire Lucas, nulla ratione gimur ad credendum, &c. Bafnag. Ann. 60. num, xxviii.

thing appears to me very obvious. And if fo, we have gained very nearly the date of one of the four Gofpels.

Grotius fuppofeth, that (i) when Paul left Rome, he went into Spain: and that at the fame time Luke went into Greece, and there wrote both his Gospel and the Acts. Jerome supposeth, that (k) the book of the Acts was writ at Rome. But that makes no difference in point of time: fince he allows, that it reaches to the end of St. Paul's two years imprifonment at Rome.

This one confideration, fo far as I am able to judge, overthrows the opinion, that St. Luke's Gofpel, was writ about fifteen years after our Lord's afcenfion. Yea, it evidently fhews, that it was not writ till the year 60. or afterwards.

A

And the beginning of St. Luke's Gofpel affords an argument, that the other two Gofpels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, were not writ fooner. For this Evangelift knew nothing of them. Confequently, they were not then writ, and published: or, but lately. Every word of his introduction fhews this. Let us obferve it.

It

Forafmuch as many have taken in hand to fet forth in order a declaration of those things, which are moft furely believed among us.... feemed good unto me alfo, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very firf, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus': that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been inftructed.

When St. Luke says, that many had undertaken to write hiftories of our Saviour, he cannot mean Matthew alone, nor Matthew and Mark only. For they are not many. He muft intend them, and others, or fome different from them. Which laft will appear moft likely, if we confider what there follows.

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 fuppofe, that (1) thofe narrations, to which St. Luke refers, were not falfe and fabulous, nor heretical. But they were defective.

Grotius fays, the (m) word is of a middle meaning. And that it does not neceffarily imply, that the writers, here intended, had failed to perform what they undertook.

Nevertheless

(i) Librum autem et hunc, et qui de Actibus Apoftolorum, fcriptum arbitror, non multo poftquam Paulus Româ abiit in Hifpaniam. Nam in id tempus definit Actuum liber, qui fi ferius fcriptus effet, in ulteriora etiam tempora narrationem protenderet. Puto autem, Româ iiffe Lucam in Achaiam, atque ibi ab eo confcriptos quos habemus libros. Grot. Pr. in Evang. Luce.

(k) See Vol. x. p. 94. 95.

(4) Quod iftos ait Lucas, non fatis commoda præftitiffe: minime tamen, opinor, fabulofas, immo etiam impias narrationes intelligens, tandem Ecclefiæ, fub codemi, . . . . Thomæ, Ægyptiorum nominibus impudentiffime Nec tamen hic recte colligunt, Lucam poft Matthæum et Marcum toriam edidiffe. Bez. in Luc. cap. i. ver. 1.

obtru hand

[ocr errors]

noav. aggreffi funt. Bene notavit vir eruditiffimus, vocem effe enim ex ea colligi poffe, non præftitum ab illis fcriptoribus nt. Grot. in loc.

Nevertheless the ancient Christians, to feveral of whom the Greek language was natural, understood the word differently. And their judgements must be of value in this cafe. Origen's obfervations upon St. Luke's introduction may be feen. vol. iii. p 316... 319. where he fays, "St. Luke's expreffion, taken in hand, implies a tacit accufation of "thofe, who without the gift of the Holy Ghoft took upon them to write "Gofpels. For Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John did not take "in hand to write: but being full of the Holy Ghoft wrote Gospels." In which words, and afterwards, continually, he diftinguisheth the four Evangelifts from the writers, referred to by St. Luke. To the like purpofe (n) Ambrofe, who either copied, or clofely imitated Origen. And fays Eufebe: "Luke (0) at the beginning affigns the reason of his writing, declaring, that whereas many others had rafhly undertaken to compose "relations of the things, which were moft firmly believed, he therefore "thought himself obliged, in order to divert us from the uncertain rela"tions of others, to deliver in his Gospel a certain account of those "things of which he was fully affured." Which paffage was tranfcribed by us (p) formerly. And Epiphanius, whom (9) I now place below, plainly affixed a difadvantageous meaning to this word.

