Skip to main content

Full text of "Introduction to the New Testament"

See other formats 


^   \ 


>f  •  i> 


^>?^J*V 


-jt 


.tt  ?1^' 


*  %.■  \  ^,  '^^ 


^^Vr-^-'v  w 


/^  <  ...^ 


I  THEOLOGICAL  Hi,f.j;\APiY.(| 


I 


^if-^i 


Prineetou,  N   T     *'^^^.^-JL.       I\ 

^        Shelf,         Section | 

I        Book,         ^,,,—-_  f 


INTRODUCTION 

TO   THE 

NEW    TESTAMENT. 

BY 
JOHN  DAVID'MICHAELIS, 

tATE    PROFESSOR    IN    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    GOTTINGENj    &C# 
TRANSLATED    FROM 

THE  FOURTH  EDITION  OF  THE  GERMAN, 

AND 

CONSIDERABLY  AUGMENTED  WITH  NOTES, 

AND    A 

DISSERTATION 

ON    THE 

ORIGIN  and  COMPOSITION 

OF    THE 

THREE  FIRST  GOSPELS. 

BY 

,  HERBERT  MARSH,   B.D.  F.R.S. 

FELLOW     OF     ST.    JOHN's    COLLEGE,     CAMBRIDGE. 


VOL.    III.       PART    I, 


THE    SECOND    EDITION. 


LONDON, 

PRINTED    FOR    F.    AND    C.    RIVINGTON, 
NO  62,    ST.   PAUL'S  CHURCH  YARD. 


ras  fcv  fit  AKB  tAW,    ST.  JC^:^*s  iQUARE,  clirKK-nwull. 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE 

TO 

VOL.  III.  AJs-D  VOL.  IV. 


AS  the  volumes,  now  prefented  to  the  piibh'c,  con- 
taining a  tranflation  of  the  latter  half  of  Michaelis's 
Introdudion  to  the  New  Tellament,    have    fucceeded 
the  publication  of  the  former  half,  after  an  interval  of 
not  lefs  than  eight  years,  and  even  at  prelent  my  com- 
mentary on  the  author's  text  extends  no  further  than 
the  three  firft  Goipels,  it  may  be  juftly  expe6led,  that 
1  Ihould  offer   fome    explanation    upon    this    fubjecft. 
The  tranflation  itfelf  was  finiflied  before  the  clofe  of 
1795,    when    I    began    to    draw    up    a    commentary 
on    our   author's    text,    as    I   had   done    in    the    pr.c- 
ceding  volumes.     But  as  I  proceeded  with  the  Notes 
on  the  three  firft  Gofpels,  I  perceived  the  necefTity  of 
entering  into  a  minute  inveftigatioa  of  their  origin  and 
compofition,  which  gave  rife  to  th^jdDifTertation,  printed 
in  Vol.  III.  P.  ii. :  and  this  DifTertation  was  not  finifhed 
before  the  beginning   of   1798.     It  was  at  that  time, 
that  my  attention  began  to  be  dire  fled  to  a  totally  dif- 
ferent fubjeft :  the  calumnies,  which  were  then  incef- 
fantly  uttered  againft  Great  Britain,  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  provoked  me  to  attempt  a  confutation  of  them : 
and  the  volumes,  v/hich  I  accordingly  publifhed,  again 
employed  an  interval  of  nearly   two  years.     Toward 
tiie  end  of  1799,  I  returned  to  the  ftudy  of  theology: 
I  began  to  collect  materials    for   obfervations   on   the 
other  books  of  the  New  Teftament :  and  I  intended  to 

have 


IV  TRANSLATOR  S    PREFACE. 

have  treated  them  in  the  fame  manner,  as  I  had  done 
the  three  firft  Gofpels,  when  a  new  interruption  took 
place  in  March  1800.  From  the  Univerfity  of  Leipzig, 
where  I  then  refided,  I  returned  to  England,  in  con- 
fequence  of  an  invitation,  which  I  could  not  refufc: 
and  as  the  completion  of  my  original  plan,  with  regard 
to  Michaelis's  Introdudlion,  was  thus  deferred  to  an 
unlimited  time,  I  determined  to  print  the  remainder 
of  the  tranflation  without  further  delay.  In  fo  doing, 
I  hope  I  fhall  not  incur  the  cenfure  of  the  public :  as  it 
is  certainly  more  defireable  to  have  the  work  of  Mi- 
chaelis  complete,  though  the  whole  is  not  accompanied 
with  Notes,  than  to  wait  feveral  years  longer  for  the 
completion  of  the  work,  merely  for  the  fake  of  Ibme 
additional  obfervations  by  the  tranflator. 

After  this  explanation,  it  remains  only,  that  I  exprefs 
my  obligations  to  the  Univerfity,  for  its  liberal  aflift- 
ance,  in  defraying  the  expenccs  of  the  prefent,  as  well 
as  of  the  preceding  volumes. 


ST,  John's  college,  Cambridge, 
JUNE  22,   iScu 


HERBERT  MARSH. 


CONTENTS, 


VOL.  III.     PART  I. 


CHAPTER    I. 

OF     THE     NAME,     AND     NUMBER    OF     THE     CANO- 
NICAL   GOSPELS.  PAGE       I 


CHAP.     II. 

OF    THE    HARMONY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS. 

Sect.  I. 
apparent  contradi£fto7JS  in  the  Gofpeh,  — -  ^ 

Sect.  II. 

Anjwers  to  the  ohjeSiions  made  to  the  Evangelifis,  on 
account  of  the  apparent  contradi5iions  in  reJpeSl 
to  the  order  of  time,  —  — .10 

Sect.  III. 

Kules  to  he  obferved  in  making  an  Harmony  of  the 
Gofpeh.  —  —  -—14 

Sect.  IV, 

Of  the  inference  to  he  deduced  from  the  fuppofition, 
that  real  contradi^ions  exifi  in  the  four  Gofpels,  25 

Vol.  IIL  a  Sect. 


VI  CONTENTS   TO   VOL.  III.     PART  I. 

Sect.  V. 

Examination  of  the  different  degrees  of  importance, 
in  the  different  kinds  of  contradi£iion  objervable  in 
the  Four  Gofpels,  —  —         '  page  29 

Sect.  VI. 
/in  account  of  the  principal  Harmonies,  —  31 

Sect.  VII. 
Harmony  of  the  Gofpels  propofed  by  the  author  of  this 
Jntrodu5fion.  —  -—  —  37 

Sect.  VIII. 

Of  two  very  aEiively  employed  fabbaths  in  the  life 
of  Chriftj  which  are  of  importance  in  fettling  the 
harmony  of  the  Gofpels,  —  — ■  84 


CHAP.    m. 

OF  THE    Cause,   why    st.  Matthew  and   st. 

MARK,  AND  ALSO  ST.  MARK  AND  ST.  LUKE, 
HAVE  IN  SEVERAL  INSTANCES  A  REMARK- 
ABLE VERBAL  HARMONY,  THOUGH  THE  ONE 
DID  NOT  COPY  FROM  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE 
OTHER,  —  — .  —  c^2 


CHAP. 


CONTENTS   TO  VOL.    III.   PART   I.  VU 

CHAP.  rv. 

OF  ST.  Matthew's  gospel. 


Sect.  I. 
Account  of  St.  Matthew^  and  of  the  time  when  he 
wrote  his  Gofpel.  —  page      ^S 

Sect.  II. 

Attempt  to  reconcile  the  contradictory  accounts y  in  re- 
fpeSl  to  the  time  when  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was 
written,  —  —  —     ill 

Sect.  III. 

Of  the  original  language  cf  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel, 
IntroduSlory  remarks  to  this  inquiry,  —     1 1 2 

Sect,  IV. 

Teflimonies  of  the  AncientSy   relative  to  a  Hebrew 
Original  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpeh  —     Ii6 

Sect.  V. 

Examination  of  the  quejliony  whether  Origen  and  Eu- 
fehius  in  any  part  of  their  writings  have  argued^  as 
if  th^  fuppofed  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Greek,     135 

Sect.  VI. 

Additional  arguments  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew.  —     142 

Sect.  VII. 

Examination  of  the  objections y  which  have  been  made 
to  the  opinion i  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,     i^S 

a  2  Sect. 


;Vlil  -CONTENTS    TO    VOL,    III.    PART    *. 

Sect.  VIII. 
Ohjervations  on  Jeveral  'pojfages  in  the  Greek  Gcfpel 
of  St.  Matthew  where  the  tranjlator  appears  to 
have  rendered  inaccurately :  with  conjectures  rela- 
tive to  the  words  of  the  original^  and  the  caufesy 
which  might  lead  a  tranflator  into  error.       page     154 

Sect.  IX. 

Of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes  and 
the  Ebionites :  and  whether  this  Gofpel,  in  its 
primitive  flate^  was  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St, 
Matthew,  —  —  —     161 

Sect.  X. 

Of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew ,  zvhich  was 
publijhed  by  Sebafiian  Miinjler:  and  of  the  edition 
^ubliped  by  John  Tilet.  —  —     1 95 


CHAP.     V. 

OF  ST.  mark's   gospel. 

Sect.    I. 

Of  the  perfon  of  St.  Marky  and  the  circumfiances  of 
bis  life.  —  —  —     202 

Sect.  II. 
Hijiorical  accounts  relative  to  St.  Mark's  Gofpel.         204 

Sect.  III. 

Agreement  of  the  accounts  given  in  the  preceding  fee- 
tion  with  the  contents  of  St.  Mark's  Go/pel,  212 

Sect. 


CONTENTS   TO   VOL.  III.    PART  U  IX 


Sect.   IV. 
Sf.  Mark  derived  his  information,  not  only  from  St. 
Peter,  but  Ukezvije  from  written  documents,  which 
he  ujed  in  the  com'pofition  of  his  G  off  el.         page     214 

Sect.  V. 
Examination  of  the  queflion,  zvhether  St.  Mark  made 
uje  of  St.  Matthew's  Gcfpel.      .  —  216 

Sect.  VI. 
Examination  of  the  quefiion,  whether  St.  Mark  made 
tife  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel.  —  221 

Sect.  VII. 
Whether  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  was  written  firfi,  and 
uJed  by  St.  Luke.  —  —  22 j 

Sect.     VIII. 
St,  Mark  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Greek.  —  224 


CHAP.     VI. 

OF  ST.  Luke's  gospel. 

Sect.  I. 
Of  the  life  and  character  of  St.  Luke.  —         228 

Sect.  II. 
Examination   of  the  qu  eft  ion,  whether  St.  Luke's 
Gofpel,  though  it  contains  upon  the  whole  a  very 
credible  hifiory^  is  perfe^ly  free  from  inaccuracies.     230 

Sect, 


X  CONTENTS    TO   VOL.   III.    PART  I. 

Sect,  III. 
Whether  St.  Luke  is  the  fame  f  erf  on  as  Lucius  ^  men- 
tioned A£ls  yA\\,  I.  Rom.y.yr\.  i\,  page     234 

Sect.  IV. 
Of  the  per/on  of  Theophilus,  to  whom  St.  Luke  ad- 
drejfed  his  writings,  —  —         1"^^ 

Sect.  V. 
Of  the  time  when  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Goffel.  241 

Sect.  VI. 
Of  the  various  opinions  relative  to  the  place j  where 
St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel.  —  —     248 

Sect.  VII. 
Refult  of  the  inquiries  inflituted  in  the  preceding 
Je5iion.  —  —  —         263 

Sect.  VIII. 
Of  the  motive i  which  induced  St.  Luke  to  write  a 
Gofpel.  —  —  —     267 


CHAP.    VII. 

OF  ST.  John's  gospel. 


Sect.  I. 
Of  the  life  and  character  of  St.  John.  —     272 

Sect.  II. 
Various  opinions  refpe5fing  the  ohjeot^  which  St.  John 
had  in  view,  when  he  wrote  his  Gofpel.  —    274 

Sect. 


CONTENTS    TO    VOL.    III.    PART   I,  XI 

Sect.  III. 
SL  John  wrote  his  Go/pel  to  confute  the  errors  of 
_  Cerinthus  and  the  Gnojiics.  — -  —     27? 

Sect.  IV. 
St.  John  wrote  aljo  to  confute  the  errors  of  the  Sa- 
bianSy  or  the  fe£l  which  acknowledged  John  the 
Baptijifor  its  founder.  -—  —     285 

Sect.  V. 
Of  the  tenets  maintained  by  the  Gnojiics  and  the  Sa-  '^ 

bians,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  are  confuted 
by  St.  John.  —  —  —    287 

Sect.  VI. 
St.  John  had  read  the  three  firjl  Gofpels  before  he 
wrote  his  own.  —  _«  —    joj 

Sect.  VII. 
Of  St.  John^s  mode  of  narration.  — ^  —    310 

Sect.  VIII. 
Of  the  peculiarities  of  St.  John's  Greek  fiyle,      -^    316 

Sect.  IX. 
Of  the  laji  Chapter  of  St.  John's  GoJpeU  —    318 

Sect.  X. 
Of  the  time  when ^  and  the  place  where,  St,  John's 
Gofpel  was  written,  «—  —    320 

Sect.  XI. 
Of  the  Heretics i  who  rejeSied  St,  John's  Gofpeh         324 


CHAP. 


Xil  CONTENTS    TO   VOL.    III.    PART    r. 

CHAP.    VIII. 

OF    THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES. 

Sect.  I. 
Of  the  author  of  the  A5ls  cfthe  Jpojlks,  and  the  time 
when  this  book  was  written.  —  —     2"^^ 

Sect.  II. 
Of  the  ohjetl ^  which  St.  Luke  had  in  vieWj  in  writing 
the  A5is  of  the  Jpcfiles.  —  »_     ^2,7 

Sect.  III. 
Of  St.  Luke's  Jiyle 3  and  his  mode  of  narration.  331 

Sect.  IV. 
Chronology  of  the  ASls  of  the  Jpojlles.  —    335 


CHAP.    IX. 

THE  STUDY  OF  JOSEPHUS  RECOM- 
MENDED AS  THE  BEST  MEANS  OF 
UNDERSTANDING  THE  HISTORICAL 
BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  339 


INTRODUCTION 

TO    THE 

SACRED  WRITINGS 


OF    THE 

\ 

NEW    COVENANT. 


CHAP.    I. 

OF     THE     NAME,      AND      NUMBER     OF     THE     CANONICAL 

GOSPELS. 

THE  firft  book  of  the  New   Teftament,  according 
to  the  arrangement  in   the   manufcripts ',  contains 
the  four  Gofpels,  or  the  four  Hiftories  of  thrift's  Hfe. 

The  Greek  name  Eua-yyeXtoi/  has  three  different  fenfes, 
as  ufed  by  profane  writers,  by  the  facred  writers,  and  by 
eeclefiaftical  writers;  and  thefe  three  fenfes  muft  be 
carefully  diftinguiihed  from  each  other.  The  want  of 
this  diitindion  has  fometimes  given  rife  to  mifbakes, 
and  induced,  for  inftance,  many  perfons  to  fuppofe  that 
St.  Paul  didlated  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  becaufe  in 
his  epiftle  to  the  Romans* he  ufes  the  exprcflion  *  ac- 
cording to  my  GofpeP.'  The  word  svayyiXiov  is  ufed 
by  the  Greek  profane  writers  to  fignify  good  news  in 
general:  but  in  the  New  Teftament  it  fignifies  the  joyful 
intelligence  of  the  advent  of  tlie  Mefliah  in  particular, 
and  is  ufed  by  St.  Paul '' in  reference  to  the  prophecies 

of 
*  Rom.  xi.  1 6,  t*  Rom.  i.  1,2, 

Vol.  in.  A 


2     Name  and  Number  of  the  Canonical  Gofpeh.    chap.  r. 

of  that  event.     Alfo  Sr.  Mark  writes.  Chap,  i,   i — 4. 

*  The   beginning   of  the  Gofpel was  John'^:    and 

Chrift  himfelf,  in  his  anfwer  to  John,  who  had  fent  to 
inquire  who  he  was,  thought  it  fufficient,  after  relating 
the  miracles,  which  he  had  performed,  to  add  *  and  the 
poor  have  the  Gofpel  preached  to  them,'  that  is,  it  is 
announced  to  the  poor  that  the  MelTiah  is  come*. 
Ecclefiaftical  writers  have  taken  the  word  tvocyyiXiov  in  a 
new  fenfe,  and  have  ufed  it  to  fignify  *  a  narrative  of 
the  life  of  Chrift.'  It  is  ufcd  in  this  fenfe  in  both  the 
old  and  new  fuperfcriptions,  which  have  been  prefixed 
to  the  four  Gofpels*j  and  hence  the  authors  of  them 
have  acquired  the  Title  ofEvangelifts^ 

I  will  not  undertake  to  affign  the  reafon,  why  we  have 
precifely  four  Gofpels,  or  to  difcover  to  what  caufe  it  is 
owing  that  their  number  is  neither  greater  nor  lefs, 
though  it  was  attempted  by  fome  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
who  fancied  that  they  had  difcovered  a  myfterious  ana- 
logy between  the  four  Gofpels,  and  the  four  winds ^ 
But  I  am  fo  far  from  feeking  a  myftery  in  the  number 
four,  that  I  have  my  do^ibts  whether  two  of  them, 
namely  thofe  of  St.  Mark  and  Sr.  Luke  were  divinely 
infpired**:  and  even  if  it  were  true  that  my  doubts  were 
ungrounded,  yet  on  the  other  hand  their  number  was 
formerly  much  greater  than  four,  though  four  only  have 
defcended  to  the  prefent  age*.  That  the  number  of 
our  prefent  Gofpels  therefore  amounts  precifely  to  four, 
we  can  afcribe  to  no  other  caufe  than  mere  accident. 
It  is  true  that  every  event,  which  we  call  accidental,  is 
ftill  owing  to  the  particular  direftion  of  the  Supreme 
Being ;  yet  we  mull  make  a  diftinflion  between  events, 
which  happen  from  the  common  courfe  of  things,  and 
fuch  as  are  derived  from  his  immediate  interpofrtion. 

The  real  ftate  of  the  cafe  appears  to  be  as  follows. 
At  the  time,  when  St.  Luke  undertook  to  write  his  hif- 
tory  of  the  tranfaftions  of  Chrift,  various  but  uncertain 
Gofpels  were  already  in  circulation  %     Thefe  Gofpels, 

probably 

«  Matth.  xl.  5;  '  See  Vol.  I,  Ch.  in.  Seft,  3. 

«^  Luke  i.  1—4. 


CHAP.  r.  Name  and  Number  of  the  Canonical  Go/pels.       J 

probably  owing  to  the  circumftance,  that  the  accounts, 
which  they  contained,  were  uncertain^  have  either  to- 
tally periflied,  or  are  preferved  only  in  a  few  fcattered 
and  even  interpolated  fragments^.  It  is  certain  that 
they  never  were  received  by  the  Chriftian  church  as  cre- 
dible and  authentic  documents,  that  they  were  never 
deemed  worthy  to  be  read  in  the  public  fervice,  nor 
admitted  into  the  catalogue  of  the  v/ritings  of  the  New 
Teftament.  Whether  internal  or  external  evidence 
contributed  chiefly  to  their  rejeftion,  whether  their  ac- 
counts, which  have  the  appearance  of  fable,  rather  than 
of  hiftory,  and  not  feldom  contradi6t  each  other,  ren- 
dered them  fufpe6led,  or  whether  an  oppofition  on  the 
part  of  the  Apoftles  and  other  cye-witnefics  prevented 
them  from  being  generally  received,  is  at  prefent  diffi- 
cult to  be  determined,  becaufe  we  have  no  Chriftian 
hiftorians  of  the  firft  century.  A  tradition  relative  to 
this  fubjeft  is  recorded  by  Eufebius  in  his  Ecclcfiaftical 
Hiftory^,  which  he  gives  however  as  a  mere  report, 
without  quoting  any  written  evidence  for  its  authority. 
Namely,  "  the  three  firfl:  Gofpels  being  now  delivered 
to  all  men,  and  to  John  himfelf,  //  isjaidy  that  he  ap- 
proved them,  and  contirmcd  the  truth  of  their  narration 
by  his  own  teftimony^,  faying,  there  was  only  wanting 
a  written  account  of  the  things  done  by  Chrift  in  the 
former  part,  and  in  the  beginning  of  his  preaching." 
If  this  report  be  grounded,  we  can  eafily  account  for 
the  admilTion  of  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark, 
and  St.  Luke,  with  the  addition  of  that  written  by  St, 
John,  and  of  thofe  only  :  the  teflimony  of  the  lad  fur- 
viving  Apoftle,  who  had  himfelf  been  eye-witnefs  to 
the  fcveral  tranfadions,  was  fufficient  authority.  Whe- 
ther this  teflimony  implies  that  the  three  firfl  Gofpels 
arc  totally  free  from  the  fmallefl  hiflorical  inaccuracy, 

is 

^  Book  III.  ch.  24. 

8  Tun    'S7^oxiiccypix(pitTCL't     rpiui     £»5     'mctvToi.i;     r,o/)     ncci     £K    ciVTov    T»» 

A    2 


4       Name  and  Numher  of  the  Canonical  Gofpeh.  chap.  i. 

is  a  queftioa  which   belongs  not  to  the  prefent  fubjed, 
and  which  will  be  examined  in  the  fequel. 

