Confequently St. Luke at the year 62, and poffibly fomewhat later, did not know of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's gofpels: and therefore we muft fuppofe that they were not yet written and publifhed, 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 least 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 written till the year 60, or afterwards.

For

if they had been written 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 expressed himfelf, as he does in this introduction; nor indeed would he have written any gospel at all.

CHA P. V.

ST. MATTHEW, APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST.

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

was written.

d

b

I. MATTHEW called alfo Levi, fon of Alpheus, was a publican, or toll-gatherer under the Romans. He was, undoubtedly, a native of Galilee, as the reft of Chrift's apoftles

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

This evangelift, in his account of his being called by Christ, 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,

were:

that the circumftances of the hif tory 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 Matt. ix. 9. It is obfervable, that Heracleon, the Valentinian, as cited by Clement of A. Str. 1. 4. p. oz. reckons among apostles, who had not fuffered martyrdom, Matthew, Philip, Thomas and Levi.

By

were: but of what city in that country, or of which tribe of the people of Ifrael, is not known.

As he fat at the receipt of cuftom, by the fea fide, in the city of Capernaum, or near it, Jefus faid unto him; follow me: and be arofe, and followed him. Which needs not to be underftood to imply, that Matthew did not make up his accounts with thofe, by whom he had been employed and entrusted.

Afterwards he made an entertainment, at his house, where Jefus was prefent, and likewife divers of his difciples. And there

Compare 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 gofpels.

By Levi, probably, Heracleonpheus, and the brother of James. meant Lebbeus, otherwife called Thaddeus. Vide Fabr. Bib. Gr. 1.4. cap. 5. T. III. p. 126. Coteler Annot. in Conftitut. 1. 8. cap. 22. Dodw. Diff. Iren. i. n. 24. It is certain, that Eufebius and Jerom thought Matthew and Levi to be only two names of one and the fame perfon. See in this work, vol. iv. p. 222. vol. V. p. 35, 37. Moreover in the catalogues of the apottles, which are in Mark iii. 18. Lukevi. 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.

< That is faid by St. Mark only, ch. ii. 14. But we do not perceive who Alpheus was. Tillemont obferves to this purpofe. St. Mark 'gives him the furname of Alpheus: TO TE ançais. Which may have 'been the name of his father. This has given occafion to fome

I do not love bold conjectures in others, and would not indulge myfelf in them. But I fufpect, that thefe words in Mark ii. 14. Son of Alpheus, Tov T8 anpais, 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 Wetstein.

d His office feems more parti

of the ancients, and to all thecularly to have confifted in ga

⚫ modern Greeks, to fay, that

James the fon of Alpheus was his

thering the cuttoms of commodities, that came by the fea of Ga

brother though it be entirelylilee, and the tribute, which paf

dettitute of all probability. Quoi

qu'il il n'y ait en cela aucune 'apparence. Tillem. S. Matt. init. Mem. T. I.

Dr. Doddridge, Family Expofitor, fect. 44 vol. I. p. 280. fays reendly, that Matthew, otherwife called Levi, was the fon of Al

there fat at table with them many publicans, and others, no very reputable character in the eye of the pharifees, wh were ftrict in external purifications, and other like obfervance Matthew, it is likely, was willing to take leave of his forme acquaintance in a civil manner. He was likewife defirou that they fhould converfe with Jefus, hoping, that they migh be taken with his difcourfe. And Jefus, with a view of doin good, and to show, that he did not difdain any man, mad no exceptions to this defign of his new difciple. Nor is unlikely, that the ends aimed at were obtained, in part a leaft. Matthew's former friends did, probably, difcern fome what extraordinary in Jefus, fo far as to induce them to thin it was not unreasonable in him to leave his former employ ment, for the fake of the company of Jefus, and the advan tages, which in time he might receive from him. The pha rifees made reflections: but our Lord vindicated himself. An all the three evangelifts have recorded this inftance of ou Lord's amiable familiarity and condefcenfion, which is on of the diftinctions of his fhining character. And it is a proof that at the time of their writing, feverally, their gofpels, they were moulded into the temper and principles of him, whof history they wrote.