Beaufobre readily allows, that (r) we ought to follow the ancients in their interpretation of this word, and to fuppofe, that St. Luke here speaks of fome attempts, and effays, that had not been well executed.

This may be fufficient to fatisfy us, that St. Luke does not speak of any of our Evangelifts. Mr. (*) Dodwell was of the fame opinion.

But we may have yet farther affurance of it by obferving what St. Luke fays of himself, and his own defign. Which is to this purpose: "That "it had feemed good to him, to fend to Theophilus in writing a diftinct "and particular hiftorie of Jefus Chrift: that he might better know, and "be more fully confirmed in the truth of thofe things, in which he had "been inftructed by word of mouth."

In my opinion, this implies a fuppofition, that Theophilus had not yet in his hands any good written hiftorie of the words and works of Jefus Chrift.

Confequently St. Luke at the year 62. and poffibly fomewhat later, did not know of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's Gospels. And therefore we

(n) See Vol. ix. p. 245.

must

(α) . . δηλῶν ὡς ἄρα πολλῶν καὶ ἄλλων προπετέσερον ἐπιτηδευκότων διήγησιν ποιήσασθαι ὧν αυτὸς πεπληροφόρητο λόγω, κ. λ. Eufeb. l. 3. c. 24. p. 96. C. (b) Vol, viii. p. 95.

(9)

[ocr errors]

φάσκων, ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἵνα τινὰς ἐπιχειρητὰς δείξη φημὶ δὲ τὰς περὶ κήρινθον, καὶ μήρινθον, καὶ τὰς ἄλλες. H. 51. num. vii. p. 428. (7) Ce mot Grec, imexsignoa, eft certainement tres equivoque, et peut fort bien fignifier des tentatives malheureuses, des efforts qui ont mal rèuffi. St. Epiphane ne l'a pas entendu autrement. Origene de même, dans fa preface fur S. Luc. et après lui la plupart des Interprêtes Grecs. Quand il s'agit de la fignification des termes Grecs, et que les auteurs Grecs, qui les expliquent, n'ont aucun interêt à leur donner des fens forcés, ces derniers femblent dignes de creance. Beauf. Remarques fur Luc. ch. i. p. 100.

(*) Ut plane alios fuiffe neceffe fit evangelicæ hiftoriæ fcriptores a Luca vifcs, a noftris, quos habemus Evangeliftis. Di. Iren. i. num. xxxix.

muft fuppofe, that they were not yet writ and published, or however, but lately. For if they had been published several 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 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 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.

XX

СНАР.

V.

ST. MATTHEW, APOSTLE, and EVANGELIST.

I. His Hiftorie. II. Teftimonies of ancient Writers to his Gospel. III. 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.

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

As

(A) 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 himself Matthewu, 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 circumstances of the hiftorie lead us to think, one and the fame per fon to be intended. Video omnes hodie ita exiftimare, hunc eundem effe, quem Marcus & Lucas Levi nominant. Et fane congruunt circumftantie. 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 Apoftles, who had not fuffered martyrdom, Matthew, Philip, Thomas, and Levi. By Levi, probably, Heracleon meant Lebbeus, otherwife called Thaddeus. Vid. Fabr. Bib. Gr. I. 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 Jerome thought Matthew and Levi to be only two names of one and the fame perfon. See in this work, vol. viii. 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 Apostle 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.

C

As he fat at the Receipt of Cuftom, by the fea-fide, in the city of Caper naum, or near it, Jefus faid unto him: Follow me. And he arofe 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 (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 likewife defirous, 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 difciple. 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: ròv r aλáis. 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 deftitute 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 my-felf in them. But I fufpect, that these words in Mark ii. 14. Jon of Alpheus, Tar Ty ange, are an interpolation, fome how or other, undefignedly, and accidentally 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 elfe, and by the various readings of that text, which may be feen in Beza, Mill, and Wetflein.

(D) "His office feems more particularly to have confifted in gathering the "cuftoms 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 Apoftles, 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 Vindi 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 fays: "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 justice, as well as "prudence, he would take care to do."

« السابقةمتابعة »