It  is  a  confiderable  advantage,  that  an  hiftory  of  fiich 
importance  as  that  of  Jefus  Chrift,  has  been  recorded 
by  the  pens  of  feparate  and  independent  writers,  who 
from  the  very  contradiflions,  whether  real  or  apparent, 
which  are  vifible  in  thefe  accounts,  have  incontellably 
proved  that  they  did  not  unite,  with  a  view  of  impoiing 
a  fabulous  narrative  on  mankind.  That  St.  Matthew 
had  never  feen  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  nor  St.  Luke  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  is  evident  from  a  comparifon  of 
their  writings.  The  Gofpel  of  St  Mark,  which  was 
written  later,  muft  likewife  have  been  unknown  to  St. 
Lukci  and  that  St.  Mark  had  ever  read  the  Gofpel  of 
St,  Luke  is  at  leaft  improbable,  becaufe  their  Gofpels 
fo  frequently  differ.  That  St.  Mark  made  ufe  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gofpel  in  the  compofition  of  his  own,  has 
been  a  generally  received  opinion,  to  which  I  formerly 
fubfcribed  :  but  I  am  at  prefent  of  a  different  opinion, 
for  which  I  fhall  allege  the  reafons  in  their  proper  place. 
We  have  therefore  three  diftin6l  writers  of  the  fame 
hiftory,  who  wrote  independently  of  each  other.  It  is 
true  that  the  fourth  Evangelift  had  read  the  works  of 
the  other  three,  but  he  is  very  far  from  having  copied 
or  even  from  having  followed  them  in  their  defcriptions. 
His  Gofpel  has  very  little  matter  in  common  with  the 
three  firft ;  but  even  where  the  fame  narrations  are  re- 
corded, it  feems  to  have  been  fo  little  his  intention  to  be 
direded  merely  by  their  contents,  chat  we  might  rather 
fuppofe  him  to  have  fometimes  correfled,  in  an  indirecfl 
and  delicate  manner,  the  trifling  inaccuracies  of  thofc 
who  had  written  before  him. 


CHAP. 


CHAP.  n.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gcjpeh.  5 

CHAP.     II. 

ON    THE    HARMONY    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS. 

SECT.     I. 

Jpparent  contraditlions  of  the  Gofpeis. 

I  OBSERVED  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  the 
accounts  delivered  by  the  feveral  Evangelifls  do  not 
at  all  times  perfedly  coincide  :  but  this  very  circum- 
ftance,  which  I  mentioned  as  an  argument  in  their  fa- 
vour, has  formed  the  fubjeft  of  a  very  heavy  and  ierious 
accufation.  No  one  has  urged  the  charge  with  fo  much 
birternefs,  and  fo  much  force,  as  the  anonymous  author 
of  the  Wolfenblittel  Fragments,  publiflied  by  Lefllng', 
in  which  the  refurre6lion  of  Chrift  is  reprefented  as  a 
falfe  and  idle  tale,  becaufe  the  hiftorians,  who  have  re- 
corded it,  difagree  in  their  accounts.  In  oppofition  to 
this  treatife,  I  pubUfned  at  Halle  in  lyS.'?,  an  Expofition 
of  the  hiftory  of  the  death  and  refurredlion  of  Chrift  *, 
from  which  I  fhall  frequently  borrow  materials  in  this 
and  the  following  feftions,  and  fometimes  tranfcribe 
whole  paftages,  where  I  think  the  fubjeft  would  lofe,  if 
I  made  ufe  of  different  words. 

However  dangerous  thefe  contradiftions  may  appear 
to  many  friends  of  the  Chriftian  caufe,  and  however 
forcibly  they  have  been  applied  by  its  enemies,  the  dif- 
advantage,  which  arifcs  from  them,  is  by  no  means  fo 
great,  as  is  fuppofed,  lince  they  prove,  what  is  of  the 
utmoft  importance,  that  the  Evangelifts  did  not  write 
in  concert.  If  the  three  firft  Evangelifts  had  entered 
into  a  combination,  with  a  view  of  impofmg  a  fiftion 
on  the  world,  they  would  certainly  have  avoided  even 
the  fmalleft  appearance  of  difagreement,  and  if  the  mi- 
raculous events,  which  they  had  recorded,  had  been 
empty  fables,  it  is  probable,  that  St.  John  who  had  read 
their  Gofpeis,  before   he   wrote  his  own,  would  have 

A  3  taken 


6  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels,         chap.  ir. 

taken  care  to  admit  not  the  leafl  deviation  from  the 
writings  of  his  predeceflbrs,  in  order  that  the  fraud  might 
be  the  lefs  eafily  detedted.  The  anonymous  author  of 
the  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments,  whofe  objedt  in  general 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  a  candid  invcftigation  of  the 
truth,  is  guilty  therefore  of  an  egregious  miftake,  in  lug- 
gefting,  after  an  enumeration  often  contradidions  in  one 
chapter,  that  the  whole  hiftory  of  the  refurredlion  excites 
a  fufpicion,  that  the  perfons,  who  wrote  the  account  of 
it,  allied  in  concert. 

Hiftorical  contradiftions  may  be  divided  into  two 
clafTes,  real,  and  apparent :  thcfe  muft  carefully  be  dif- 
tinguifhed  from  each  other,  and  each  confidered  fepa- 
rately. 

When  feveral  perfons,  who  have  been  eye-witnefles  to 
one  and  the  fame  tranfadlion,  give  feparate  and  inde- 
pendent accounts  of  it,  it  is  hardly  pofllble  that  they 
Ihould  coincide  in  every  trifling  particular.  I  appeal  to 
any  experienced  lawyer,  whether  he  would  not  fufpeft 
the  truth  of  a  document  containing  an  examination,  on 
which  twenty  witnefles  gave  the  fame  anfwers  to  the 
fame  interrogatories.  And  if  they  agreed  likewife  in 
their  exprefTions,  there  would  be  ground  to  fufpeft  that 
the  examiner  had  drawn  up  the  depofitions  himfelf,  and 
either  had  not  interrogated  the  witnefles  at  all,  or  had  , 
fuggefled  to  them  the  anfwers,  in  order  to  carry  his 
point. 

The  reafon  why  apparent  contradictions  are  unavoid- 
able in  the  depofition  of  feveral  eye-witnefl"es  to  the 
fame  tranfaclion  is  eafy  to"  be  afllgned.  They  do  not 
all  obferve  every  minute  circumftance  of  the  tranfaclion, 
but  one  pays  particular  attention  to  one  circumftance, 
another  to  another  circumftance  ;  this  occafions  a  varia- 
tion in  their  accounts,  which  it  is  fometimes  difficult  to 
reconcile.  This  happened  likewife  to  the  Evangelifts,  as 
I  will  illuftrate  by  the  following  inftance.  St.  Matthew, 
ch.  xviii.  I — 14,  and  St.  Mark,  ch.  ix.  23 — 50j  relate 
the  fame  tranfa6lion,  but  in  difi'erent  points  of  view, 
and  for  that  reafon  appear  at  firft  fight  to  contradift 

each 


SECT.  r.  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  *j 

each  other.  St.  Matthew  fays,  At  that  time  came  the 
difciples  to  Jefus  and  faid,  Who  is  the  greateft  in  the 
kingdom  ofheaven?'  St.  Mark,  on  the  contrary,  'He 
came  to  Capernaum,  and  having  entered  into  an  houfe, 
he  afked  them.  What  was  it,  that  ye  difputed  amono- 
yourfelves  by  the  way?  But  they  held  their  peace;  for 
by  the  way  they  had  difputed  among  themfelvcs,  who 
fhould  be  the  greateft.'  According  to  St.  Matthew,  the 
difciples  themfclves  lay  the  fubjed  of  their  difpute  before 
Jefus,  for  his  decifion:  but  according  to  St.  Mark,  they 
even  refufe  to  relate  the  fubjed  of  their  difpute,  though 
Jefus  requefted  it,  becaufe  they  were  confcious  to  them- 
felvcs, that  it  would  occafion  a  reproof.  The  queflion 
is,  how  thefe  accounts  are  to  be  reconciled. 

Without  entering  into  the  various  folutions,  which 
have  been  given  by  the  commentators,  I  fliall  only  ob- 
ferve  that,  as  this  tranfaftion  relates  to  a  matter  of  dif- 
pute among  the  difciples,  it  has  of  courfe  two  different 
fides,  and  therefore  capable  of  two  different  reprefenta- 
tions.  Some  of  the  difciples  laid  claim  to  the  title  of 
the  greateft  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  among  whom 
we  may  probably  reckon  Peter,  with  the  two  fons  of 
Zebedee,  James  and  John.  Thefe  could  hardly  expert 
to  efcape  a  reproof,  and  were  undoubtedly  afhamed, 
when  queftioncd  as  to  the  fubjeft  of  their  difpute. 
Other  difciples  on  the  contrary  may  be  confidered  as  the 
party  attacked,  who  without  claiming  the  firft  rank  for 
themfelves,  might  yet  think  it  unjuft  to  be  treated  as 
inferiors,  fmce  they  all  appeared  to  be  equal.  The 
latter  had  lefs  reafon  to  fear  a  reproof,  fince  the  pure 
morality  of  Chrift,  which  teaches  that  every  aftion  muft 
be  eftimated  by  the  motives  which  gave  it  birth,  was 
not  then  fully  underftood  by  his  difciples.  In  their  out- 
ward behaviour  at  leaft  there  was  nothing  unreafonable, 
and  without  being  guilty  of  a  breach  of  propriety,  they 
might  lay  their  complaints  before  their  mafter,  and  re- 
queft  his  decifion.  It  is  probable  that  St.  Matthew  was 
of  this  party,  fince  a  man,  who  was  by  profeffion  a 
tax-gatherer,  and  never  particularly  diftinguiftied  himfelf 

A  4  among 


8  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  chap.  ir. 

among  the  Apoftles,  would  have  hardly  fiippofed,  that 
h^  Ihoiilii  become  the  firfl:  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
He  relaces  the  tranfaflion  therefore,  as  one  of  that 
party  to  wuich  he  belonged:  St.  Mark  on  the  contrary, 
who  derive  i  information  from  St.  Peter,  confiders  the 
matter  from  m  oppofite  point  of  view.  Let  us  fuppofe 
the  riill  iiate  of  the  cafe  to  be  as  follows. — Some  of  the 
difcipjts,  who  were  of  the  diffiden:  party,  and  laid  no 
claim  to  tue  firft  rank,  bring  the  matter  before  Chrift, 
with  the  fame  kind  of  indignation,  as  was  difplayed  by- 
ten  of  the  Apoltles  on  another  occafion''.  Chrift  re- 
ferves  the  dtcifion  of  the  difpute  till  they  were  entered 
into  the  houfe,  v^here  they  were  accuftomed  to  meet: 
he  then  calls  his  difcipies  together,  and  enquires  into 
the  fubje6l  of  their  difpute,  to  which  Peter,  James, 
John,  and  thofe  in  general  who  had  laid  claim  to  pre- 
eminence make  no  anfwcr. — If  the  tranfaflion  was  li- 
terally as  here  defcribed,  it  is  by  no  means  impofllble 
that  Matthew  and  Mark  might  confider  it  from  different 
pomts  of  view,  and  write  what  we  find  in  their  Gofpels, 
withouL  the  leaft  violation  of  truth.  The  one  relates 
one  part,  and  the  other  another  part  of  the  tranfaftion, 
but  neiiher  of  them  relates  the  whole.  If  we  read  a  few 
verfes  further  in  St.  Mark's  Gofpel,  we  find  a  circum- 
flance  recorded  of  St  John,  which  St.  Matthew  paflesover 
in  filcnce,  and  from  which  it  appears,  that  St.  John  was 
more  concerned  in  this  difpute,  than  mod  of  the  other 
difciples.  He  even  ventured,  when  Chrift,  with  a  view  of 
introaucing  a  perfeft  equality  am.ong  his  difciples,  Hud, 
^  Whoever  receiveth  one  of  thefe  children  in  my  name 
receiveth  me,'  to  doubt  of  the  univerfahty  of  this  pofi- 
tion,  alleging  that  pcrfons  of  unexceptionable  charaders 
might  appeal  to  the  name  of  Jefus,  and  giving  an  in- 
llance  of  one  who  had  caft  out  devils  in  his  name, 
whom  the  Apoftles  had  rebuked'.  This  again  occa- 
fioned  replies  from  Chrift,  which,  though  they  are  men- 
tioned by  St.  Matthew,  have  in  his  Gofpel  a  different 
appearance,  and  are  attended  with  lefs  perfpicuity,  than 

they 

*  Matth.  XX.  24.  *  Marklx.  37,  38. 


SECT.  I.  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels.  9 

they  are  in  St.  Mark's  Gofpel,  becaufe  St.  Matthew  has 
not  related  the  caufes  which  gave  them  birth. 

When  the  fame  event  is  either  related  in  common 
converfations  by  different  fpeakers,  or  committed  to 
writing  by  different  and  independent  hillorians,  of 
which  we  may  mention  an  engagement  between  two 
armies  as  an  indance,  we  frequently  find  a  contradidion 
in  their  accounts,  though  each  of  them  has  no  other 
objeft  in  view,  than  to  relate  the  truth  ^  If  the  Evan- 
geiifls  appear  to  contradi.^  each  other  more  frequently 
than  other  hillorians,  the  cauftr  does  not  lie  in  the  Evan- 
gelifts  thcmfelves,  but  in  the  diligence  and  attention  of 
the  reader.  The  Gofpcls  are  not  read  by  thoufands, 
but  by  millions,  who  carefully  compare  the  one  with 
the  other:  whereas  the  (lories  related  in  common  con- 
verfation  are  hardly  ever  compared  with  each  other,  and 
it  is  no<-  often  that  we  find  a  critical  hiftorian,  who  takes 
the  trouble  of  accurately  collating  his  written  documents. 
But  the  mofl  convincing  proof,  that  apparent  contra- 
di6lions  are  no  proof  of  a  bad  caufe,  is  the  circumflance, 
that  we  often  meet  with  them  in  the  writings  of  one 
and  the  fame  hiftorian,  where  he  relates  the  fame  thing 
at  different  times.  St.  Luke,  for  inilance,  relates  twice 
the  afcenfion  of  Chrift,  and  three  times  the  convcrfion  of 
St.  Paul,  and  in  confequence  of  his  omitting  at  one  time 
what  he  had  mentioned  at  another,  and  vice  verfa,  he 
differs  as  much  from  himfeif,  as  the  Evangelifls  differ 
from  each  other.  In  courts  of  juftice,  where  practical 
logic,  as  far  as  concerns  the  examination  of  evidence,  is 
extremely  well  underftood,  not  every  apparent  contra- 
didlion  between  two  or  more  witnefles  is  immediately 
confidered  as  a  proof,  that  the  fact  which  they  atteft  is 
falfe.  The  advocates  on  both  (ides  examine  and  crofs- 
examine,  and  confider  whether  the  differences  in  the 
reports  are  not  capable  of  a  reconciliation.  As  the 
Evangelifls  themfelves  cannot  be  queftioned  v.ith  refpedl 
to  their  apparent  contradidions,  it  is  the  duty  of  com- 
mentators to  undertake  in  their  name  the  office  of  advo- 
cate: it  is  an  ofnce  which  they  have  frequendy  executed 

with 


lO  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap.  ii. 

with  ^uccc(Si  but  through  want  of  fufficient  knowledge 
of  the  fubjeft  they  are  ftill  embarrafTed  with  difficulties, 
which  the  Apoftles  thernfelves,  if  they  were  now  alive, 
would  undoubtedly  be  able  to  remove. 


SECT.     II. 

Anjwers  to  the  ohje^lions  made  to  the  Evangelijls^  on  account 
of  the  apparent  contradictions  in  refpe^  to  the  order  of 
time. 

ON E  of  the  moft  frequent  apparent  contradi6lions 
among  the  Evangelifts  relates  to  the  order  of  time, 
the  fame  faft  being  reported  earlier  by  one,  than  by 
another.  This  appearance  of  difagreement  arifes  from 
the  circumftance,  that  neither  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark, 
nor  St.  Luke  wrote  in  chronological  order'. 

No  hiftorian  can  be  expcfted  to  relate  every  thing  in 
the  order  of  time  unlefs  he  is  writing  a  journal,  which 
is  the  moft  tedious  and  difagreeable  kind  of  hiftory. 
In  writing  a  perfpicuous,  and  at  the  fame  time  an  agree- 
able narrative,  it  is  frequently  neceflary  to  unite  with 
a  caufe  the  effect  to  which  it  gave  birth,  even  though 
that  efFeft  Ihould  belong  to  a  diftant  period,  when  the 
hiftorian  muft  confequently  return  from  a  later  time  to 
a  former :  or  an  hiftorian  is  often  under  the  neceflity  of 
uniting  fafts,  which  are  far  afunder  in  point  of  time, 
becaufe  they  are  conne6ted  by  their  ftibjefl.  In  bio- 
graphy efpecially,  it  is  not  unufual  to  difregard  the  order 
of  time,  in  relating  the  remarkable  circumftances  of  a 
life,  to  which  the  name  of  Singularia  is  applied.  It 
feems  therefore  extraordinary  that  fcverer  rules  ftiould 
be  prefcribed  to  the  Evangelifts,  than  are  followed  by 
hiftorians  in  general :  and  one  might  fuppofe  that  it 
arofe  from  a  want  of  fufficient  acquaintance  with  the 
pra<5tice  of  profane  writers,  unlefs  various  commentators, 
to  whom   this  ignorance  cannot  poffibly  be  imputed, 

had 


SECT.  II.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.  ii 

had  ftill  confidered  the  Gofpels  as  fimple  diaries,  or 
journals  *. 

The  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke  in  particular  is  fufspofed  to 
have  been  written  according  to  the  order  of  time ;  becaule 
the  Evangelift  declares  in  his  preface,  that  he  intends  to 
relate  every  thing  in  order ''.  But  we  muft  not  forget 
that  the  order  of  time  is  not  the  only  order,  which  an 
hiftorian  may  follow.  To  illuftrate  this  by  an  example. 
The  uncSlion  of  Chrift  at  Bethany  took  place  fix  days  be- 
fore the  pafibver':  yet  St.  Matthew  relates  it  after  he  was 
advanced  with  the  reil  of  his  hiftory  to  within  two  days 
of  the  paflbver'".  The  reafon  is,  that  on  this  fecond 
day  before  the  paflbver  Judas  offered  to  the  affembly  of 
the  fcribes  and  chief  priells  to  betray  Jefus :  which  re- 
folution  he  had  been  induced  to  form  by  the  rebuke 
which  he  had  received  when  Jefus  was  anointed.  To 
return  however  to  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  it  appears  that 
the  word  axh^n;  imphes  nothing  more,  than  an  intention 
to  collect  accounts  of  the  feveral  wonders  and  difcourfes 
of  Chrift,  and  to  form  them  into  one  uniform  whole  *, 
that  is,  ai/alix^ao-Gsti  ^ir\y^<TiUy  as  he  fays  of  the  writers,  of 
whom  he  fpeaks  in  the  firft  verfe  of  his  Gofpel.  Now 
we  cannot  liippofe  that  thefe  numerous  writers  compofed 
entirely  according  to  the  order  of  time  ^  Nay,  there 
are  fome  commentators,  which  go  fo  far  as  to  aflert 
that  of  the  four  Evangelifts  St.  Luke  deviates  the  moft 
from  the  order  of  time  :  whether  they  are  miftaken  or 
not  I  fhall  not  at  prefent  inquire,  becaufe  the  exami- 
nation of  the  proofs  would  take  up  too  much  room, 
but  this  I  will  venture  to  affert,  that  the  word  xaG^gnf 
no  more  affords  an  argument  againft  this  opinion,  than 
the  word  am1a^ao-0«i  applied  to  thofe  who  wrote  Gofpels 
before  St.  Luke,  would  difprove  the  affertion,  that  thefe 
writers  deviated  more  from  the  order  of  time  than  our 
four  Evangelifts.  The  -account  which  we  read  in  St. 
Luke's  Gofpel,  ch.  iv.  23.  where  Jefus  fpeaks  of  mi- 
racles performed  at  Capernaum,  though  St.  Luke  had 

hitherto 

k  Ku^t^-m^.  Luke  i.  3.  '  John  xii.  I. 

^  Mauh.  xxvi.  6. 


12  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels.        chap.  ii. 

hitherto  made  no  mention,  that  Jefus  had  even  been 
at  Capernaum,  united  with  the  circumftance  that  the 
important  miracles  performed  by  Jefus  at  Capernaum 
appear  to  be  recorded  by  St.  Luke  in  the  fifth  chapter, 
favours  at  lead  the  opinion  that  St.  Luke  has  not  related 
the  coming  of  Jefus  to  Nazareth,  according  to  the  pe- 
riod in  which  it  really  happened  ". 