Jefus now called Matthew to be with him, to be a witnes of his words and works, and he put him into the number o his apoftles. Thenceforward he continued with the Lord Jefus; and after his afcenfion, he was at Jerufalem, and par took of the gift of the Holy Ghoft, with the other apoftles Together with them he bore teftimony to the refurrection o Jefus and, as may be fuppofed, preached for fome while a Jerufalem, and in the feveral parts of Judea, confirming hi doctrine with miracles, which God enabled him to perform in the name of Jefus.

In his own catalogue of the twelve apoftles, ch. x. he is th eighth in order. In St. Mark's, ch. iii. and St. Luke's, ch. v he is the feventh. He is alfo named in the eighth place Acts i. 13. Nor is there any particular account in the go pels of the call of any of the apoftles, except his and fou

of St. Matthew's Gofpel, p. 129

137. and by Dr. Doddridge, Family Expofitor, vol. I. fect. LXXI. note a who fays, 'It is certain, the

when he had made up his a

compts, and regularly paffed h

bufinefs into other hands: whic

to be fure, from a principle

feaft was after the day of his call-juftice, as well as prudence,

ing, perhaps fome months after:

would take care to do.'

othe

others, Andrew and Peter, and the two fons of Zebedee, who were called before.f

a

Clement of Alexandria fays, that the apostle Matthew used a very sparing 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 century, fays, that when the apostles 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 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 diversity of thofe accounts feems to fhow, that they all are without good foundation.

I think it may be of ufe to take here at length a paffage of Eusebius, at the beginning of the third book of his ecclefiaftical history, after having in the preceding book spoken of the many calamities in Judea, when the war was juft breaking out. This,' fays he, was the ftate 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 tradition, had Parthia for his lot; 'Andrew Scythia; John Asia, 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 cruci'fied, with his head downward, as he had defired. What 'need I to speak of Paul, who fully preached the gospel of 'Chrift from Jerufalem to Illyricum, and at laft 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.'

f 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 apoftle, he ought to be added to the others above-named.

• Ματθαι μεν εν 0 αποτολα σπερμάτων, και ακροδρύων, και λαχανών,

ανευ κρεων μετελαμβανεν. Clem. Pad. 1. 2. p. 148. D.

• Ήνικα οι απότολοι κληρῳ την εις τα εθνη πορείαν εποιενίο, θωμας μεν την παρθων αποτολήν υπεδέχετο ματθαι δε αιθιοπίαν. κ. λ. Socr. H. E. 1. 1. c. 19.

See Cave's Lives of the Apoftles, and his Hilt. Lit.

Thus

Thus writes our ecclefiaftical hiftorian. But, as Valefius obferves, it is not eafy to determine exactly where the quotation from Origen begins.

However, from this paffage, as it feems, we may conclude, that at the beginning of the fourth century, there were not any certain and well attefted accounts of the places, out of Judea, in which many of the apoftles of Chrift preached : for if there had, Eufebius 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 Jerom in his article of St. Matthew, in his book of Illuftrious Men, formerly tranfcribed at large, take any notice of the countries, 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 century, as cited by Clement of Alexandria, reckons f Matthew among thofe apoftles, who did not die by martyrdom; nor does Clement contradict him.

g

It is alfo obfervable, that Chryfoftom has a commendation of Matthew, confifting of divers articles: his humility; mercifulness or liberality; piety; general benevolence; writing a gofpel; finally, fortitude, inafinuch as he came from the prefence of the council rejoicing: 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 hiftory of this apoftle, I proceed to the confideration of his gofpel, one of the univerfally acknowledged books of the New Teftament. Two things principally are to be the fubjects of our inquiry, the time of writing it, and the language in which it was written. And I propofle to recite here briefly all, or most of the authors,

Cum Eufebius hic dicat, fuperiora ex libro tertio Explanationum Origenis in Genehm effe defumpta, dubitari merito poteft, unde incipiant Origenis verba, &c. Valef. Annot. in l. 3. cap. I.

e Vol. V. p. 37.

* Ου γαρ παντες οι σωζόμενοι ωμολο γησαν την δια της φωνής ομολογίαν, και εξήλθον εξ ων ματθαιος, Φίλιππος, was, λευις, και άλλοι πολλοι. Clem. Str. 1. 4. p. 50z. B.

In Matt. hom. 48. al. 49. T. VII. p. 491.

that