The  opinion  that  the  Evangelifts  have  conftantly 
written  according  to  the  order  of  time  has  led  the  har- 
monifts  to  this  very  extraordinary  conclufion,  that,  if  a 
fa6l  is  recorded  by  two  or  more  Evangelifts,  and  the 
period  allotted  to  it  by  the  one  correfponds  not  to  the 
period  allotted  to  it  by  the  other,  the  fad  with  all  its 
concomitant  circumftances  muft  have  happened  fo 
many  different  times  ^.  According  to  this  principle, 
the  whole  feries  of  events  recorded  in  the  ninth,  tenth, 
and  eleventh  chapters  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  happened 
twice,  if  not  thrice:  that  is,  Jefus  twice  healed  a  man 
Hck  of  the  palfy,  who  was  let  down  through  the  roof  of 
the  houfe  with  exaftly  the  fame  circumftances ;  in  both 
cafes  he  fpake  the  fame  words,  and  the  fpeftators  were 
afFefted  in  the  fame  manner :  in  two  inftances  (imme- 
diately after  fuch  a  miracle)  he  called  a  difciple  from  the 
receipt  of  cuftom  :  he  twice  raifed  a  child  aged  twelve 
years  from  the  dead,  and  by  the  way  healed  a  woman, 
who  had  an  iiTue  of  blood,  by  the  touch  of  his  garment: 
he  was  twice  af!<:ed  the  fame  queftions  by  John,  &c. 
The  late  Dr.  Hauber  *  has  applied,  in  fupport  of  this 
opinion,  the  principium  indifcernibilium  -,  faying,  that 
things  which  agree  in  9999  points,  but  differ  in  a  fmgle 
point,  cannot  be  one  and  the  fame  thing ;  now  the 
events  above-mentioned  have  a  difference  in  point  of 
time  in  the  different  Evangelifts,  therefore  they  cannot 
be  the  fame  events.  The  truth  of  the  firft:  propofition 
no  one  will  difpute,  but  we  cannot  affert  the  fecond, 
without  being  guilty  of  a  petitio  principii,  fmce  the 
queftion,  whether  each  of  thefe  events  really  did  happen 
more  than  once  is  the  very  thing  to  be  determined. 
And,   fince  it  is  at  leaft  highly  improbable  that  two 

feries 


SFXT.  II.         Harmony  of  the  Fcur  Gofpels,  13 

feries  of  fads  fhould  perfe6lly  refemble  each  other  in 
every  circumflance  except  that  of  time,  the  principium 
indifcernibiHiim,  when  appHed  to  the  prefent  cafe, 
fhould  lead  us  in  fa(5l  to  a  conclufion  diredlly  contrary 
to  that,  which  was  drawn  by  Dr.  Haubert ".  Even  with- 
out the  aid  of  philofophy,  the  matter  is  itfelf  fo  clear, 
that  if  any  other  biographer  fhould  fo  circumftantially 
relate  the  fame  tranfaftions  twice,  or  pretend  that  a 
whole  feries  of  extraordinary  events  happened  twice  in 
the  fpace  of  four  years,  he  would  forfeit  all  credit  with 
his  reader.  I  candidly  declare  for  my  own  part,  that, 
were  it  neceffary  to  believe  that  the  above-mentioned 
feries  of  events  with  all  their  circumftances,  happened 
more  than  once,  my  faith  would  waver :  and  if  I 
doubted  not  of  the  truth  of  the  Gofpel  itfelf,  I  (hould 
.  at  leaft  doubt  of  the  infpiration  of  the  Evangelifis,  and 
conclude  that  the  one  or  the  other  was  miftaken. 

At  the  fame  time  I  would  not  have  it  underflood, 
that  the  fuppofition  of  an  event's  having  happened  more 
than  once,  where  different  periods  are  alTigned  to  it  by 
different  EvangeUfls,  is  in  no  cafe  whatfoever  admilTible. 
But  then  it  mufb  not  be  an  event  of  the  moft  extraor- 
dinary kind,  nor  attended  in  every  inftance  by  the  fame 
minute  circumflances.  For  inftance,  fince  various  per- 
fons  at  various  times  may  have  offered  themfelves  to  be 
the  difciples  of  Chrifl,  induced  either  by  the  high  ex- 
pectations, which  were  formed  of  his  charadler,  or  by 
the  interefted  motive  of  receiving  from  him  their  daily 
fupporr,  to  whom  the  anfwer  '  Foxes  have  holes,  and 
the  birds  of  the  air  have  nefts,  but  the  Son  of  man  has 
not  where  to  lay  his  head'  is  well  adapted,  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  this  anfwer  was  given  on  more  than  one 
occafion.  When  St.  Matthew  therefore,  ch.  viii.  19,  20. 
relates  this  anfwer  as  given  by  Chrift  at  the  lake  of  Gen- 
nefaret,  and  St.  Luke,  ch.  ix.  57,  58.  as  given  during 
the  journey  through  Samaria  toward  Jerufalem,  we  muft 

conclude 

"  See  my  Programma,  de  principio  indifcernibilium ',  particu- 
larly p.  II,  where  I  have  explained  myfelf  more  fully,  and  p.  15, 
where  I  have  given  the  proof. 


14  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.         chap.  ii. 

conclude  that  the  two  Evangelifts  here  relate  two  diffe- 
rent things.  This  is  however  attended  with  the  following 
difficulty,  that  both  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  im- 
mediately after  the  anfwer  above  quoted,  agree  likewife 
in  another  anfwer  given  by  Chrift  to  a  young  man,  who 
was  going  to  bury  his  father".  This  cafe  is  fo  extra- 
ordinary that  I  cannot  fuppofe  it  to  have  happened 
twice ;  and  I  can  account  for  the  difficulty  in  no  other 
manner,  than  by  fuppofing  that  the  two  Evangelifts 
introduced,  on  two  different  occafions,  the  converfation 
of  Chrift  with  this  difciple,  becaufe  each  occafion  fug- 
gefted  its  introdu6tion.  They  relate  in  what  manner 
Chrift  rejefted,  or  invited  difciples,  or  put  them  to 
the  teft,  though  the  inftances,  which  they  produce  in 
the  fame  place,  happened  at  times  diftant  from  each 
other  '^ 


SECT.    III. 

Rules  to  he  obferved  in  making  an  Harmony  of  the  Gofpels^ 

^F^HE  following  are  the  principal  rules,    which  are 
X     neceffary  to  be  obferved  in  comparing  the  Evan- 
gelifts with  each  other  \ 

1.  As  the  EvangeUfts  have  not  written  journals,  we 
muft  not  confider  it  as  a  contradiction,  if  the  fame  tran- 
faftion  be  related  by  the  one  earlier  or  later  than  it  is 
related  by  the  other,  provided  the  time  be  not  exprefsly 
determined  by  both,  (:i  as  to  be  incapable  of  a  recon- 
ciliation. 

2.  Since  divine  infpiration  does  not  produce  omni- 
fcience,  it  is  poffiblc,  even  if  we  admit  that  all  four 
Evangelifts  were  infpired,  that  fome  circumftances  of  a 
faft  were  unknown  to  one,  which  were  known  to 
another.  From  this  want  of  knowledge  arifcs  an  ap- 
parent contradi(ftion,  which  ought  not  to  be  confidered 

as 
o  Matth.  viii,  zi,  zz%    Luke  ix.  59,  6o, 


SECT.  III.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  15 

as  a  real  one.  If  we  fet  infpiration  afide,  and  confidcr 
the  Evangelifts  fimply  as  human  hiftorians  of  credit  and 
veracity,  the  rule  is  ftill  more  applicable.  For  inftance, 
Chrift  embarked  in  a  vefTel,  and  rebuked  the  wind,  in 
the  evening  of  the  fame  day,  on  which  he  had  delivered 
the  parable  of  the  fewer  and  the  feed.  This  appears 
from  Mark  iv.  35.  '  And  the  fame  day,  when  the  even 
was  come,  he  faith  unto  them,  Let  us  pafs  over  unto 
the  other  fide.'  But  this  circumftance  was  unknown  to 
St.  Luke,  who  knew  only  that  thefe  two  tranfadions  were 
at  no  great  diftance  from  each  other,  and  wrote  there- 
fore, ch.  viii.  11.  *  Now  it  came  to  pafs  on  a  certain  day 
that  he  went  into  a  fhip  with  his  difciples.'  This  is  no 
more  a  contradiftion,  than  if  one  of  two  witnefles  to 
the  fame  fadl  fhould  teftify  that  it  happened  in  the 
Chriftmas-week,  and  the  other  on  the  twenty-fifth  of 
December.  Again,  St.  Luke  appears  not  to  have  known 
on  what  occafion  the  words,  which  he  has  recorded, 
ch.  xvii.  I — 4,  were  uttered  by  Chrift;  inftead  therefore 
of  relating  them  in  the  place,  to  which  they  really  be- 
long, namely  after  ch.  ix.  46 — 50,  he  has  arranged 
them  among  feveral  fcattered  fragments  relating  to  Chrift. 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  on  the  contrary  have  af- 
figned  to  them  their  proper  place,  where  they  receive 
more  light,  efpecially  as  related  by  the  latter  ■*.  A  third 
inftance,  in  which  St.  Luke  was  unacquainted  with  the 
time  at  which  a  tranfadtion  happened  is  ch.  xx.  i,  where 
he  fays,  *  And  it  came  to  pafs,  on  one  of  thofe  days :'  but 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  have  determined  the  time  more 
precifely  *,  though  a  contradidion  appears  to  have  taken 
place  in  their  accounts ',  which  the  prefent  room  does 
not  allow  me  to  examine.  Likewife  the  occafion  which 
gave  birth  to  the  prophecy  of  Chrift,  refpeding  the 
dcftruftion  of  Jerufalem,  appears  to  have  been  more 
imperfe6lly  known  to  St.  Luke',  than  to  the  other 
Evangelifts :  but  that  even  Prophets  may  be  deficient 
in  knowledge,  and  that  the  Apoftles  never  pretended  to 

be 

P  Matth.  xviii.  i — 20.    Mark  ix.  33 — 50. 
^  See  ch.  xxi.  5. 


i6r  Harmony  tf  the  Four  Gojpels.         chap,  ir, 

be  omnifcient  is  evident  from  various  paflTages  of  the 
New  Teftament'. 

3.  Two  or  more  relations  may  be  very  fimilar,  and 
yet  not  the  fame  :  thefe  mull  be  carefully  diftinguifhed 
from  each  other.  For  inftance,  the  anoinnng  of  Chrifl 
Luke  vii,  and  Matth.  xxvi.  are  manifeftly  different 
fa6ls,  though  they  fo  far  agree  that  both  happened  at 
table,  and  in  the  houfe  of  one  named  Simon.  But  that 
the  anointing  happened  at  table  is  by  no  means  a  re- 
markable circumftance,  fince  it  was  agreeable  to  the 
common  cuftom  of  the  ancients  :  and  with  refpecl  to  the 
other  circumftances,  they  are  all  different. 

4.  In  the  arrangement  of  the  feveral  fa6ls  attention 
muft  be  paid  to  thofe  paffages,  in  which  the  Evangelifts 
exprefsly  determine  the  time,  by  faying,  *  on  that  day/ 
*^  in  the  evening,*  ^  on  the  following  day,'  and  the  like. 
But  we  muft  be  careful  not  to  take  for  a  determination 
of  time,  what  really  is  not. 

5.  The  fame  difcourfe,  fuch  as  the  lermon  on  the 
mount,  may  have  been  deUvered  more  than  once,  in 
order  to  imprefs  the  doctrines,  which  it  contained,  on 
thofe  who  were  not  prefent,  when  it  was  firft  pro- 
nounced. But  whether  any  particular  difcourfe  a6lually 
was  delivered  more  than  once,  muft  be  determined  by 
the  circumftances  which  precede  and  follow  it :  and  in 
thofe  cafes  Only,  where  thefe  circumftances  are  different, 
it  is  allowable  to  conclude  that  the  difcourfe  was  pro- 
nounced at  different  times. 

The  rules,  which  I  have  here  given,  are  in  themfelves 
fo  clear,  that  every  reader,  without  further  explanation, 
will  probably  affent  to  them.  The  principal  difficulty 
confifts  in  the  application,  fmce  even  thofe,  who  agree 
in  the  principles,  very  frequently  difter  in  the  ufe  of 
them.  The  following  inftance  may  ferve  to  Ihew  the 
manner,  in  which  I  would  apply  the  rules  in  qucftion. 
The  Evangelifts  St.  Matthew'  and  St.  Mark'  have  related, 
that  Chrift  was  anointed  in  the  week  preceding  his  death, 

and 

^  See  Mark  xiii.  32.     i  Cor.  i.  16.     2  Cor.  xii.  2,  3. 

*  Ch.  xxvi.  6 — 13.  *  Ch.  xiv.  3 — j. 


SECT.  III.         Harmcny  of  the  Four  Gojpels,  17 

and  all  the  commentators  are  agreed  that  both  of  them 
mean  the  fame  unftion.  St.  John  likewife"  relates  that 
Chrift  was  anointed  in  the  fame  week,  and  the  undlion, 
which  he  defcribes,  is  in  my  opinion  the  very  fame  with 
that,  which  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  have  recorded, 
but  according  to  others  it  was  totally  different,  and  hap- 
pened four  days  earlier.  Now  that  two  different  unftions 
happened  twice  in  the  fame  week  with  the  fame  circum- 
ftances,  is  more  than  I  am  able  to  believe.  Should  any 
one  relate  fo  circumftantial  an  event  as  having  happened 
to  himfelf,  and  differ  in  his  account  with  refpedl  to  the 
day,  on  which  it  took  place,  I  fliould- certainly  take  the 
liberty  to  obferve  that  he  was  guilty  of  a  contradiction : 
and  if,  in  defending  himfelf  from  the  charge  of  an  in- 
confiftency,  he  fhould  contend  that  it  happened  twice 
in  the  fame  week,  I  fiiould  certainly  conclude  that  he 
tranfgreffed  the  bounds  of  truth.  The  two  undlions 
above-mentioned,  if  we  can  confider  as  two,  what  I 
believe  to  be  one,  agree  in  the  following  circum- 
llances  *.  • 

I.  Both  happened  at  Bethany. 

1.  In  both  cafes  Jefus  was  anointed  not  by  his  hoff, 
but  by  a  woman.  However  as  Chrift  was  frequently  at 
Bethany,  thefe  circumftances  are  not  fo  very  remark- 
able. 

3.  Both  unclions  took  place,  as  I  fhall  prove  in  the 
fequel,  not  in  the  houfe  of  Lazarus,  the  friend  of  Jefus, 
where  we  might  fooneft  expedt  him,  but  in  another 
houfe. 

4.  Both  happened  in  the  laft  week,  before  the  fuffering 
of  Chrift. 

5.  In  both  cafes  the  ointment  was  fo  expenfive,  that 
the  undlion  had  the  appearance  of  profufion. 

6.  In  both  cafes  we  meet  with  the  remarkable  cir- 
cumftance,  that  the  ointment  was  not  purchafed  for  the 
purpofe,  to  which  it  was  applied,  but  that  it  had  been 
preferved  for  fome  time  by  the  perfon,  who  ufed  it : 

for 

"  Ch.  xiii,  1—3. 

Vol.  III.  B 


1 8  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.         chap.  ii. 

for  the  dlfciples  were  offended  that  the  ointment  was 
not  fold,  and  the  money  given  to  the  poor,  and  in  the 
account,  which  is  given  by  St.  John  '',  it  is  exprefsly  faid 
by  Jefus,  *  Againft  the  day  of  my  burying  hath  fhe 
kept  this.'  One  might  almoft  conjefture  that  it  was  the 
remainder  of  the  ointment,  which  Martha  and  Mary 
had  purchafed  for  the  funeral  of  Lazarus :  the  thought 
prefents  itfelf  at  lead,  on  reading  St.  John's  defcription, 
as  not  improbable. 

7.  In  both  cafes  the  un6lion  is  cenfured  by  the  dif- 
ciplcs. 

8.  In  both  cafes  the  ground  of  cenfure  is  the  fame. 

9.  In  both  cafes  the  unclion  is  defended  by  Jefus, 
and  the  fame  anfwer  given  to  the  difciples. 

10.  The  expreffion  voc^Soq  -aririxTi,  which  is  not  only 
ve;y  unufual  and  therefore  obfcure,  but  occurs  in  not  a 
fingle  inftance  either  in  the  Septuagint  or  in  the  New 
Teftament,  except  on  this  occafion,  is  ufed  both  by 
St.  Mark,  and  by  St.  John  :  the  ointment  therefore  ufed 
in  both  cafes  was  ftridly  the  fame. 

Thefe  circumftances  are  too  numerous  and  too  par- 
ticular, to  have  happened  twice  :  not  to  mention  the 
improbability,  that  the  difciples,  after  having  been  re- 
buked by  Jefus  fix  days  before  Eafter,  for  having  cen- 
fured the  un6lion,  fliould  prefume  to  repeat  their 
cenfure  on  a  fimilar  occafion,  on  the  fecond  day  before 
Eafter.  For  it  contained  a  manifeft  incivility  to  Jefus 
himfelf,  which  they  mull  have  very  fenfibly  felt,  when 
he  anfwered  them,  *  The  poor  ye  have  always  with  you, 
but  me  ye  have  not  alv/ays',"  and  of  which  therefore 
they  would  have  hardly  been  guilty  only  four  days  after- 
wards. 

In  the  two  accounts,  which  are  given  by  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  John,  I  perceive  not  the  leaft  variation,  except 
that  in  fome  points  the  one  is  more  copious  than  the 
other  j  but  their  defcriptions  are  fo  far  from  being  incon- 
fiftent,  that  they  have  all  the  appearance  of  proceedings 
from  two  different  eye-witneffcs  to  the  fame  fad. 

I.  Accord* 

^  Ch.  xii.  7.  *  John  xii.  8. 


s£cT.  III.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.  19 

I.  According  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  a  woman 
anoints  Jefus  :   according  to  St.  John,  he  is  anointed  by 
Mary^  and  if  we  may  judge  from  what  he  fays  in  the 
fecond  verfe,  by  Mary  the  Sifter  of  Lazarus.     This  how- 
ever is  no  contradi6lion,  when   one  hiftorian  omits  the 
name  of  the  woman,  the  other  mentions  it.     Nay,  even 
from  the  very  filence  of  St.    Matthew  and  St.  Mark  in 
refpeft  to  the  name,  may   be  deduced  an  argument  in 
fupport  of  the   opinion,  that  the  un6lion  defcribed  by 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  John  is  the  fame.     St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Mark  muft  have  had  particular  reafons  for  con- 
ceahng  the  name  of  the  woman,   fmce  according  to  their 
own   relation  Jefus  declared    that    what  flie  had  done 
fhould  be  preached  in  the  whole  world  for  a  memorial 
of  her.     Now  this  cannot  have  happened  unlefs  fhe  was 
the  Mary  mentioned  by  St.   John:  and  it  would  follow 
from  the  fuppofition  of  two  different  unftions,  that  the 
declaration  of  Jefus  had  remained  unfulfilled.     Perhaps 
the  real  ftate  of  the  cafe  is  as  follows.     The  two  firft 
B>angelifts,  who  have  made  no  mention  of  the  raifing 
of  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  that  they  might  not  cxpofe 
him  to  perfecution  from  the  Jewifh  Sanhedrim,    have 
probably,   for  the  fame   reafon,  concealed  the  name  of 
his  fifter  Mary,  who  anointed  Jefus  with  the  ointment 
which  rem.ained   after  the   interment  of  Lazarus.     St. 
John  on  the  contrary  exprefsly  mentions  it,  becaufe  he 
wrote   after  the  deftruclion  of  Jerufalem,    and    could 
therefore  have  no  reafon  for  concealing  the  name  either 
of  Lazarus,  or  of  Mary. 

2.  According-  to  St.  Matthew,  the  entertainment  was 
given  in  the  houfe  of  Simon  the  leper :  accordmg  to  St. 
John,  Lazarus  was  one  of  them  who  fat  at  the  table 
with  him^,  and  his  fifter  Martha  ferved.  Some  com- 
mentators have  confidered  this  as  a  variation  in  the  ftory, 
and  have  concluded  from  St.  John's  defcription  that  the 
entertainment  was  given  in  the  Houfe  of  Lazarus.  But 
this  is  certainly  not  true,  fince  no  one,  in  fpeaking  of 
■  the  mafter  of  the  houfe,  would  fay,  "^  he  was  one  of 

V     thofe 

^    2 


20  '      Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap.  ir. 

thofe  who  fat  at  the  table*'  On  the  contrary,  this  very 
cxpreflion  proves  that  he  was  only  a  giieit,  and  that  the 
entertainment  was  given  in  the  houfe  of  a  Friend,  in 
which  his  tiller,  who  was  a  diligent  houfewife%  prepared 
the  table. 

3.  According  to  St.  Matthew,  the  woman  poured  the 
box  of  ointment  on  the  head  of  Jefus  j  according  to  St. 
John  flie  anointed  his  feet.  But  even  this  circumftance 
is  not  fufficient  to  prove  two  diftinft  un6tions,  though 
among  all  the  variations  it  is  the  moft  confiderable. 
That  Mary  did  not  leave  the  head  of  Jefus  unanointed 
we  may  take  for  granted  from  the  general  practice  of 
the  Eaft :  but  this  is  not  related  by  St.  John,  who  men- 
tions only  the  more  extraordinary  circumftance  omitted 
by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  that  the  woman  anointed 
his  feet.  It  is  agreeable  to  John's  peculiar  manner  to 
relate  circumftances  omitted  by  his  predecefTors. 

4.  According  to  St.  Matthew,  the  difciples  in  general, 
according  to  St.  Mark,  only  fome  of  them  had  indigna- 
tion, and  cenfured  the  woman.  This  cannot  be  confidered 
as  a  con  tradition  :  for  when  St.  Matthew  fays  in  general 
terms  *  the  difciples,'  it  does  not  aeceflarily  follow,  that 
he  meant  all  of  them  without  exception,  nor  is  it  pro- 
bable that  all  of  them  exprefted  their  opinion.  But  St. 
John  mentions  Judas  Ifcarioi,  as  the  peribn  who  cenfured 
the  aftion.  Still  however  we  cannot  conclude  that  the 
Evangelifts  have  defcribed  two  different  undions.  One 
of  the  difciples  muft  have  made  a  beginning,  to  whom 
others  acceded,  though  probably  not  in  the  fame  words. 
This  perfon  is  particularly  named  by  St.  John,  who  like- 
wife  adds  the  motive,  which  induced  him  to  caft  the 
cenfure.  Perhaps  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Peter  acceded  to 
the  opinion  of  Judas,  but  not  St.  John  :  and  hence  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Mark  fpeak  openly  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, that  they  might  not  conceal  the  part  which  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Peter  had  taken  in  this  unjuft  cenfure. 

It  is  further  obje6led,  that  the  clear  and  certain 
marks  by  which  the  time  is  determined  by  the  different 

Evangelifts, 
^  See  Luke  x.  40,' 


SECT.  in.       Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.  21 

Evangelifts,  prove  two  diflinft  tranfa6lIons :  that  St. 
John  mentions  exprefsly  the  fixth  Day  before  Eafter^,  and 
St.  Matthew  as  exprefsly  the  fecond  day  before  Eafter'', 
as  the  day  on  whicn  the  unftion  happened.  Now  that 
the  time  is  fo  clearly  determined  by  both  Evangelifts 
is  more  than  I  am  able  to  perceive;  and  if  any  one 
could  perfuade  me,  that  it  really  were  fo,  I  fhould 
inflantly  give  up  the  infpiration  either  of  one  or  both 
of  the  Evangelifts,  and  conclude  that  either  one  or 
both  of  them  were  guilty  of  a  miftake  in  , referring  to 
two  different  days  what  according  to  the  di6lates  of 
common  fenfe  could  be  only  one  and  the  fame  tranl^ 
adlion,  I  fliould  in  that  cafe  be  perfuaded,  that  if  the 
two  Evangelifts  were  now  alive,  and  could  be  quef- 
tioned  relative  to  the  prefent  difficulty,  they  would  be 
fo  far  from  contending  that  the  fame  tranfaftion  with 
all  its  concomitant  circumftances  happened  twice  in  the 
fame  week,  that  one  of  them  (namely  in  the  cafe  aflumed) 
would  candidly  own,  he  was  guilty  of  a  miftake. 

But  as  far  as  my  eyes  enable  me  to  fee,  (though 
other  eyes  perhaps  may  fee  differently  from  mine,) 
the  affertion  is  really  ungrounded.  That  St.  John  has 
determined  the  date  to  be  the  fixth  day  before  the  paff- 
over,  is  not  to  be  difpuced.  Buii  St.  Matthew  is  filent 
as  to  the  day,  on  which  the  unftion  happened  j  and  it 
is  owing  only  to  the  modern  divifion  of  Matthew's  text 
into  chapters,  that  we  fuppofe,  he  has  determined  the 
time.  The  Evangelift  has  not  written,  *  On  the  fecond 
day  before  the  paffover  Jefus  was  at  an  entertainment 
in  Bethany,'  but  after  having  related  a  difcourfe  which 
Jefus  had  made  to  his  difciples,  he  adds,  *  And  it 
came  to  pafs,  when  Jefus  had  finiftied  all  thefe  fayings, 
he  faid  unto  his  difciples,  ye  know  that  after  two  day;; 
is  the  feaft  of  the  palfover,  and  the  fon  of  man  is  be- 
trayed to  be  crucified.'  Immediately  afterwards  the 
Evangelift  relates  the  plot  which  was  formed  againft 
the   life   of  Jefus  'in  the  following  manner  j     *  Then 

(tots) 

*  John  xii.  1.  ^  Matthew  xxvi.  2. 

B3 


11  Harmony  cf  the  Four  Gofpeh.      chap.  ir. 

(roTf)  aflembled  together  the  chief  priefts,  and  the 
fcribes,  and  the  elders  of  the  people,  unto  the  palace 
of  the  high  prieft,  who  was  called  Caiaphas,  and  con- 
fulted  that  they  might  take  Jefiis  by  fubtlety,  and  kill 
him.  But  they  faid  not  on  the  feaft  day,  left  there 
be  an  uproar  among  the  people.'  Now  the  word  ton. 
which  is  capable  of  a  very  extenfive  fignification,  no 
more  determines  this  confultation  to  have  happened  on 
the  fame  day,  on  which  Jefiis  delivered  his  difcourfe 
to  the  apoftles,  than  diac  it  happened  in  the  fame, 
hour.  But  even  if  we  admit  that  both  of  them  hap- 
pened on  the  fame  day,  it  will  by  no  means  follow 
that  the  entertainment  likewife  at  Bethany  took  place 
on  that  day  j  at  leaft  the  words  with  which  St.  Matthew 
begins  his  relation  of  it  *  Now  when  Jefus  was  in 
Bethany  in  the  houfe  of  Simon  the  leper,'  contain  no 
determination  of  time,  and  may  as  eafily  refer  to  a  pre- 
ceding, as  to  a  prefent  periods 

Still  however  it  might  be  obje6led,  that  though  St. 
Matthew  and  St. Mark  have  not  exprefsly  mentioned  the 
day,  on  which  the  un6lion  took  place  in  Bethany,  they 
have  at  leaft  afiigned  to  it  a  place  in  that  part  of  their 
narrative,  where  they  were  advanced  to  within  two 
days  of  the  paflbver.  Now  this  objedion  prefuppofes 
that  the  Evangelifts  always  wrote  according  to  the 
order  of  time,  which  they  certainly  did  not :  and  if 
■we  only  make  a  different  divifion  of  the  chapters,  and 
reckon  to  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  the  two  firft  verfes 
of  the  twenty-fixth,  the  un61ion  at  Bethany,  which  is 
related  in  the  following  verfes,  will  have  lefs  reference 
to  the  time  fpecified  in  thofe  two  verfes^.  But  at  this 
rate,  perhaps  it  might  be  faid,  the  Evangelifts  have 
written  in  a  very  irregular  n)anner,  arranging  their  fads 
in  an  order  very  different  from  that  in  which  they 
really  happened,  and  that  an  irregularity  of  this  kind 
is  hardly  to  be  expedled  from  an  infpired  writer.  This 
objedtion  brings  the  matter  to  an  ifliie,  and  the  anfwer, 
which  I  would  make  to  it,  is,  that  befide  the  order  of 
time,    there  is   another  arrangement  in  hiftory  which 

may 


SECT.  III.         Harmony  of  the  Four  G  off  els,  23 

may  be  called  the  order  of  things^.  That  Is,  fa6ls 
which  are  connefted  with  each  other  are  arranged 
together,  in  order  that  the  relation  between  caufe  and 
efFedt  may  be  more  diftin6tly  feen:  and  it  is  this  very 
arrangement  which  diftinguifhes  the  entertaining  and 
inftruftive  hiftorian  from  the  mere  annalift  ^ .  To  the 
end  of  the  twenty-fifth,  or  rather  as  far  as  the  fecond 
verfe  of  the  twenty- fixth  Chapter,  St.  Matthew  had 
recorded  day  by  day  the  feveral  remarkable  difcourfes, 
which  Chrift  held  in  the  lail  week  of  his  life.  He 
then  proceeds  to  relate  the  hiftory  of  Chrift's  paflion, 
to  which  the  un6tion  at  Bethany  had  an  immediate 
relation.  The  Jewifh  Sanhedrim  had  formed  the  re- 
Iblution  to  put  Jefus  to  death,  but  not  on  the  feaft 
day:  and  it  was  the  uncStion  at  Bethany,  which  af- 
forded them  the  means  of  getting  him  into  their  power, 
though  on  the  day  which  they  had  endeavoured  to 
avoid.  This  may  be  gathered  from  St.  Matthew's  own 
relation,  who  after  having  defcrlbed  the  confultation 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  immediately  relates  the  unftion  at 
Bethany,  and  then  adds,  '  Then  one  of  the  twelve, 
called  Judas  Ifcariot,  went  unto  the  chief  priefts,  and 
faid  unto  them,  what  will  ye  give  me,  and  I  will  de- 
liver him  unto  you'?'  The  account  given  by  St.  Mat- 
thew is  in  fome  mcafure  obfcure,  becaufe  we  do  not 
perceive  in  what  manner  the  circumftance  of  the  unc- 
tion excited  in  Judas  the  refolution  to  betray  his  mafter. 
But  this  we  clearly  fee  from  the  reladon  of  St.  John, 
from  which  it  appears,  that  Judas  was  properly  the 
perfon,  who  cenfured  the  un6lion,  under  the  pretence, 
that  the  ointment  ought  to  have  been  fold  for  the 
benefit  of  the  poor,  and  that  this  fpecious  pretext  met 
likewife  with  the  approbation  of  other  Apoftlcs.  The 
true  reafon,  as  St.  John  exprefsly  declares,  why  Judas 
wifhed  that  the  ointment  had  been  fold,  was  the  hope 
of  having  a  further  opportunity  of  defrauding  the 
money    bag,    which  was   intrufted  to  his   care.      The 

anfwer 

«  Matth.  xxvi.  14,  15. 

B4 


24  Harmcny  of  the  Four  Gofpels.  chap,  ii, 

anfwer  therefore  of  Jefus  affeifled  Judas  in  particular, 
v/hofe  guilty  confcience  augmented  the  feverity  of  the 
rebuke.  Under  thefe  circumrtances  it  is  by  no  means 
extraordinary  that  Judas  refolved  to  take  revenge,  ef- 
pecially  when  we  confider  that  he  was  already  an 
apoftate  ^^  and  thought  perhaps  that,  if  contrary  to  his 
belief,  Jefus  was  really  the  Melfiah,  the  meafures  con- 
certed againft  him  would  be  of  no  avail,  but  that  on 
the  other  hand,  if  Jefus  was  an  impoftor,  he  would 
meet  v/ith  the  fare  Vv'hich  he  deferved.  It  appears  then 
that  the  undion  at  Bethany,  which  gave  rife  to  the 
offer  of  Judas  to  the  Sanhedrim  to  betray  Chrift,  is  more 
properly  arranged  immediately  before  the  relation  of 
the  effecft  which  it  produced,  than  it  would  have  been, 
if  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  twenty-firft  chapter, 
to  which  it  properly  belongs  according  to  the  order  of 
time'. 

The  preceding  example  muft  fuffice  for  the  prefent, 
fince  if  I  examined  other  parts  of  the  Evangelic  hif- 
tory  in  the  fame  manner,  I  fhould  compofe  an  Har- 
mony of  the  Gofpels,  infcead  of  writing  a  general  intro- 
duftion  to  the  New  Teftament. 

Sometimes  a  contradiction  may  be  removed  by  the 
help  of  a  various  reading,  of  which  I  have  given  an 
inftance'°  in  my  Hiftory  of  the  Refure6tion%  taken 
from  Matth.  xxvii.  60.  Of  the  aid  of  critical  conjcdure 
in  removing  ccntradidtions  I  have  given  an  example 
in  this  Introduftion*^,  from  John  vi.  11.  Laftly,  it  is 
not  improbable  that  fome  of  the  contradi6tions  obferv- 
able  in  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  did  not  proceed  from  the 
author  himfelf,  but  from  the  pcrfon  who  tranflated  it 
from  Hebrew  into  Greek. 

■*  John  vi.  67— 71.  e  P.  43 — 46. 

*  Vol.  II.  Ch.  X,  Sea.  4. 


SECT. 


SECT.  IV.  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels,  25 

SECT.    IV. 

Of  the  inference  to  he  deduced  from  thefuppofitionj  that  real 
contradi5lions  exiji  in  the  four  Gcfpels. 

IF  it  can  be  fhewn,  that  real  contradi6lions,  that  is, 
Tuch  as  are  wholly  incapable  of  a  reconciliation,  exift 
in  the  four  Gofpels,  the  only  inference  to  be  deduced 
is,  that  the  writers  were  not  infallible,  or  in  other 
words,  not  infpired  by  the  Deity ;  but  we  are  by  no 
means  warranted  to  conclude,  becaufe  the  hiftorians 
vary  in  their  accounts,  that  the  hiftory  itfelf  is  a  forgery. 
I  have  treated  this  fubjed  at  large  in  the  Preface  to  the 
Hiftory  of  the  Refurre6lion^  j  at  prefent,  therefore,  I 
Ihall  only  remark  what  deferves  particular  notice. 

When  feveral  perfons  relate  the  fame  ftory,  it  is 
hardly  poffible,  even  if  they  were  eye- witnelTes  to  the 
tranfadion  which  they  record,  and  ftill  Icfs  fo  if  they 
received  their  information  from  others,  to  coincide  ex- 
a61:ly  in  their  accounts,  fince  the  fame  circumftances 
will  either  not  be  obierved  or  not  be  remembered  by  all. 
Yet  if  they  all  agreed  in  the  main  point,  no  one  would 
conclude  that  the  whole  ftory  was  a  forgery,  merely 
becaufe  the  perfons,  who  related  it,  difagreed  in  fome 
of  the  concomitant  circumftances.  An  inference  of 
this  kind  would  convert  the  moft  valuable  hiftories  into 
fabulous  legends. 

When  two  Pruftian  officers,  who  ferved  during  the 
feven  years  war,  from  1756  to  1763,  relate  the  tranfac- 
tions  of  that  memorable  period,  each  of  them  is  guilty 
of  fome  miftakes,  efpecially  in  regard  to  dates  and 
numbers,  of  which  the  unavoidable  confcquence  is,  that 
they  will  contradid  each  other.  If  we  read  Lloyd's 
and  Tempelhoff's  Hiftory  of  this  war,  we  fliall  find 
not  only  that  they  contradift  each  other,  but  that  both 
of  them  frequently  contradi6t  the  ofticial  intelligence 
printed  in  the  Berlin  Gazette.  I  will  mention  as  an 
jnftance  the   battle  of  Prague,    in   which  Lloyd  has 

made 
t  P.  xviii. — Iviii^ 


0.6  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap,  it, 

made  the  lift  of  killed  and  wounded  on  the  part  of  the 
Auftrians  fo  very  inconfiderable,  as  to  be  almoft  incre- 
dible, when  we  confider  the  important  confequences,  to 
which  that  engagement  immediately  led.  Yet  no  one 
would  therefore  conclude,  either  that  the  fcven  years 
war  in  general,  or  the  battle  of  Prague  in  particular, 
was  a  mere  fable.  Whoever  has  examined  the  fources 
of  the  Roman  hiftory,  not  barely  with  a  view  of 
learning  a  dead  language,  but  with  the  eye  of  a 
critical  hiftorian,  muft  have  obferved  many  contra- 
didlions,  which  no  art  can  pofTibly  reconcile.  The 
battle  of  Pharfalia,  for  inftance,  is  defcribed  by  Florus 
in  a  manner  very  different  from  that,  in  which  it  is  de- 
fcribed by  Csefar :  for  in  their  accounts  of  the  number 
of  the  combatants,  which  entered  the  field  on  both 
fides,  there  is  a  difference  of  not  lefs  than  an  hundred 
and  fifty  thoufand.  Yet  no  man  would  therefore 
contend  that  the  battle  of  Pharfalia,  which  determined 
the  fate  of  the  world,  was  a  mere  fable.  It  is  the  fame 
with  the  Grecian  hiftory  even  in  the  moft  enlightened 
ages,  as  appears  from  the  contradiftions  in  the  accounts 
which  we  read  of  the  expedition  of  Xerxes,  and  the 
ftrength  of  his  army.  The  hiftory  of  the  celebrated 
Judas  Maccab^EUS,  as  related  in  the  firft  book  of  the 
Maccabees,  a  work  written  at  the  fame  time  when  Judas 
himfelf  lived,  differs  frequently  from  the  fame  hiftory 
as  related  in  the  fecond  book  of  the  Maccabees,  and 
fometimes  from  the  accounts  of  Jofephus.  Nay,  what 
is  ftill  more,  we  find  Jofephus  contradifting  even  him- 
felf, when  we  compare  his  Antiquities  with  his  Hiftory 
of  the  Jewifh  war.  I  mention  Jofephus  in  particular, 
as  an  author  in  whofe  writings  contradi6lions  are  to  be 
found,  becaufe  I  can  refer,  in  fupport  of  my  affertion, 
to  my  notes  to  the  firft  book  of  the  Maccabees,  in 
which  many  of  thofe  contradi6lions  are  noted. 

If  the  four  Evangelifts  were  not  rendered  infallible 
by  the  immediate  intervention  of  the  Deity,  it  is  hardly 
poffible,  that  their  accounts  ftiould  be  wholly  free  from 
error,  and  therefore  in  no  cafe  contradidory  to  each 

other. 


SECT.  IV.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.  if 

other.  But  even  if  it  be  true,  that  their  accounts  are 
fometimes  at  variance,  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  the 
hiftory  itfclf,  the  miracles  and  the  refurredion  of  Chrift 
are  a  forgery:  and  the  only  inference,  which  we  can 
deduce  from  it,  is  that  the  Evangelifls  were  not  infpired, 
at  lead  not  in  the  relation  of  hiftorical  fa6ls.  I  have 
already  obferved  in  this  Introduftion*",  as  well  as  in  my 
Hiftory  of  the  Refurreftion',  that  a  concefTion  of  this 
kind  is  no  injury  to  the  Chriftian  religion  :  to  two  of 
the  Evangelifts,  Mark  and  Luke,  the  promife  of  the 
fupernatural  affiftance  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  which  was 
given  by  Chrift  to  the  Apoftles,  is  wholly  inapplicable, 
and  I  have  freely  confefled  in  the  firft  volume  of  this  work'', 
that  I  can  fee  no  proof  of  their  having  been  infpired. 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  John  were,  it  is  true,  Apoftles; 
but  ftiall  we  therefore  conclude  that  they  were  infpired 
in  matters  of  hiftory  ^  The  paflage  which  I  quoted  in 
the  chapter  on  Infpiration  from  John  xiv.  16.  "  The 
Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghoft,  whom  the  Father 
will  fend  in  my  name,  Ihall  teach  you  all  things,  and 
bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  whatfoever  I 
have  faid  unto  you,"  contains  a  promife  of  affiftance 
from  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  of  the  infallibility  arifing 
from  that  affiitancc,  merely  in  refpe6l  to  the  fpeeches 
and  difcourfes  of  Chrift,  which  form  the  prim.ary  fource 
of  our  religious  faith  and  knowledge :  but  it  contains 
no  promife,  at  leaft  none  in  direft  and  pofitive  terms, 
of  any  fupernatural  aid  in  the  recording  of  fads,  which 
they  had  either  fecn  themfelves,  or  heard  from  others. 
To  fpeak  the  truth,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Evange- 
lifts were  divinely  infpired  in  matters  of  hiftory  ;  I  have 
made  this  declaration  already  in  the  fecond  edition  of 
my  Dogmatic  Theology',  where  I  have  given  the 
grounds  of  my  opinion,  which  it  is  here  unneceftary  to 
tranfcribe.  This  opinion  by  no  means  impugns  the 
doflrines  of  the  Lutheran  church,  as  delivered  in  the 
Symbolic  Books*,    though  it  is  contrary  to   the  tenets 

which 


*  Vol.1,  ch.  iii.  fed.  i.  '  P.  xxxv. 

^  Ch.  iii.  feft.  3.  '  P.  125,  126. 


48  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels.  chap.  n. 

which   are  advanced  in  many  of  our  fyftems  of  divi- 
nity. 

Are  there  realty  contradiflions  then,  it  may  be  afked, 
in  the  four  Gnfpels,  which  are  utterly  incapable  of  be- 
ing reconciled  ?  I  will  not  pofitivtly  and  decidedly  aflert 
that  there  are,  becaufe,  as  every  aflcrtion  requires  proof, 
I  fhould  be  under  the  neceflity  of  examining  at  each 
particular  example  the  various  argum.ents,  which  have 
been  alleged  both  for  and  againft  the  queftion,  which 
would  give  rife  to  a  difquifition  too  long  for  the  prefent 
place.  I  will  only  fay  therefore,  it  appears  to  me,  that 
there  are  fuch  contradidtions ;  but  their  number  is  very 
inconfiderable,  and  indeed  much  more  inconfiderable, 
than  in  proportion  to  the  variety  of  matter  in  the  four 
Gofpels  we  might  reafonably  expedl.  I  will  mention  a 
/ingle  inftance,  the  account  of  the  -blind  Bartimeus  at 
Jericho,  related  Matth.  xx.  29 — 34.  Mark  x.  46 — 52. 
Luke  xviii,  ^S — 43-  ^  '^'^^  "°  contradi6lion  in  the  cir- 
cumftance,  that  St.  Matthew,  who  was  eye- witnefs  to  the 
tranfaflion,  fpeaks  of  two  blind  perfons,  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Luke  on  the  contrary  of  only  one,  who  by  St.  Mark 
is  called  Bartimeus  :  fmce  it  is  polTible  that  two  blind 
perfons  on  that  occafion  received  their  fight,  that  both 
of  them  were  known  to  St.  Matthew,  who  was  prefent  at 
the  time,  but  that  only  one  of  them  was  known  to  St. 
Mark  and  St.  Luke,  who  were  not  eye-witnelTes  to  the 
fad.  So  far  then  the  accounts  are  not  contradidlory,  and 
all  that  can  be  faid  is,  that  one  Evangelift  has  related  lefs, 
than  is  related  by  the  other,  becaufe  he  was  not  omni- 
fcient,  and  therefore  did  not  know  all  that  happened. 
But  when  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  of  whom  the 
former  was  eye-witnefs,  relate  that  the  miracle  was  per- 
formed by  Chrift  *  as  he  went  out  of  Jericho,'  St.  Luke 
on  the  contrary  ^  as  he  was  come  nigh  unto  Jericho,* 
and  moreover  the  entry  into  that  city  is  mentioned  by 
St.  Luke™  as  having  taken  place  after  the  performance 
of  the  miracle,  I  confefs  that  I  am  wholly  unable  to 
reconcile  the  contradidion,  and  mufl  therefore  conclude 

that 

"  Chap.  xlx.  1. 


SECT.  V.  HarmoTTy  of  the  Four  Gqfpels.  29 

that  St.  Luke,  who  was  not  an  eye-wltnefs  to  the  fa6l, 
was  in  this  inftance  miitaken.  In  a  fubfequent  part  of 
this  Introdii6lion,  where  I  treat  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel 
in  particular,  I  Ihall  take  notice  of  feveral  examples 
of  this  kind,  and  obferve  that  the  moft  material  contra- 
di6lions,  which  I  am  unable  to  reconcile,  are  between 
St.  Luke  and  thofe  two  Evangelifts,  who  were  eye- 
witnefies  to  the  fa6ls,  which  they  have  recorded. 

Whether  St.  John  has  correded  in  an  indireft  and 
delicate  manner  the  faults  of  his  predeceffors  is  a  quef- 
tion,  which  I  fhall  referve  for  that  part,  where  I  efpecially 
examine  the  Gofpel  of  that  Evangehft. 


SECT.     V. 

Examination  of  the  different  degrees  of  importance  in  the 
■  different  kinds  of  contradiction  objervable  in  the  Four 
Gofpels. 

THE  contradiv5lions  obfervable  in  the  four  Gofpels, 
even  fuch  as  may  be  fhewn  to  be  real,  are  of  very 
different  degrees  of  importance,  which  ought  to  be  par- 
ticularly noted,  though  they  have  hitherto  engaged  but 
feldom  the  attention  of  the  harmonifts. 

In  the  firft  place,  if  a  contradidion  exifts  between 
the  tv/elve  lad  verfes  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  and  the  other 
Gofpels,  it  is  of  no  importance  whatfoever,  and  afFeds 
not  even  the  queftion  of  divine  infpiration  :  for  that 
thefe  twelve  verfes  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  St.  Mark 
is  more  than  any  one  can  prove.  In  the  fequel  I  fhall 
treat  of  them  more  at  large. 

Secondly,  a  contradidion  between  either  St.  Mark  or 
St.  Luke,  who  were  neither  Apoftles  nor  eye-witneffes, 
and  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John,  who  were  both,  proves 
nothing  more  than,  that  they  were  not  infpircd.  In  a 
difagreement  of  this  kind,  it  is  reafonablc  that  we 
Ihould  be  guided  by  the  authority  of  the  eve-witnefles. 

Thirdly, 


JO  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.         chap.  ii. 

Thirdly,  a  contradiftion  between  the  Gofpel  of  St. 
Luke  and  the  two  firft  chapters  of  St.  Matthew's  Gof- 
pel is  of  ftill  lefs  importance,  becaufe  it  may  be  doubted, 
whether  thefe  two  chapters  v/ere  written  by  St.  Matthew. 
Even  if  we  admitted  therefore  that  what  is  written  by 
St.  Luke*,  ch.  ii.  51.  were  not  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
account  given  in  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  of  the  coming 
of  the  wife  men  from  the  Eaft,  and  the  flight  of  Jefus 
into  Egypt,  which  however  in  my  opinion  is  very  pof- 
fible,  we  fhould  ftill  have  no  reafon  to  doubt  the  truth 
of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  and  of  the  New  Teftament  at 
large,  but  only  either  of  the  two  firft  chapters  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gofpel,  which  in  other  refpeds  abound  with 
difficulties,  or  the  relation  which  is  given  by  St.  Luke. 

Fourthly,  real  contradiftions  between  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  John,  which  are  wholly  incapable  of  reconciliation, 
prove  nothing  more,  than  that  the  Apoftles  were  not 
infpired  in  hiftorical  matters.  But  as  I  have  already 
obferved,  thefe  contradictions  may  be  afcribed  to  the 
Greek  tranflator  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel. 

Fifthly,  the  contradictions  of  the  greateft  importance, 
if  we  except  Mark  xvi.  9 — 20  are  thofe  which  have 
been  obferved  in  the  hiftory  of  the  refurreftion,  be- 
caufe the  truth  of  this  hiftory,  and  the  teftimony  of 
thofe  perfons,  who  are  alledged  as  witnefTes  of  its  reality, 
determine  in  a  great  meafure  the  truth  of  the  Chriftian 
religion.  Notwithftanding  the  pains,  which  have  been 
taken  to  reconcile  thefe  contradiftions,  I  am  of  opinion, 
that  our  endeavours  have  not  been  fo  fuccefsful  as  we 
commonly  believe;  though  on  the  other  hand,  I  have 
fallen  fometimes,  as  it  were  by  accident,  on  fatisfaCtory 
folutions,  where  after  the  moft  ftudied  and  anxious  at- 
tempts I  have  failed  of  fuccefs.  This  is  not  the  place 
to  introduce  the  refult  of  my  inquiries,  which  I  muft" 
referve  either  for  my  public  leftures,  or  for  my  notes 
on  the  four  Gofpcls  if  1  ftiould   live  to  publifh  them  *. 

Thus  far  I  had  written   in   the   year  1777,  and  I 

purpofely  leave  it  unaltered  in  the  prefent  edition,  that 
the  public  may  be  convinced,  it  is  not  my  intention  to 

-fupprefs 


SECT.  VI.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  31 

fupprefs  the  diiEculties,  which  I  feel.  The  Fragments, 
as  they  were  called,  which  were  publifhed  by  LefTing 
in  that  very  year,  in  the  fourth  number  of  the  *  Con- 
tributions to  hiftory  and  literature,  from  the  treafures 
of  the  ducal  library  at  Wolfenbiittel,' '  in  which  an 
anonymous  writer  attacked  the  Chriftian  religion,  and 
particularly  the  hiftory  of  the  refurredion  '•■,  induced 
me  to  renew  my  inquiries,  the  refult  of  which  I  pub- 
lifhed in  the  year  1783,  in  a  work  entitled,  '  Expofition 
of  the  hiftory  of  Chrift's  burial  and  refurredion,  ac- 
cording to  all  four  Evangelifts,'  and  which  I  leave  to 
the  examination  of  the  reader  K 


SECT,    VI. 

An  account  of  the  principal  Harmonies. 

I  WILL  now  proceed  to  an  account  of  thofe  writers, 
who  have  endeavoured  to  reconcile  the  four  Evange- 
lifts, and  to  reduce  their  hiftory  to  chronological  order; 
which  will  afford  likewife  an  opportunity  of  making 
fome  remarks  on  feveral  explanations  relative  to  the 
Gofpels.  But  it  is  far  from  my  defign  to  mention  all 
the  writers  who  have  written  harmonies  :  a  tolerably 
complete  lift  of  them,  in  alphabetical  order,  may  be 
feen  in  Fabricii  Bibliotheca  Graeca ',  Lib.  iv.  Cap.  v. 
§  20,  and  a  more  entertaining  hiftorical  defcription  of 
them  is  contained  in  E.  D.  Hauber's  Life  of  Jefus 
thrift*,  p.  I — 14. 

To  begin  with  the  ancient  harmonies,  it  is  well 
known  that  Tatian  of  Syria,  and  Theophilus  Biftiop  of 
Antioch,  v/rote  harmonies  as  early  as  the  fecond  cen- 
tury. A  work  fuppofed  to  be  the  Harmony  of  Tatian 
was  publiftied  by  Ottomar  Lufcinius%  in  15235  and 
in  the  following  year  1524,  Michael  Member  publifhed 
another  harmony,  which  was  atrtibuted  to  Ammonius 
of  Alexandria  *.     But  though  thefe  works  are  of  great 

antiquity. 


22  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels,         chap.  ii. 

antiquity,  it  is  doubted  whether  they  are  genuine  *. 
See  Fabricii  Codex  Apocryphus  N.  T.  p.  378.  The 
real  Diateffaron  (J'tolto-o-a^wv)  of  Tatian,  or  his  Ar- 
rangement of  the  tranfa6Vions  of  Chrift  according  to 
the  four  Evangelifts  is  no  longer  extant :  but  the  cir- 
cumftance  of  his  having  written  a  work  of  that  kind 
deferves  to  be  remembered,  becaufe  it  is  of  fome  im- 
portance in  ecclefiaflical  hiftory.  It  is  fuppofed  that 
this  is  the  work,  which  we  find  fometimes  quoted  in 
ancient  writers  by  the  name  of  *  the  Syrian*.' 

Eufebius  has  compofed  a  very  celebrated  Harmony 
of  the  Goipels.  He  has  divided  the  evangelic  hiftory 
into  ten  canons,  or  tables,  which  are  prefixed  to  many 
edidons  and  verfions  of  the  New  Teftament.  In  the 
firft  canon  he  has  arranged  according  to  the  ancient 
chapters^  thofe  parts  of  the  hiftory  of  Chrift,  which 
are  related  by  all  four  Evangelifts.  In  the  reft  he  has 
diipofed  the  portions  of  hiftory  related  by 

2.  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke. 

3.  St.  Matthew,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  John. 

4.  St.  Matthew,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  John. 

5.  St.  Matthew,  and  St.  Luke. 

6.  St.  Matthew,  and  St.  Mark. 

7.  St.  Matthew,  and  St.  John. 

8.  St.  Luke,  and  St.  Mark. 

9.  St.  Luke,  and  St.  John. 

10.  Only  one  of  the  four  Evangelifts^. 

It  is  evident  from  a  bare  infpedion  of  thefe  tables, 
that  they  are  nothing  more  than  indexes  to  the  four 
Gofpels,  and  that  they  by  no  means  form  an  harmony, 
of  the  nature  of  thofe,  which  have  been  written  in 
modern  ages,  and  which  are  defigned  to  bring  the 
feveral  fadls  recorded  by  the  Evangelifts  into  chronolo- 
gical order,  and  to  reconcile  contradi6lions. 

I  fhall  not  detain  the  reader  any  longer  either  with 
thefe  ancient  harmonies,  or  with  thofe  of  the  middle 
ages,  as  they  are  very  little  ufed,  and  men  of  learning 
content  themfelves  with  being  able  to  enumerate  their 
titles,  without  ever  confulting  the  works  themfelves. 

But 


SECT.  VI.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  33 

But  there  are  two  in  particular,  which  I  cannot  pafs 
over  without  mentioning  at  leaft  their  names,  Ludol- 
phus'  de  vita  Jefu  Chrifti,  and  Gerfon '°  MonotefTaron 
de  concordantia  evangeliftarum. 

The  celebrated  Andreas  Ofiander  publifhed  the  firft 
edition  of  his  Harmony  of  the  Gofpels  in  1537.  He 
adopred  the  principle,  that  the  Evangelifts  conftantly 
wrote  in  chronological  order,  and  that  the  fame  tranf- 
adions  and  difcourfes  took  place  twice  or  thrice  in  the 
life  of  Chrift.  From  this  alone  we  may  judge  of  the 
merits  of  the  work  itfelf.  Ofiander  is  the  head  and 
leader  of  thofe  harmonifts  who  undefigncdly  render  the 
Gofpel  hiftory  not  only  fufpicious,  but  incredible.  It 
muft  be  acknowledged  however  that  he  has  not  gone 
fo  far  as  his  fuccelTors,  and  that  he  fometimes  deviates 
from  his  general  principle. 

Cornelii  Janfenii  commentaria  in  concordiam  evan- 
gelicam,  publillied  "  in  1571,  is  at  the  fame  time  an 
expolition  of  the  four  Gofpels. 

Mardn  Chemnitz  wrote  a  very  ample  harmony  of 
the  Gofpels,  which  was  continued  by  Polycarp  Leyfer, 
and  John  Gerhard.  The  firft  edition  of  it  appeared 
in"  1593,  and  the  lad  edition  was  publifhed  at  Ham- 
burgh in  1704.  It  confifts  of  three  volumes  folio,  and 
is  not  only  a  harm.ony,  but  likewife  a  learned  com- 
mentary on  the  Gofpels :  but  the  author  has  too  clofely 
followed  Ofiander  '^ 

Samuel  Craddock's  Harmony  of  the  Evangelifts, 
which  is  alfo  a  learned  and  entertaining  expofition  of 
the  Gofpels,  was  publifhed  in  London  in  1668  in 
folio  '*.  Craddock  has  drawn  up  the  Gofpel  hiftory  in 
an  explanatory  paraphrafe  in  Englifh,  and  has  added 
fhort  but  ufeful  notes  in  Latin. 

Sandhagen  publifhed  his  Introdu6lion  to  the  har- 
mony of  the  Gofpels  in  1684.  However  great  the 
merits  of  this  author  are  in  refpeft  to  the  facred  wri- 
tings in  general,  I  cannot  bedow  m.uch  praife  on  this 
work  in  particular,  for  the  principle,  which  I  cenfured 
in  Ofiander,  is  carried -here  to  a  ftili  greater  length. 

Vol.  III.  C  Bern. 


j4  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap.  ii. 

Bern.  Lamy  Commentarius  in  harmoniam  five  con- 
cordiam  Evangeliftarum,  publiflied  at  Paris  in  1699,  is 
a  learned  work,  and  it  is  itfelf  a  commentary  on  the 
Gofpels  '^ 

Johan.  Clerici  harmonia  evangelica,  printed  at  Am- 
fterdam"^  in  1700,  is  an  ufeful  book.  Le  Clerc  has 
in  general  very  juft  notions  with  refpeft  to  an  har- 
mony of  the  Gofpels,  which  he  has  delivered  in  a 
diflertation  annexed  to  his  work.  He  has  arranged 
the  hiftory  of  the  four  Evangelifts  according  to  chro- 
nological order,  in  columns  parallel  to  each  other,  in 
Greek  and  in  Latin :  under  the  text  he  has  added  a 
Latin  paraph rafe,  the  defign  of  which  is  to  remove  the 
apparent  contradi6lions. 

William  Whifton's  *  Short  view  of  the  Chronology 
of  the  Old  Teftament,  and  of  the  Harmony  of  the 
four  Evangelifts,'  publifhed  at  Cambridge  in  1702,  de- 
ferves  particular  notice.  Whifton  is  of  opinion,  that 
the  pLvangelifts  wrote  according  to  the  order  of  time, 
except  in  one  fingle  paflage :  and  that  the  reafon,  why 
St.  Matthew  appears  to  be  at  variance  with  the  other 
Evangelifts,  is  that  the  chapters  in  his  Gofpels,  from 
the  fourth  to  the  tenth  '^,  have  been  ftrangely  con- 
founded and  intermixed  by  the  copyifts.  This  opinion 
he  endeavours  to  fupport  by  the  circumftance,  that 
in  St.  Mark's  Gofpel,  which  he  fuppofes  to  be  only  an 
abridgment  of  St.  MaLthew's,  a  very  different  arrange- 
ment is  obferved,  from  that  which  we  find  at  prefent 
in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew'*.  My  fcntiments  on  this 
fubje6l  I  ftiall  deliver  in  the  laft  fedion  of  this  chapter. 

Jo.  Reinh.  Rus  publiflied  at  lena  in  1727,  in  four 
volumes  o61avo*%  a  v/ork  entitled,  Harmonia  evange- 
liftarum ita  adornata,  uc,  inveftigata  fedulo  textus  co- 
hcprentia,  nuUus  verfus  five  trajiciatur,  five  pra^tereatur 
fine  brevi  et  fuccinfta  explicatione,  quo  jufti  com- 
mentarii  loco  efie  queat.  He  follows  principally  Sand- 
hagen,  and  there  is  nothing  in  his  explanations,  which 
is  particularly  remarkable.  Wherever  he  has  an  op- 
portunity of  difplaying  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  an- 
tiquities. 


SECT.  vr.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels.  3c 

tiquities,  or  of  the  geography  of  Paleftine,  he  is 
extremely  prolix,  and  introduces  matter,  which  is 
wholly  foreign  to  the  purpofe  of  explaining  the  paf- 
fages  in  queftion.  For  inftance,  in  his  notes  on  St.  Luke 
i.  J 9,  40.  he  inquires  what  the  name  of  the  city  was, 
in  which  Elizabeth  dwelt :  and  after  having  obferved, 
that  fome  commentators  fuppofe  it  to  have  been  Hebron, 
he  gives  the  ancient  hiftory  of  that  city,  mentions  its 
various  names,  relates  what  perfons  were  buried  there, 
and  even  examines  whether  it  was  not  the  burial 
place  of  Adam.  In  fhort  his  obje6l  was  to  write  a 
great  deal,  in  order  that  his  work  might  appear  to  be 
very  learned,  though  the  author's  learning  extended 
no  further  than  to  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew :  hence 
he  was  obliged  to  be  prolix,  or  his  work  would,  in  his 
own  opini©n,  have  been  too  fmall. 

Bengel,  in  his  Harmony  of  the  Gofpels,  publifhed 
in  1736,  proceeds  upon  more  juft  principles,  and  main- 
tains that  the  Evangelifts  did  not  write  merely  in 
chronological  order.  But  the  chronology,  which  Ben- 
gel  has  adopted,  is  not  at  all  times  to  be  defended, 
and  the  arrangement  which  he  has  chofen  for  the 
feveral  fads  is  too  frequently  the  refult  of  a  particular 
fyftem. 

In  the  year  following,  E.  D.  Hauber  publiflied, 
I.  *  An  Harmony  of  the  Evangelifts,'  in  which  the 
words  of  the  Evangelifts  themfelves,  according  to  the 
German  verfion,  are  printed  in  the  order  which,  in 
Mr.  Haubcr's  opininion,  correfponds  to  the  time  in 
which  each  tranfaclion  happened.  2.  '  The  Life  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  taken  from  the  accounts  of  all  the  four 
Evangelifts,  reduced  into  a  fmall  compafs,  and  ac- 
companied with  a  general  Introduftion  to  the  Harmony 
of  the  Evangelifts.'  3.  "  Harmonical  Obfervadons." 
Of  thefe  writings  the  laft  is  the  moft  valuable,  the  two 
former  being  of  lefs  value,  on  account  of  the  prin- 
ciple, which  the  author  had  adopted,  and  from  which 
he  has  never  deviated,  that  the  four  Gofpels  are  ab- 

c  2  folute 


^6  Harmony  of  ihe  Four  Go/pels.         chap,  il 

folute  journals,  and  never  deviate   from  the   order  of 
time  ". 

In  the  year  1756  Biifching  publifhed  the  firft  volume 
of  an  harmony  under  the  title,  *  The  four  EvangeUfts 
put  together  in  their  own  words,  tranflaced  into  Ger- 
man, and  accompanied  with  numerous  annotations*',' 
a  work  both  entertaining  and  inftruflive,  and  contain- 
ing in  particular  much  valuable  geographical  informa- 
tion, which  throws  a  light  on  many  pafTages  of  the  life 
of  Chrift,  which  were  before  obfcure.  In  the-  arrange- 
ment of  the  tranfadions  Biifching  chiefly  follows  Hau- 
ber :  in  this  refped  therefore  we  are  of  different 
opinions,  yet  I  have  a  great  defire  to  fee  the  work 
completed. 

In  the  next  year,  namely  in  1767,  Berding  publifhed  a 
*  New  Harmony  of  the  four  Evangelifts",'  a  work  found- 
ed on  principles  diametrically  oppofite  to  thofe  adopted 
by  Biifching,  a  work  likewife,  which  fhews  the  author 
to  have  poffeffed  a  confiderable  (hare  of  penetration,  and 
which  deferves  particular  attention.  As  far  as  general 
principles  go,  I  perfedly  accede  to  the  opinion  of  this 
author:  but  I  would  not  have  it  underftood,  that  I 
agree  with  him  in  their  application  to  each  particular 
cafe,  or  in  the  arrangement  of  every  tranfa6lion  *\ 

Whoever  is  in  polTeffion  of  the  harmonies  written 
by  Whifton,  Bengel,  Hauber,  Biifching,  and  Berding, 
may  in  general  difpenfe  with  the  other  more  volu- 
minous harmonies  :  for  in  thofe,  which  I  have  here 
enumerated,  he  will  find  the  grounds  of  the  different 
opinions  advanced  by  the  feveral  harmonifts  fully  ex- 
plained and  defended**.  With  refpefl  to  thofe  writers 
who  have  not  written  general  harmonies,  but  have 
attempted  only  to  reconcile  fingle  contradidions,  the 
reader  will  excufe  me,  if  I  pafs  them  over  in  filence,  as 
the  enumeration  of  them  would  take  up  too  much  room 
for  the  prefent  fedion  *^ 


SECT. 


SECT.  VII.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels,  37 

SECT.    VII. 

Harmony  of  the  Gofpels  propofed  by  the  author  of  this 
Introduilion. 

THE  harmony,  which  I  fhall  deliver  in  this  feftion, 
is  a  table  of  contents  to  the  four  Evangelifts  ', 
which  I  have  drawn  up  with  a  view  of  aflifting  the 
reader  in  his  examination  of  the  feveral  tranfaftions 
recorded  in  the  Gofpels  and  of  direfling  his  judge- 
ment in  the  various  inferences,  to  which  fuch  an  ex- 
amination may  give  birth.  I  will  firft  however  explain 
the  principles,  upon  which  this  table  is  formed. 

I.  Chronology,  and  the  arrangement  of  fads  accord- 
ing to  the  order  of  time,  a  matter,  which  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Mark  at  leaft  have  wholly  difregarded  %  and  to 
which  the  Evangelifts  in  general  have  paid  much  lefs 
attention  than  is  imagined  by  thofe,  who  confider  their 
Gofpels  as  journals,  is  difcoverable  only  in  fome  few  paf- 
fages  of  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Luke  and  St.  John  \  For  in- 
ftance,  St.  Luke  has  determined,  ch,  iii.  1-3.  the  period 
at  which  John  the  Baptift,  who  was  at  that  time  about 
thirty  years  of  age,  began  publicly  to  preach  *.  Again, 
from  a  comparifon  of  ch.  i.  8  with  1  Chron.  xxiv.  10, 
we  find  that  the  annunciation  of  the  birth  of  St.  John 
happened  in  the  fourth  month  of  the  Jews,  which  cor- 
refponds  nearly  to  our  July^  confequently  the  concep- 
tion of  St.  John  (which  took  place  foon  after  the  return 
of  Zacharias  from  his  fervice  in  the  Temple)  in  the 
month  of  Auguft*:  whence  it  appears  that  John  was 
born  in  May  "^ ^  and  Jefus  in  Oflober". — St.  John  likewife, 

by 

"  It  is  true,  that  according  to  this  mode  of  reckoning  Jefus  was 
born  at  a  different  part  of  the  year  from  that,  in  which  we  celebrate 
his  birth.  But  our  feftivals  were  not  arranged  according  to  the  time, 
in  which  the  feveral  events  intended  to  be  celebrated  really  h  ippened; 
for  they  were  fubftituted  in  the  place  of  heathen  feftivals,  in  order  to 
annihilate  even  the  traces  of  heathenifm.  Thus  the  fellival  called 
Nati vitas  Invidi  was  converted  into  Nativitas  Chrifti^ 

C  3 


3 8  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap.  ii. 

by  determining  the  feafts  of  the  PafTover,  and  other 
fealls,  at  which  Jefus  was  prefent  in  Jerufalem,  has  in 
feme  meafure  introduced  chronology  into  his  hiftory 
of  Chrift's  miniftry,  which  may  be  applied  to  the 
other  Gofpels,  bccaufe  St.  John  has  fome  material  fa6ls, 
which  form  fo  many  epochs,  or  points  of  reckoning,  in 
the  life  of  Chrift,  in  common  with  the  other  Evange- 
lifts'.     See  the  following  Table,  N°.  21.  53.  97. 

2.  But  not  all  the  fingle  fa6ls,  related  by  the  three 
firft  Evangelifts,  can  be  introduced  with  certainty  either 
in  the  intervals  determined  by  the  above-mentioned 
feafts  of  the  Paflbver,  or  in  the  intervals  determined 
by  the  three  principal  points  of  reckoning  juft  men- 
tioned, becaufe  the  Evangelifts  follow  not  always  the 
order  of  time. 

3.  For  this  reafon,  I  would  not  have  the  reader  fup- 
pofe,  that  the  feveral  fafts  delivered  in  the  following 
Table  are  arranged,  without  exception,  according  to 
the  order,  in  which  they  really  happened :  for  it  is 
my  intention  to  give  rather  a  General  Index  to  the 
Four  Gofpels,  than  to  draw  up  a  Chronological  Table. 
In  general,  I  follow  St.  Matthew,  who  was  eye-witnefs  to 
the  fadls  which  he  has  recorded,  and  from  whofe 
arrangement  I  fhall  not  depart,  except  for  particular 
reafons,  as  in  N°  23 — 3^- 

4.  I  fhall  not  attempt  to  determine  the  time  with 
any  certainty,  except  in  thofe  cafes,  where  it  is  deter- 
mined by  the  Evangelifts  themfelves ;  as,  for  inftance, 
where  they  fay,  *  on  the  evening  of  the  fame  day,'  or, 
*  on  the  following  morning,'  or  as  in  N°  6^,  '  a.(ttrjix 
days,'  which  I  do  not  confider  as  a  contradidlion  to 
St.  Luke,  who  fays,  *  abouc  eigbf  days  after.'  It  is  true 
that  in  thefe  determinations  of  time  the  Evangelifts 
might  make  miftakes,  if  they  were  not  rendered  in- 
fallible by  divine  infpiration :  but  of  hiftorians  in  ge- 
neral we  fuppofe  that  their  accounts  are  exaft,  till  we 
have  reafon  to  believe  the  contrary,  and  I  know  of  no 
fuch  reafon,  which  takes  place  in  regard  to  the  Evan- 
gelifts.    When  one  Evangelift  determines  the   time, 

and 


SECT.  vir.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  39 

and  the  other  does  not;  for  inftance,  when  the  one 
unites  feveral  fa6ts  in  fiich  a  manner,  as  to  (hew  that 
they  happened  on  the  fame  day,  but  the  other  feparates 
them  in  his  narrative,  I  follow  the  former  in  preference 
to  the  latter. 

5.  St.  Luke,  ch.  ix,  51. — xviii.  14.  has  recorded  a  fet 
of  fafts  without  any  determination  of  time,  and  which 
appear  to  have  happened  in  different  years.  Thefe 
hdis,  I  arrange  (N°.  69 — 83)  in  the  order  in  which 
they  are  placed  in  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  except  thofe,  which 
are  determined  in  point  of  time  by  other  Evangelifts  : 
but  this  order  muft  not  be  confidered  as  chronological. 
In  fome  of  thefe  fads,  for  inftance,  N".  69,  77,  are 
traces,  from  which  we  may  perceive,  that  they  hap- 
pened a  few  months  before  the  death  of  Chrillj  but 
fome  of  them  certainly  happened  much  earlier.  Jt  is 
therefore  not  commendable,  that  harmonifts,  not  ex- 
cepting even  the  excellent  Archbifhop  LJfher,  have 
interwoven  them  in  the  continued  narrative  of  the  life 
of  Chrift,  into  which  they  cannot  with  any  propriety 
be  introduced.  Several  volumes  of  anecdotes  of  the 
late  King  of  PrufTia  have  lately  been  publillied,  but 
wholly  without  regard  to  the  order  of  time.  Any 
perfon  therefore,  who  undertook  to  compofe  a  chro- 
nological journal  of  the  life  of  the  late  King,  might 
introduce  all  thofe  anecdotes,  of  which  the  time  is 
capable  of  being  determined :  but  thofe,  which  ad- 
mit of  no  determination,  he  would  be  obhged  to 
omit. 

6.  That  I  do  not  deny,  there  are  contradictions  in 
the  Gofpels,  appears  from  what  I  have  already  written 
on  this  fubjeft :  but  the  greateft  part  of  them  admit  of 
a  reconciliation,  which  however  I  cannot  attempt  at 
prefent,  becaufe  it  is  a  fubjed,  which  properly  belongs 
to  the  Notes  to  the  New  Teftament. 


c  4  St^ 


.^^ 


40 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.         chap.  11. 


St.  MATTHEW '°. 


<"}        2.  Genealogy  of  Chrift. 
f    I.  1-17. 


6.  Jofeph's  dream,  I.  1  8- 
24. 


6\       8.  Birth  orChrifl,  I.  25. 


II.  Jefus  fought,  andvv'or- 
Jhipped  by  the  wife  men: 
flight  into  Egypt,  and 
return:  mafiacreofthe 
children  of  Bethlehem, 
Ch.  II.  1-23. 


St.  mark. 


SECT.  VII.         Harmony  of  tl 
"^'.^/^       St.  LUKE. 

y             I.  Preface,  I.  1-4. 

')e  Four  Goffels.                 4 
..  St.  JOHN. 

I.  1-14. 

III.  23-38. 

3        3.  Birth  of  John,  I.    5- 

25.    a^^^xnt^^Ui^rl 

4        4.  Birth    of    Chrift    an- 
nounced  to    Mary,  I. 
26-38. 

'^       5.  Mary's  vilit  to  Eliza- 
beth, I.  39-55 

■^'      7.  Birth  of  John,  I.  56- 
80. 

II.  1-10. 

//      0.  Circumcifionof  Chrift, 
II.  21. 

fl        10.  Prefentation  oFChrift 
in  the  temple,  II.  22- 
4o. 

42  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.         chap,  ii 

J  St.  MATTHEW.  St.  MARK. 


13.  John  preacheSj  III.  1- 
12. 

14.  Chrift  baptized.  III. 
13-17- 

15.  Chrift  tempted,  IV. 
i-i  I. 


I.  I 


I.  9-11. 


I.  12,  13. 


SECT.  VII.       Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpcls. 


43 


St.  LUKE. 

Ilj.  12.  Education  of  Chrift, 
and  remarkable  hiftory 
of  him  in  his  twelfth 
year,  at  the  feaft  of  the 
pafTover  II.  41-52. 


III.  1-20. 


III.  21-23. 


IV.  1-12. 


St.  JOHN. 


16.  Remarkable  addition 
made  by  this  Evange- 
liil,  relative  to  the  tcf- 
timonics  in  favour  of 
Chrift,  by  which  he  ob- 
tained his  firft  difciples, 
who  foon  increafed  in 
numbers,  I.  15-52. 


17 — 20.  Hiftory  of  Chrift 
before  the  imprifonment 
of  John. 

1 1.  Chrift  returns  to  Gali- 
lee, and  changes  water 
;nto  wine  at  Cana,  II. 
1-12. 

18.  Goes  to  Jerufalem  at 
the  feaft  of  the  paflbver,, 
and  drives  the  fellers 
out  of  the  temple,  II. 
13-22. 


1^ 


44 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels. 


CHAP.  li. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


22.  Arrrives  in  Galilee, 
calls  feveral  difciples, 
and  performs  miracles. 
IV.  12-24. 


SECT.  vir. 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels. 


45 


St.  LUKE. 


IV.  13,  14. 


St.  JOHN. 


1 9.  GivesNicodemuSjWho 
vifits  him  by  night,more 
complete  information  of 
his  docbrine,  II.  2.3. — • 
III.  21. 

20.  Remains  in  Judasa : 
additional  teftimony  of 
John  the  Baptifl  con- 
cerning him.   III.   22- 

36- 


21.  Returns  (after  the  im- 
prifonment  of  John) 
through  Samaria  to  Ga- 
lilee :  converfation  with 
the  woman  of  Samaria: 
many  Samaritans  be- 
lieve in  him,  IV.  1-42. 


IV.  43.  44. 


23.  Remarkable  addition 
of  a  fecond  miracle  at 
Cana,  by  v/hich  the  ab- 
fent  fon  of  a  man  of 
rank  is  at  once  reflored 
to  health,  IV.  45-54. 


7?%*^  At^t/  4.^yvt£*^t^{e-aC  ^X*. 


f.:^ 


X. 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap.  ii. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


St.  mark. 


5/ 


25 — 30.  Hiftory  of  a  fmgle  day,  and  that  a  Sabbath. 

25.  Chrift  teaches  in  the 
fynagogue  at  Caper- 
naum, and  heals  a  de- 
moniac, I.  21-28. 

26.  Chrift  afcends  a  moun- 
tain, paiTes  the  night  in 
prayer,  and  then  choofes 
his  apoftles.  III.  13-19. 


27.  Chrift  delivers  a  dif- 
courfe,  in  which  he 
condemns  the  morality 
of  the  Pharifees,  and 
oppofes  to  it  a  better 
morality,  which  he  com- 
miffions  his  apoftles  to 
teach,  IV.  25.  V.  VI. 
VII. 


^j/     28.  Cleanfes  a  leper,  VIII. 
1-4 


'■"r     29.  Heals  the  fervant  of  a 
/  centurion,  VIII.  5-13. 


I.  40-45  ♦ 


SECT.  VII.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels. 


47 


zr 


St.  LUKE. 

24.  Chrift  teaches  in  the 
fynagogue  at  Nazareth, 
IV.  15-30*. 


St.  JOHN. 


25 — 32.  Hiftory  of  a  (ingle  day,  and  that  a  Sabbath. 


IV.  31-37. 


VI.  12-16. 


VI.  17-49. 


V.  12-16. 
VII.  i-io. 


*  In  point  of  chronology,  this  does  not  belong  to  the  prefent 
place,  not  even  according  to  St.  Luke  :  but  I  place  it  here,  be- 
caufe  St.  Luke  has  introduced  it  immediately  after  the  preceding 
hiftory.  Perhaps  it  belongs  to  No.  50,  though  I  have  not  placed 
it  there,  becaufe  it  does  not  exaftly  agree  with  the  accounts 
quoted  in  that  article  from  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark. 


48  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap,  h 

St.  MATTHEW.  ST.  MARK. 


JO.  Reftores  Peter's  mo- 
ther in  law,  and,  after 
the  fabbath  was  ended, 
feveral  other  fick  per- 
Ibns,  VIII.  14-17. 


I.  29-34. 


The  day  immediately  following  the  preceding  Sabbath. 

31.   Chrifl  departs   from 
Capernaum,  I.  35-39. 


33 — 31'  Another  hiftoryof  a  fingle  day,  which  was 
likewife  a  Sabbath. 


33  33'  Chrift  defends  his  dif- 
ciples,  who  plucked  ears 
of  corn  on  the  fabbath, 
XII.  1-8. 

3:.  34.  Cures  a  withered  hand, 
XII.  9-21. 
2S'  Drives  out  a  devil, 
and  is  accufed  of  doing 
it  by  the  afliftance  of 
Beelzebub,  the  prince 
of  the  devils.  His  an- 
fwer,  XII.  22-50. 


II.   23-28. 
III.  I- 1 2. 


III.  20  35. 


SECT.  VII.     Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels. 

St.  LUKE.  St.  JOHN, 


49 


IV.  38-41. 


The  day  immediately  following  the  preceding  Sabbath; 


IV.  42-44. 


5<^  32^  Reftores  to  life  the 
young  man  at  Nain, 
VII.  ii-17. 
32''.  Peter's  copious  draft 
offifhes;ofwhich  no  tra- 
ces are  difcoverable  with 
refpedto  the  time  when 
it  happened,  V.  i-i  i. 


22 — 37-  Another  hiftory  of  a  fingle  day,   which  was 
likewile  a  Sabbath. 


VI.  1-5. 
VI.  6- II. 


XI.  14-36.  VIII.  19-21. 
Vol.  III. 


D 


50 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels. 


CHAP.    II. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


37.  Preaches  in  parables, 
XIII.  1-53. 


38.  Chrift  endeavours  to 
retire  from  the  multi- 
tude, and  fails  to  the 
other  fide  of  the  lake 
Gennefaret.  Account 
of  one,  who  offers  him- 
felf  to  be  a  difciple  of 
Chrift,  and  of  another 
who  requefts  permiffion 
to  remain  with  his  fa- 
ther, till  his  death. 
VIIL  18-27. 


39.  Drives   out  a  devil^ 
who   calls  himfclf  Le 
gion,  VIII.  28-34. 


40.  Heals   a   lame    man, 
IX.  1-8. 


41.  Calls  Matthew,  and 
Levi :  dines  with  tax- 
gatherers,  IX.  9-17. 


42.  Heals  a  woman  afflic- 
ted with  an  hemorrage, 
and  reftores  the  daugh- 
ter of  Jairus,  who  was 
fuppofed  to  be  dead, 
IX. 18-26 


St.  mark. 


IV.  1-34. 


IV.  35-41. 


V.  1-20. 


V.   21.  II.    I-I2. 


II.    13-22. 


V.  23-43- 


SECT.  VII.     Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpeh. 


5^ 


St.  LUKE. 

2(>.  Dines  with  a  Pharifee  : 
convcrfation    at  table, 
XI.  37.-XII.  12. 

Vm.  4-18. 

St.  JOHN. 

VIII.  22-25.  i^-  57-62. 

VIII.  26-39. 

/ 

VIII.  40.  V.  17-26. 

V.  27-39. 

VIH.  40-56. 

D    2 


5^ 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.     chap,  i  i 


V 


St.  MATTHEW. 


43.    Reftores    two    blind 
men  to  fight, IX. 27-3 1. 


44.  Reftores  a  dumb  man 
to  his  fpeech,  IX.  32- 

34- 

45.  Sends  out  his  twelve 

Apoftles,  IX.  33--XI. 
I. 


46.  Anfwers  John,  who 
inquires  of  him,  whe- 
ther he  is  the  Mefliah, 
XL  2-19. 


///^  47.  Curfcs  the  cities,  in 
which  he  had  performed 
the  greateft  part  of  his 
miracles,  XI.  20-30. 


St.  mark. 


VI.7-F3. 


SECT.  VII. 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels. 


S3 


St.  LUKE. 


JX.  T-6.  and  (but  at  a 
later  period)  thefeventy 
difciples,  X.  1-24*, 


VII.   18-35. 


41  48.  Is  anointed  by  a  wo- 
man, who  had  led  a 
fmful  life,  VII.  35-50. 


49.  Account  of  thofc  who 
miniftered  to  Chrift,  on 
his  travels,  VIII.  1-3. 


St.  JOHN. 


*  I  place  the  fending  out  of  the  feventy  difciples  in  the  fame 
article,  with  that  of  the  twelve  Apoftles,  merely  becaufe  the  two 
fadls  refemble  each  other,  for  we  have  no  knowledge  of  the  precife 
period,  in  which  the  former  event  happened.  The  Evangelifts  them- 
felves  have  often  adopted  a  fimilar  plan. 


D3 


54  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels,  chap,  ii 

St.  MATTHEW.  St.  MARK. 

50.  Chrift  comes  to  Na- 
zareth, where  he  is 
difrefpeftfully  treated, 
XIII.  54-58.  VI.  1-6. 


51.  Herod,  who  had  be- 
headed John,  is  doubt 
ful,  what  he  fhould  be- 
lieve  of  Chrift,  XIV. 


i-i 


^2'  Five  thoufand  men 
fed  with  five  loaves  and 
two  filhes,XIV.  14-36. 

54.  Difcourfes  on  wafliing 
of  hands,  clean  and  un- 
clean meats,  and  other 
Jewifh  dodlrines,  XV. 
120. 

/^/  55.  Chrift  healsthedaugh- 
ter  of  a  Canaanite  wo- 
man, XV.  21-28. 


VI.  14-29. 


VI,  30-56. 


VII.   1-23. 


VII.  24-30. 


SECT.  vir. 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels. 


5S 


St.  LUKE. 

Perhaps  Ch.  IV.   15-30, 
which  I  placed  N°.  24, 
belongs  to  this  article, 
and  contains  the  fame 
hiftory,  but  differently 
related. 

St.  JOHN. 

IX.  7-9. 

• 

52.    Account   of    feveral 
remarkable  tranfadions 
and  difcourfes  at  a  great 
feftival    in    Jerufalem, 
omitted  by  the    other 
Evangelifts,  Ch.  V.  en- 
tire. 

IX.  IO-T7. 

VI.  entire. 

D4 


56 


Harmcny  of  the  Four  Go/pels. 


CHAP.  II. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


56.  Performs  feveral  mi- 
racles, XV.  29-31. 

57.  Feeds  four  thcufand 
men  with  feven  loaves, 
and  a  few  fmall  fifhes, 
XV.  32-39. 

58.  Anfwers  thofc'  who 
require  a  fign  from 
heaven,  XVI.   1-4. 


59.  Commands  his  difci- 
ples  to  beware  of  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharlfees, 
which  command  they 
mifunderiland,  XVI. 
5-12. 


6(.  Afks  his  difciples 
whom  they  fuppofe  him 
to  be.  Peter  anfv/ers 
that  he  is  the  Meffiah, 
which  Jefus  confirms, 
XVI.  13-20. 


62.  Foretells  his  death  on 
the  crofs,  XVI.  21-28. 

6^.  Is  transfigured  on  a 
lofty  mountain  beyond 
the  Jordan,  XVII.    i- 

13- 


St.  mark. 


VII.  31-37. 


VIII.  I -10. 


VIII.   1-13. 


VIII.  14-21, 


60.   Reftorcs  a  blind  man 
to  fight,  VIII.  22-26. 


VII.  27-30. 


VIII.  3 1 -IX.  I, 


IX.  2-13. 


SECT.  VII.  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpek. 


57 


St.  LUKE. 

St.  JOHN. 

IX.  i8-ai. 

IX.  21-27. 

IX.  28-36. 

ss 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  chap,  ir. 


St.  MATTHEW. 

64.  Cures  a  lunatic,  XVII. 

14-21. 

St.  mark. 
IX,  14-29. 

65.    Again   foretells    his 
approaching  fufFerings, 
XVII.  22,  23. 

IX.  30-32. 

66,    Pays  the  half  Hiekel 
as  tribute  for  the  fcrvice 
of  the   temple,  XVII. 

24-27. 

67.  His  diicourfes  occa- 
fioned  by  the  difpute, 
who  was  tlie  greateft  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
XVIII.  1-20. 

IX.  33-50. 

68.  Anfwers  Peter's  quef- 
tion,     how    often     we 
muft    forgive,    XVIII. 

f 

SECT.  VII.  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels. 


S9 


St.  LUKE. 

IX.  37-42. 

St.  JOHN. 

IX.  43-45. 

r 

. 

IX.46-50.  XVII.  1-5. 

- 

6o  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels,         chap,  ir, 

St.  MATTHEW,      f  St.  MARK. 


SECT.  VI r.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  6i 

St.  LUKE,  |  St.  JOHN. 

69 — B3,  Single  fcattered  accounts  recorded  only  by 
St.  Luke,  fome  of  which  belong  to  the  three  or  four 
lafl:  months  of  the  life  of  Chrift,  others  to  an  earlier 
period,  and  which  are  not  arranged  according  to  the 
order  of  time. 

69.  Chrift  is  refufed  the 
offices  of  hofpitality  by 
the  Samaritans,  IX.  51- 

56. 

70.  Anfwers  the  queftion, 
Who  is  our  neighbour? 
X.  25-37. 

71.  Vifits  Martha  a  fecond 
time:  his  difcourfe  rela- 
tive to  her  too  anxious 
preparations  for  table, 
X.  38-42. 

72.  Teaches  his  difciples 
to  pray,  XI.  1-13. 

73.  Difcourfes  occafioned 
by  the  requeft  which  a 
perfon  prefenthad  made 
to  Chrift,  that  he  would 
command  his  brother 
to  divide  Vv'ith  him  his 
inheritance,    XII.    13- 

59', 

74.  Difcourfes  occafioned 

by  Pilate's  having  put 
to  death  feveral  Galile- 
ans, and  offered  their 
blood  in  facrifice,  XIII. 
1-9. 


62  Harmony  of  tht  Four  Go/pels.         chap.  ir. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


St.  MARK. 


SECT.  VII. 


Ha'rmony  of  the  Four  Gofpcls, 


St.  LUKE. 

75.  Chrlfl:  cures  on  the 
fabbath  day  an  infirm 
woman,  who  was  unable 
to  walk  upright,  XIII. 
10-22, 

76.  Anfwers  the  queftion, 
whether  few  or  many 
will  be  faved,  XIII.  23- 
30. 

77.  Replies  to  thofe,  who 
defire  him  to  retire,  be- : 
caufe  Herod  fought  to 
put  him  to  death,  XIII. 

78.  Dines  with  a  Pharifee 
on  the  fabbath  day. 
His  a6lions  and  dif- 
courfes  on  that  occafion, 
XIV.  entire. 

79.  Dines  with  publicans, 
and  justifies  his  condudl 
to  thofe  who  cenfure 
him.  Acceptation  of  the 
Gentiles,  XV.  entire, 

%o.  On  this  occafion  he 
inftrufts  his  difciples  in 
the  true  ufe  of  riches, 
and  defends  his  doctrine 
againftthePharifeeswho 
ridicule  it,  XVI.  entire. 

81.  His  difcourfe  on  the 
extraordinary  efl^e(5ls  of 
faith,  XVII.  511. 

82.  Heals  ten  lepers,  of 
whom  the  Samaritan 
alone  returned  thanks, 
XVII.  1 1 -19. 


St.  JOHN. 


64 


Harmofiy  of  the  Four  Gojpeh.         chap.  u. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


84.  Anfwers  the  quellion 
relative  to  divorces, 
XIX.  1-12. 


85.  Takes  little  children 
into  his  arms  and  bleflcs 
them :  and  on  this  oc- 
cafion  reproves  his  dif- 
ciples,  XIX.  13-15. 

86.  Aniwers  a  rich  young 
man,  who  afj^ed  him 
how  he  jfhould  obtain 
eternal  life.  Chrift's 
important  difcourfe  on 
this  occafion  with  his 
dirciples,XIX.i6-XX. 
16. 


87.  Dilcourfes  again  on 
his  approaching-  death, 
XX.  17-19. 

88.  The  mother  of  the 
fonsofZebedeerequefts 
for  them  the  firft  rank 
in  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven. Chrift's  anfwer, 
XX.  20-28. 


St.  mark. 


X.  1-12. 


X.  13-16. 


X.  17-31. 


X.  32-34. 


X.  35-40. 


SECT.  VII.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels. 


65 


St.  LUKE. 

83.  Anfwers  the  queftion. 
When  the  kingdom  of 
God  fhould  come, 
XVII.  20-XVIII.  14. 


XVIII.    15-17. 


St.  JOHN. 


XVIII.  18-30. 


xvni.  31.34. 


Vol.  III. 


66 


Harmony  of  the  Tour  Gojpeh.         chap.  ii. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


93.  Reftores  two  blind 
men  to  fight,  XX.  29- 
34. 


St.  mark. 


S£CT.  VII.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  67 

St.  LUKE.  j  St.  JOHN. 

89 — 92.  Supplement  of  feveral  events  and  difcourfes, 
omitted  by  the  three  firft  Evangelifts,  which  took 
place  efpecially  at  Jerufalcm,  and  which  belong  to 
the  period  between  N°.  53.  and  N".  88. 


89.  Chrift's  aflions  and 
difcourfes  at  Jerufalem, 
at  a  feaft  of  tabernacles, 
VII.  i-X.  21. 

90.  Difcourfes  at  Jerufa- 
lem, at  the  feflival  of 
the    dedication  of  the 
temple,  X.  22-42. 

91.  Chrift  raifes  Lazarus 
from  the  deadj  XI.   1- 

52. 

92.  Returns  to  Ephraim, 

XI.  54-57. 

xvm.  35-43. 

94.Virits  Zaccheus,XIX. 

I-IO. 

95.  Defcribes  in  a  parable 
the  Jews,  who  rejeded 
him,  XIX.   11^27. 

£  1 


68 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels. 


CHAP.  11. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


96.  Chrift  is  anointed  ai 
Bethany  by  Mary  :  he 
defends  this  a6lion 
againft  the  unjuft  cen- 
fure  of  his  difciples, 
particularly  of  Judas 
Ifcariot,  who  forms  the 
refolution  to  betray 
him,  XXVI.  6-13. 

■        I        III 

97.  Chrift's  entry  into  Je- 
rufalem,  XXI.  i-i  i. 

98.  He  goes,  as  Lord, 
into  the  temple,  and 
again  drives  out  the  fel- 
lers :  he  curfes  a  fig  tree, 
XXI.  12-22. 

99.  Anfwers  the  queftion 
by  what  power  he  does 
this,  XXI.  23-46. ' 

100.  Parable  of  the  neg- 
lefted  feftival  of  a 
king,  XXII.   I-I4- 

10 1.  Anfwer  to  the  quef- 
tion relative  to  tribute- 
money,  XXII.  15-21. 

102.  Anfwers  to  tlie  ob- 
jedlion  made  by  the 
Sadducees  to  the  re- 
furre6Vion  of  the  dead, 
XXII.  22-33. 


St.  mark. 


XIV.  3-9. 


XI.  i-io. 


XI.  11-26. 


XI.  27  XII.  12. 


XIL  13-17. 


XII.  18-27. 


SECT.  VII.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpeh.  69 


St.  LUKE. 

St.  JOHN. 
XII.  i-io. 

XIX.  28.44. 

XII.  9-19. 

XIX.  45-48. 

XX.  1.19. 

XX.  20-26. 

XX.  27-40. 

^3 


70  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels.         chap,  ii 

St.  MATTHEW.  St.  MARK. 


103.  Anfwer  to  the  quef- 
tion,  Which  is  the 
great  commandment 
of  the  law  ?  XXII.  34- 

39- 


104.  The  queftion  pro- 
pofed,  Whofe  Ton  the 
Meffiahis?  XXII.  40- 
46.        

105.  Dilcourfe  asainft  the 
Pharifees,  XXIII.  en- 
tire. 


XI!.  08-34. 


107.  Prophecy  of  the  dc- 
liru6lion  of  Jerufakm, 
XXIV.  entire. 


108.  Addition  to  the  pre- 
ceding })rophecy,  found 
only  in  the  Golpel  of 
St.  Matthew,  XXV. 
1-30. 


109.  Chrift  anfwers  the 
queftion  relative  to  the 
laft  judgement,  XXV. 
30-46. 


XII.  35-38. 


XII.  39,40. 


106.  Small  alms  offering 
of  a  widow  com- 
mended, XII.  41-44. 


XIII.  entire. 


SECT.  VII.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  71 

St.  LUKE. 


XX.  41-43- 


XX.  44-47. 


XXI.  1-5. 


XXI.  6-38. 


St.  JOHN. 

E4 


72 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap.  ii. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


no.  After  the  preceding 
difcourfes  were  ended, 
he  again  foretells  his 
approaching  death, 
XXVI.  2. 


113.  Judas  Ifcariot  pro- 
mifes  to  betray  Chrift, 
and  receives  thirty 
pieces  of  filver,  XXVI; 
3-5.   14.-16. 


J 14.  Preparation  for  the 
feafl  of  the  palfover, 
XXVI.  17-19. 


St.  mark. 


XIV.  lo-ii. 


XIV.  12-16. 


SECT.  VII.     Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels, 


73 


St.  LUKE. 


XXII.  1-5. 


XXII.  6-13. 


St.  JOHN. 


111.  Of  the  Greeks  who 
wifhed  to  fee  Jefus : 
Chrift's  difcourfe  on 
this  occafion,  and  the 
anfwcr  from  heaven, 
XII.  20-3 S. 

1 1 2.  Difcourfe  on  the  in- 
fidelity of  the  Jews, 
after  the  performance 
of  fo  many  miracles, 
XII.  37-50. 


XIII.  I. 


115.  Chrift,  before  he  eats 
the  feaft  of  the  palT- 
over,  wafhes  the  feet 
of  his  difciples,  XIII. 

1-20. 


74 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.     chap.  ii„ 


St.  MATTHEW. 


1 1 6.  He  fits  down  to  ta- 
ble, and  fpcaks  of  his 
betrayer,  XXVI.  20- 

25- 


iio.    inftitutes  the  Holy 
Supper,XXV.  26-29. 


121.  Chrift  goes  into  the 
garden  of  Gethfemane, 
and  foretels  to  Peter, 
that  he  would  deny 
him,  XXVI.  30-35. 


St.  mark. 


XIV.  17-21. 


XIV.  22-25. 


XIV.  26  jr, 


SECT.  VII.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels. 


75 


St.  LUKE. 


XXII.  14. 


117.  Prefents  to  his  Apof- 
tles  the  cup  of  the 
paflbver:  his  difcourfe 
onthatoccafion,XXII. 
15—18. 


XXII.  19,  20. 


119.  After  fuppcr,  he 
fpeaks  again  of  his 
betrayer,   XXII.   21- 

1 20.  Another  difpute 
among  the  Apoftles, 
who  fhould  be  the 
greateft  in  the  king- 
dom of  God,  XXII. 
24-31. 


XXII. 


32-39- 


St.  JOHN. 


XIII.  21-30. 


122.  His  di  courfe  on  the 
way,   XIII.  31-XVII. 

26. 


76 


Harmony  of  tht  Four  Gojpels.        chap.  ri. 


St.  MATTHEW. 

1 23.  Prayer  that  the  cup 
might     be     removed 
from  him,  XXVI.  i^(, 
.46. 

St.  mark. 
XIV.  32-42. 

124.  Chrift  is  taken  into 
cuftody,  XXVI.   47- 
56. 

XIV.  43-52. 

125.  Brought  before  the 
Sanhedrim,  and  con- 
demned :  is  denied  by 
Peter,  XXVI.  57-75. 

XIV.  53-72. 

126.  Chrift  is  led  before 
Pilate.     Judas   hangs 
himfelf,    XXVII.    i- 
10. 

XV;    I. 

127.  Chrift  is  accufed  be- 
fore  Pilate,   XXVII. 
11-23. 

XV.  2-14. 

128.    Is    condemned    to 
death,    XXVII.    24- 

31- 

XV.  15-20. 

129.     And   crucified, 
XXVII.  32-38. 

XV.   21-28. 

130.    Is    reviled    on    the 
crofs,  XXVII.  39-49. 

XV.  29-37. 

SECT.  VII.       Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  yy 

St.  LUKE. 


XXII.  39-46. 


XXII.  47-53. 


XXII.  54-77. 


XXIII.  I. 

XXIII. 

2-2  2. 

XXIII. 

23-25. 

XXIII. 

26-35. 

XXIII. 

36-46. 

St.  JOHN. 

XVIII.  1-12. 

XVIII.  13-28, 

XVIII.  29. -XIX. 

12. 

XIX.  13-16. 

XIX.  17-25. 

78 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.         chap.  ii. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


St.  mark. 


132.  Extraordinary  events 
at  the  death  of  Chrift, 
XXVII.  20-54. 


XV.  38-41. 


134.     Burial    of  Chrift, 
XXVII.  55-61. 


135.  Appointment  of  a 
guard  at  his  fepulchre, 
XXVII.  62-67. 


XV.  42-47. 


136.  The  women  purchafe 
fpices,  to  embalm  the 
body  of  Chrift*,  XVI. 
I. 


*  This  account,  which  Is  given  only  by  the  two  Evangelifts,  who 
were  not  eye-witnefles,  is  liable  to  feme  objeftions.  See  my  Hiftory 
of  the  Refurredion. 


SECT.  VII.         Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels. 

St.  LUKE.  \  St.  JOHN. 


79 


XXIII.  47-49. 


131.  Supplement  of  feve- 
ral  fadls  not  recorded 
by  the  other  Evange- 
liils,  XIX.  26-30. 


133.  Chrift,  on  examina- 
tion of  the  crucified, 
is  found  to  be  already 
dead:  and  is  moreover 
pierced  in  the  fide 
with  a  fpear,  XIX. 
31-37- 


xxm.  50-56. 

XIX.  38.42. 

XXIII.  56. 

8o  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.         chap.  ii. 

St.  MATTHEW.  St.  MARK. 


137.  Refurre6lion  of 
Chrift:,  and  the  firft 
accounts  of  it,  which 
are  brought  by  the 
women,  XXVIH.  i- 
1 1. 


139.  The  guards  bring 
the  account  to  the 
chief  priefls,  and  are 
bribed  to  fay  that  the 
difciples  had  ftolen 
the  body,  XXVIII. 
11-15. 


XVI.  2-8. 


138.  Further  accounts  of 
it  brought  by  Mary 
Magdalene,  who  fees 
Chrift  alone,  and  is 
commanded  to  report 
it  to  the  Apoftles, 
XVI.  9,  10,  II. 


140.  Chrift  fhews  himfelf 
alive  to  the  two  difci- 
ciples,  who  were  going 
to  Emmaus,  XVI.  12, 
13- 


141.  Chrift  fhews  himfelf 
to  ten  Apoftles,  and 
to  feveral  difciples, 
who  were  with  them, 
XVI.  14-18. 


SECT.  VII.  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels,  8 1 


St.  LUKE. 


XXIV.  i-ii. 


St.  JOHN. 


XX.  i-io. 


XX.  11-18. 


XXIV.  13-34. 

XXIV.  36-49. 

XX.  19-23. 

Vol.  III. 


Sa 


Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels, 


CHAP.  11. 


St.  MATTHEW. 


144.  Chrift  fhews  himfelf 
in  Galilee  to  all  his 
difciples,  on  a  moun- 
tain, where  Chrift  had 
appointed  them, 
XXVIII.  16-20. 


St.  mark. 


SECT.  VII.  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels. 


«3 


St.  LUKE. 


St.  JOHN. 


142.  Eight  days  after,  he 
fhews  himfelf  to  the 
eleven  Apoftles,  Tho- 
mas likewife  being 
then  prefent,  XX.  24 

-31- 


143.  Chrift  fliews  himfelf 
to  two  difciples  and 
five  Apoflles,  at  the 
fca  of  Tiberias.  Re- 
markable difcourfe 
with  Peter  and  John, 
XXI.  entire. 


F  2 


SECT. 


%4  Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  chap.  ii. 


SECT.     VIII. 

Of  two  very  aofhely  employed  fabbaths  in  the  Life  of 
Chrijij  which  are  of  importance  in  fettling  the  harmony 
of  the  Gofpels. 

TWO  very  actively  employed  days  in  the  Life  of 
Chrift,  and  both  of  them  fabbath  days,  deferve 
particular  notice,  becaufe  they  have  occafioned  the 
greateft  difficulty  in  arranging  the  Gofpel  hiftory  ac- 
cording to  the  order  of  time.  If  we  attend  to  the 
exprefs  determinations  of  time,  which  have  been  given 
by  one  or  more  of  the  Evangelifts,  and  their  accounts 
are  perfeftly  accurate,  we  muft  conclude  that  the 
feveral  fads  arranged  N°.  25 — 30,  happened  in  one  day: 
as  alfo  thofe,  which  are  arranged  under  N°.  33 — 37. 
To  affift  the  memory,  I  will  give  names  to  thofe  days, 
and  call  the  one  The  day  of  the  Jermon  on  the  mount ', 
and  the  other  The  day  of  the  Jermon  in  parables  *.  The 
events,  which  took  place  on  thefe  two  days  have  been 
feparated,  and  recorded  fome  in  one  place,  fome  in 
another:  an  arrangement,  which,  though  we  cannot 
call  it  erroneous,  as  the  Evangelifts  did  not  engage  to 
write  a  journal,  has  influence  on  our  determination  of 
the  period  of  {ova^  other  events.  It  is  however  not 
impoflible,  that  the  a6lions  of  thefe  two  days,  which  are 
very  fimilar  to  each  other,  have  been  confounded,  that 
what  belongs  to  the  one  has  been  referred  to  the  other, 
and  confequently  that  there  is  not  only  an  apparent,  but 
even  a  real  contradiction  in  point  of  time,  between  St, 
Matthew  and  the  other  Evangelifts. 

I  will  firft  examine  the  day  of  the  fermon  on  the 
mount,  N°.  25 — 30.  Its  hiftory  is  briefly  as  follows. 
On  the  eve  of  a  fabbath  day,  when-  the  fabbath  was 
juft  commenced,  Jefus  goes  into  a  fynagogue  at  Caper- 
naum, delivers  a  difcourfe  of  the  fame  import  with 
that  on  the  mount',  and  cures  a  demoniac:  he  then 
departs  out  of  the  city,  and  goes  up  into  ^  mountain, 

where 


szct.  VIII.  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpels.  85 

where  he  pafles  the  whole  night  in  prayer;  on  the 
following  morning  he  chooles  his  Apofiles,  and  delivers 
a  difcourfe  called  the  fermon  on  the  mount,  in  which 
he  teaches  them  the  morality  which  they  were  to 
follow,  a  morality  direftly  oppofite  to  that  of  the  Pha- 
rifees:  he  then  enters  again  into  Capernaum,  cures  a 
leper,  the  fervant  of  a  centurion,  the  mother  in  law 
of  St.  Peter,  and  when  the  fun  was  fet,  and  the  fabbath 
therefore  ended,  feveral  other  fick  perfons  which  were 
brought  to  him,  and  then  leaves  Capernaum.  The 
reafons,  why  I  believe  that  all  thefe  events  happened  in 
the  fame  day,  are  the  following. 

I.  The  cure  of  the  demoniac,  Mark  i.  21 — 28.  Luke 
iv.  31 — 37.  and  of  St.  Peter's  mother  in  law,  happened 
on  the  fame  day,  as  appears  from  Mark  i.  29.  Luke 
iv.  38. 

1.  The  eleflion  of  the  twelve  Apoflles  took  place  on 
the  morning  of  that  day,  on  which  the  fermon  on  the 
mount  was  delivered.     See  Luke  vi.  12 — 17. 

3.  That  the  fermon  on  the  mount  recorded  by  St, 
Luke  is  no  other  than  that  recorded  by  St.  Matthew, 
appears  from  the  events  which  immediately  follow  it.- 
Both  Evangelifts  relate  that  Jefus,  after  the  fermon  was 
ended,  went  intt)  Capernaum,  and  healed  the  fervant 
of  a  centurion,  a  cure  attended  with  fuch  remarkable 
circumflances,  that  I  can  hardly  fuppofe  it  to  have 
happened  twice,  and  that  too  in  the  fame  city. 

4.  The  cure  of  the  leper,  according  to  St.  Matthew's 
account,  muft  have  happened  between  the  fermon  on 
the  mount  and  the  cure  of  the  centurion's  fervant,  when 
Jefus  was  juft  returned  into  Capernaum.  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Luke  relate  this  fadl  on  a  totally  different  occafion, 
becaufe  they  were  unacquainted  with  the  time,  and 
St.  Luke  even  with  the  place  "^j  in  which  it  happened. 
The  whole  account  is  too  circumftantial  to  admit  the 
fuppofition,  that  the  fame  cure,  with  all  its  concomitant 
circumftances,  took  place  more  than  once. 

5.  It 

'  EytreTo  iv  ra  wtn  «VTe>  iv  ^ta  tuv  Tcohtm-     Ch.  v.  12. 

f  3 


86  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpeh.         chap.  ii. 

5.  It  is  evident  from  St.  Matthew's  relation,  that  the 
cure  of  St.  Peter's  mother  in  law  happened  on  the  fame 
day,  as  the  two  juft  mentioned  miracles*. 

6.  The  circumftance  mentioned  by  all  three  Evange- 
lifls,  that  feveral  fick  perfons  were  brought  in  the  even- 
ing, and  after  fun-fet,  to  the  houfe  where  Jcfus  was, 
is  a  proof  that  the  day  in  queftion  was  a  fabbath  day. 
For  the  Jews,  on  account  of  their  over-itrid  obferv- 
ance  of  the  fabbath,  would  not  permit  any  cure  to 
be  exercifed  on  that  day :  but  as  foon  as  the  fun  was 
{tty  the  fabbath  was  ended,  and  then  they  could  bring 
their  fick  without  fcruple  to  the  houfe  where  Jefus  was, 
and  likewife  St.  Peter's  mother  in  law  could  prepare  for 
him  a  repaft. 

7.  That  Jefus  immediately  afterwards  left  Caper- 
naum, is  evident  from  the  accounts  of  all  the  three 
Evangelifts. 

The  feveral  events,  which  happened  on  this  day, 
St.  Luke,  as  appears  from  the  preceding  Table,  has  re- 
corded in  different  places,  becaufe  he  was  unacquainted 
with  the  time,  in  which  they  really  happened.  We 
cannot  therefore  lay  that  St.  Luke  was  miftaken,  for  he 
has  left  the  time  undetermined;  yet  his  feparation  of 
the  feveral  fads,  which  happened  on  the  fame  day, 
is  attended  with  this  confequence,  that  he  has  related 
one  and  the  fame  fa61,  the  departure  of  Chrifl:  from 
Capernaum,  on  two  different  occafions,  namely  ch.  iv. 
42.  after  the  cure  of  the  fick  perfons,  who  were  brought 
to  him  at  the  clofe  of  the  fabbath,  and  again  ch.  vii,  1 1. 
after  the  cure  of  the  centurion's  fervant. 

But  there  is  one  circumflance,  in  which  the  three 
Evangelifts  are  fo  at  variance,  that  they  are  hardly  to 
be  reconciled  with  each  other.  Whoever  reads  the  ac- 
count given  by  St.  Matthew,  ch.  viii.  18 — 27.  muft 
conclude  that  Jefus,  on  quitting  Capernaum,  immedi- 
ately croficd  the  fea,  where  he  calmed  the  tempeft.  It 
is  true  that  ver.  18.  contains  no  exprefs  determination 
of  time :  yet  every  reader  will  naturally  fuppofe,  that  it 
is  connected  with  lliQ  preceding  verfes,  and  that  what 

is 


SECT.  viir.      Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels,  87 

is  related  v.  18 — 27.  immediately  followed  that  which 
is  recorded  v.  16,  17.  The  two  other  Evangelifts,  on 
the  contrary,  relate  that  Jefus,  on  quitting  Capernaum, 
went,  not  to  the  fea  fide,  but  into  the  towns  and  vil- 
lages of  GaUlee:  and  according  to  St.  Luke,  ch.  vii. 
II.  he  entered  on  the  following  day  into  Nain,  v/here 
he  reftored  a  young  man  to  life.  I  own  that  the  dif- 
tance  between  the  two  cities^  makes  this  laft  account 
rather  improbable:  and  the  words  iv  tyi  i^ni;,  on  which 
the  fuppofition  that  Chrift's  entry  into  Nain  was  on  the 
very  next  day,  are  at  leaft  dubious,  for  many  manu- 
fcripts  have  iv  tw  s^nf,  that  is,  not  on  the  day  following, 
but  on  a  time  following.  Before  however  I  examine 
this  difficulty,  I  mull  proceed  to  the  other  adlively  em- 
ployed fabbath. 

This  is  the  day  of  the  fermon  in  parables,  a  day 
replete  with  difcourfes  and  events,  and  on  which,  as  on 
the  day  of  the  fermon  on  the  mount,  Chrift  at  laft 
withdraws  himfelf  from  the  preflure  of  the  multitude. 
The  two  firft  numbers,  N°.  ^jij  34,  follow  each  other 
in  all  three  Evangelifts :  they  fall  likewife  on  a  fabbath, 
and  on  the  fame  fabbath,  for  they  cannot  pofTibly  be 
feparated.  The  third  number,  N°.  2  Si  ^^-  Matthew 
unites  by  the  word  tote,  ch.  xii.  22.  with  the  preceding 
N°.  34. ;  but  the  tv/o  other  Evangelifts,  who  were  not 
eye-witnefles,  feparate  it,  and  introduce  it  in  another 
part,  though  without  any  determination  of  time.  This 
however  is  the  only  portion  of  the  hiftory  in  queftion, 
which  could  be  feparated  from  the  reft,  and  referred  to 
the  next  day,  in  which  cafe  N^  23 — 37'  would  contain 
the  hiftory  of  two  days  ^. 

To  return  to  N".  35.  On  the  fame  day,  on  which 
Jefus  had  caft  out  a  devil,  and  the  thronging  of  the 
multitude  had  allowed  him  not  fufficient  time  to  eat', 
a  Pharifee  invites  him^  to  dinner*.  But  if  Jefus  was  fo 
engaged  on  this  day,  that  he  had  not  had  time  to  eat, 
we  might  almoft  conclude,  that  he  was  likewife  bufily 
employed  the  evening  before,  a  circumftance  favourable 

CO 

'  MarkiiJ,  20.  *  Lukexi»  37. 

^4 


Sg  Harmbny  of  the  Four  Go/pels.        ghap.  ii. 

to  the  opinion,  that  N».  34,  35,  36,  hang  together  ^ 
A^ii-vKTYi  I  take  in  the  literal  fenle  of  the  word,  and  un- 
derfland  it  of  dinner  (at  ten  in  the  morning)',  becaufe 
fo  many  events  afterwards  happened  on  this  very  day. 
For  not  only  the  long  difcourfe  recorded  by  St.  Luke, 
ch.  xi.  xii.,  and  the  aflembling  of  the  multitude  before 
the  houfe  ch.  xii.  i.,  but  likewife  the  fermon  in  para- 
bles '"  N°.  37.  certainly  took  place  on  tlie  fame  day, 
that  Jefus  had  cad  out  the  devil,  and  had  been  fought 
by  his  mother,  for  Matth.  xiii.  i.  begins  with  iv  sxeh/vj 
T*}  »)|ugf«.  St.  Mark  likewife  unites  thefe  events,  though 
he  has  not  fo  exprefsly  determined  the  day. 

The  hiitory  of  the  day  of  the  fermon  in  parables  is 
therefore  the  following.  On  Friday  afternoon,  when, 
according  to  the  tenets  of  the  Jews,  the  fabbath  com- 
mences, that  is,  as  St.  Luke  exprefTes  it,  c-oiQ^xru  ^ivn- 
foTT^wTo)  ",  Jefus  goes  with  his  difciples  from  the  country 
into  the  city  of  Capernaum  :  and  the  difciples  being 
hunory  on  the  way,  they  pluck  out  ears  of  corn,  which 
is  cenfured  by  the  Pharifees,  but  juflified  by  Jefus. 
When  he  was  arrived  at  Capernaum,  and  the  fabbath 
day  itfelf  had  adually  commenced,  or  as  St.  Luke  ex- 
preffes  it,  ch.  vi.  6.  iv  tn^u)  o-aS^araj  '*  in  oppofition  to 
cxQ^oiTu  hvTs^oTT^uTWy  lic  entered  into  the  fynagogue, 
where  there  was  a  man,  whofe  right  hand  was  withered. 
Here  the  fcribes  and  Pharifees  endeavoured  to  enfnare 
him,  by  propofmg  to  him  the  queftion,  whether  it  was 
lawful  to  perform  cures  on  the  fabbath  day  :  intending, 
if  he  anfwered  in  the  negative,  to  accufe  him  of  being 
an  impollor  and  unable  to  perform  miracles  without 
pre-concerted  meafures  with  the  fick,  and,  if  he  an- 
fwered in  the  affirmative,  to  charge  him  with  a  violation 
of  the  fabbath.  Jefus  in  a  very  extraordinary  manner 
evaded  their  artifices,  and  reftored  the  fick  man  without 
any  one's  being  able  to  accufe  him  of  a  breach  of  the 
fabbath.  A  dumb  and  bhnd  demoniac  is  then  brought 
to  him,  probably  on  the  following  morning,  the  fabbath 
ftill  continuing ;  he  cures  the  demoniac  and  is  accufed 
by  fome  of  the  Pharifees  of  driving  out  devils  by  the 

afliftance 


SECT.  VIII.      Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  89 

afTiftance  of  Beelzebub  '\  while  others  require  a  fign 
from  heaven,  as  a  proof  of  the  authority  by  which  he 
aded.  To  each  he  gives  a  proper  anfwer.  In  the 
mean  time  his  mother  and  his  brethren  feck  for  him, 
with  a  defign  of  conducing  him  home,  as  to  a  place  of 
fecurity,  not  becaufe  they  fuppofed  he  flood  in  connexion 
with  evil  fpirits,  but  becaufe  they  apprehended  he  had  loft 
his  underftanding ;  but  Jefus,  who  is  furrounded  by  the 
multitude,  inftead  of  inviting  them  in,  when  informed 
that  they  flood  without,  replies,  that  *  whofoever  does 
the  will  of  his  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  is  his  brother, 
and  filler,  and  mother.'  A  Pharifee  invites  him  to 
dinner,  and  Jefus  accepts  the  invitation :  but  a  difpute 
arifes  at  table,  in  confequence  of  Jefus  having  neglected 
to  wafh  his  hands.  An  innumerable  multitude  in  the 
mean  time  affembles  before  the  door,  when  Jefus  deli- 
vers a  difcourfe,  related  Luke  xii.  i — 12.  He  then 
goes  from  the  houfe  of  the  Pharifee  to  the  lake  of  Gen- 
nefaret,  the  multitude  follows  him :  in  order  therefore 
to  be  better  feen  and  heard,  he  enters  into  a  fhip,  and 
preaches  in  parables  :  N".  37.  An  explanation  of  thefe 
parables  he  gives  at  the  requell:  of  his  difciples,  after  he 
was  returned  home.  Immediately  after  the  fermon  he 
crofTes  the  lake  of  Gennefaret.  N".  38. 

As  this  fermon  is  recorded  by  St.  Mark  immediately 
before  his  account  of  the  florm,  which  Jefus  calmed, 
but  is  related  by  St.  Matthew  long  after  his  defcription 
of  the  florm,  it  has  been  fuppofed  by  feveral  harmonifls 
that  Jefus  held  this  fermon  twice.  It  is  true  that  this 
fuppofition  contains  in  itfclf  nothing  either  incredible, 
or  even  improbable :  yet  I  think  that  there  are  fufficient 
reafons  for  believing  in  the  prefent  inflance,  that  both 
Evangelills  mean  one  and  the  fame  fermon,  delivered 
on  one  and  the  fame  day.  For  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Luke  agree  in  the  relation  of  feveral  very  particular  cir- 
cumftances  immediately  preceding  it,  and  which  I  can 
hardly  fuppofe  to  have  happened  twice;  namely,  the 
accufation  that  Jefus  cured  demoniacs  by  the  afliftance 
of  Beelzebub,  his  reply  to  this  accufation,  and  thirdly, 

his 


^o  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gojpeh.         chap.  n. 

his  fingular  anfwer  to  thofe  who  informed  him  that  his 
mother  and  his  brethren  were  in  learch  of  him.  Fur- 
ther, what  is  dill  more  decifivc,  the  difciples  would 
hardly  have  afked  Jefus  at  two  different  times  for  an 
explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  feed  fown  on  different 
kinds  of  land  :  for  when  he  had  once  given  the  expla- 
nation, there  could  be  no  neceffity  for  afking  it  a  fecond 
time.  That  they  had  forgotten  it,  and  that  Jefus  was 
obliged  again  to  explain  to  them  fo  eafy  a  parable,  is  a 
fuppofition  almoft  incredible  :  but,  if  we  admit  the  fad, 
ftill  Jefus  would  not  have  anfwcred  them,  *  To  you  it 
is  given  to  know  the  myfteries  of  the  kingdom  of  God,' 
but  on  the  contrary  would  have  given  them  a  reproof 
like  the  following.  '  To  you  is  not  given  to  know  the 
myfteries  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  for  he  who  retains 
not  that,  which  has  been  given,  deferves  not  to  receive 
more.' 

Whoever  examines  the  preceding  harmonic  table  of 
the  Gofpels,  will  perceive,  that  on  the  two  days,  of 
which  I  have  juft  examined  the  hiftory,  depends  the 
arrangement  of  many  fafts,  which  happened  either  on 
or  near  to  one  of  thefe  two  days,  and  which  the  Evan- 
gelifts  have  related,  one  at  one  period,  another  at  ano- 
ther. Now  thefe  two  days  might  be  very  eafily  con- 
founded, as  they  are  in  many  refpefts  fimilar  to  each 
other  :  the  fcene  of  aflion  is  on  both  days  in  Capernaum, 
on  both  days  Jefus  leaves  the  city  in  the  evening,  on 
both  days  he  performs  miracles  and  delivers  difcourfes, 
both  are  fabbath  days,  and  on  each  he  is  accufed  of  a 
violation  of  the  fabbath.  Two  fuch  days  as  thefe  might 
be  very  eafily  exchanged  by  any  one,  who  had  not  kept 
a  regular  journal,  and  who  wrote  merely  from  memory. 
The  queftion  to  be  afked  therefore  is :  Has  any  fuch 
exchange  taken  place  in  the  prefent  inftance  ?  According 
to  St.  Mark,  ch.  iv.  35 — 41.  and  St.  Luke,  ch.  viii. 
22.  Jefus  croffed  the  fea,  when  he  was  expofed  to 
a  fevere  ftorm,  on  the  fecond  day  '+ :  but  according  to 
St.  Matthew,  the  ftorm  happened  on  the  day  after  the 
fermon  on  the  mount,  when,  according  to  St.  Mark 

and 


SECT.  VIII.        Harmony  of  the  Four  Go/pels.  91 

and  St.  Luke,  Jefus  went  weftward  on  the  land  fide. 
Which  of  the  Evangelifts  are  we  then  to  follow  ?  We 
may  abide  by  the  relation  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke, 
without  neceflarily  fuppofing  that  St.  Matthew  was 
miflaken,  and  therefore  that  he  was  not  infpiredj  for 
he  has  not  pofitively  determined  the  time,  but  fays  only, 
ch.  viii.  18.  '  When  Jefus  faw  great  multitudes  about 
him,  he  gave  commandment  to  depart  to  the  other 
fide.'  Yet  on  the  other  hand  it  is  difficult,  after  having 
read  ver.  14 — 17.  to  fuppofe  on  coming  to  ver.  18. 
that  the  writer  could  have  any  other  intention,  than 
to  connedt  the  fubfequent  with  the  preceding  relation, 
and  to  defcribe  the  paffage  acrofs  the  fea,  as  having 
happened  on  the  day  after  the  fermon  on  the  mount  '^ 
Further,  on  the  day  after  the  fermon  in  parables,  St. 
Matthew  makes  no  mention  of  any  paffage  acrofs  the 
fea,  but  fays  only,  ch.  xiii.  ^2-  *  That  when  Jefus  had 
finifhed  thefe  parables  he  departed  thence.' 

The  determination  of  the  difficulties,  which  I  have 
dated  in  this  fed:ion,  has  very  material  influence  on  our 
arrangement  of  the  fads  recorded  by  the  Evangelifts, 
as  many  a  harmonift  has  feverely  felt,  without  being 
confcious  perhaps  of  the  real  caufe,  which  produced 
the  perplexity.  Which  of  the  Evangelifts  we  ought  to 
follow  I  am  really  unable  to  determine  ;  for  though  St, 
Matthew  has  in  general  the  advantage  over  St.  Mark 
and  St.  Luke,  in  being  eye-witnefs  to  the  fafts  which 
he  records,  yet  the  prefent  inftance  makes  an  exception. 
For  St.  Matthew  by  his  own  account "  was  not  called 
from  the  receipt  of  cuftom,  and  therefore  was  not  be- 
come an  attendant  on  Jefus,  till  after  Jefus  was  again 
returned  to  Capernaum.  Nor  is  this  a  contradidion  to 
the  account  given  N°.  26.  from  which  it  appears  that 
the  twelve  Apoftles,  among  whom  St.  Matthew  is  men- 
tioned by  name,  were  chofen  on  the  morning  of  that 
day,  on  which  Jefus  held  the  fermon  on  the  mount. 
St.  Matthew  might  have  been  nominated  an  Apoftle, 
and  yet  not  inftantly  abandon  his  occupation  as  receiver 

of 

«»  Ch.  ix.  1—9. 


92     Cauje  of  Agreement  in  the  fame  Exprejfions.  chap.  hi. 

of  tribute  :  the  fermon  on  the  mount  was  delivered  on 
a  fabbath  day,  on  which  the  receivers  of  tribute  were 
difengaged,  but  on  the  following  morning  he  returned 
to  his  duty  at  the  houfe  of  cuftom,  whence  Jefus  now 
invited  him  to  be  his  conftant  attendant.  Befides, 
even  an  eye-witnefs,  who  relates  from  memory  events, 
which  happened  feverol  years  before,  may  eafily  ex- 
change two  days,  which  are  fimilar  to  each  other. — In 
this  inftance  therefore  I  have  followed  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Luke,  becaufe  they  make  a  majority  of  evidence, 
and  becaufe  they  have  in  faft  determined  the  time  '^ 
A  further  examination  of  the  two  days,  which  I  have 
confidered  in  this  feftion,  would  perhaps  throw  more 
light  on  what  is  called  the  Harmony  of  the  Gofpels. 


CHAP.     III. 

or  THE  CAUSE,  WHY  ST.  MATTHEW  AND  ST.  MARK, 
AND  ALSO  ST.  MARK  AND  ST.  LUKE,  HAVE  IN 
SEVERAL  INSTANCES  A  REMARKABLE  VERBAL  HAR- 
MONY, THOUGH  THE  ONE  DID  NOT  COPY  FROM  THE 
WRITINGS  OF  THE  OTHER. 

I  HAVE  already  obferved  that  the  three  firft  Evan- 
gelifts  appear  not  to  have  read  each  other's  writings, 
not  even  St.  Mark  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew:  of  which 
the  apparent  contradictions,  and,  in  refped  to  the 
Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  in  particular, 
their  very  great  difagreement  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
recorded  fafts,  afford  fufficient  proof 

Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  thefe  three  Evangelifts  agree 
fometimes  in  the  very  fame  exprcfiions,  and  in  fuch  a 
manner  as  we  feldom  find  in  the  writings  of  independent 
and  imconneded  hiftorians.  If  this  agreement  was 
obfervable  only  in  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark,  it  might  be  explained  on  the  commonly  received 

opinion 


CHAP.  III.  Cauje  of  Agreement  in  the  fame  Exprejftons.     93 

opinion  that  St.  Mark  had  read  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mat- 
thew. But  when  the  fame  expreflion,  and  that  even 
a  harfh  Hebraifm,  is  iifed  likewife  by  St.  Luke,  who 
was  able  to  write  pure  Greek,  this  agreement  in  words, 
which  is  fometimes  vifible  even  where  there  is  an  appa- 
rent contradiction  in  fafts,  mull  be  owing  to  fome 
other  caufe,  which  merits  particular  inveftigation  *. 
The  following  may  ferve  as  examples.     Mark  i.  4. 

Luke      ill.     3*  KtI^IKTO-W^      ^(X,Tr\l(T^(X.       fAilocvoioc?      El?      a<pi(Tiv 

aiJi.x^im. — Matth.  iii.  12.  Luke  iii.  17.     Ou  to  tstIuov  iv 

TVi  p^««P«  aula,  xa*  J'lajtaSa^tei  rriv  aXoovx  a,v%y  xa»  cvvx^n  rov 
ct\ov  (aula)    iiq  rv\v  oi,Tro^y]v.viv  (aula),  to  St  ocy^vpoi/  xoclocKOiva-it 

■zB-u^i  o(,(rQifui.  Here  the  harfh  Hebraifm  a  sv  tyi  ;i^£i^t  aula 
is  worthy  of  notice  ^.  —  Matth.  iv.  5.  Luke  iv.  9. 
Tsrli^vyioi^y  a  very  unufual  word,  peculiar  to  the  Egyptian 
Greek  dialedl,  and  of  which  no  commentator  has  given 
an  accurately  philological  explanation. — Mark  v.  22. 
ii.  I -12.  and  Luke  viii.  41,  v.  17-26.  are  remark- 
able, not  only  for  the  fimilarity  of  expreflions  uled  in 
thefe  paflages,  but  likewife  for  the  feparation  of  two 
events,  which  in  the  Golpel  of  St.  Matthew  are  con- 
nedted  with  each  others — Matth.  vi.  11.  Luke  xi.  3. 
nrmiTiog,  a  word,  which,  according  to  Origen*,  no 
Greek  writer  had  ever  ufed  before  the  Evangelifts. 
The  agreement  however  in  refpedt  to  £7rtaa-to?  may  be 
explained  on  the  fuppofition,  that  this  word  was  already 
in  ufe  among  the  early  Chriftians  in  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
at  the  time  when  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  wrote  their 
Gofpels. — Matth.  viii.  2-4.  Mark  i.  40-45.  Luke  v. 
12-16. — Matth.  xvi.  24.  Mark  viii.  34.  Luke  ix.  23.' 
In  this  laft  example  it  is  remarkable  that  all  the  three 
Evangelifts  agree  in  ufing  the  Syriac  phrafe  ottio-u  [ah 
fX^eiv  ^  inftead  of  the  common  Greek  word  anoXaOfiv  *. 
i*— Mark  xii.  41,  42.  Luke  xxi.  i,  2.  ^y^^o^vXocKiov  and 
AettIoi/,  the  former  of  which  is  taken  by  thefe  two  Evan*- 
gelifts  in  an  unufual  fenfe  ^. — Mark  xiv.  12-16.  Luke 
xxi.  7-13. — Mark  xiv.  54.  Luke  xxii.  ^6.  ur^o?  to  (pwf*. 
— Matth.  xxviii.  i.  Luke  xxiii.  54.  £7ri(pwo-xw,  a  harfh 
Syriafn^  explained  above;,  Vol.  I,  ch.  iv.  §  5. 

This 


94     Cauje  of  Agreement  in  the  fame  Exprejfions.  c  h  a  p .  1 1 1 , 

This  remarkable  verbal  agreement  I  am  unable  to 
explain  on  any  other  than  the  following  hypothefis. 
Before  the  three  firft  Gofpels  were  written,  or  at  leaft, 
before  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  had  been  tranflated  into 
Greek,  there  exifted  feveral  apocryphal  Gofpels,  to 
which  St.  Luke  alludes  in  his  preface,  and  of  which  it 
was  his  obje6t  to  corred  the  inaccuracies.  But  when 
the  accounts,  which  they  contained,  were  accurate,  St. 
Luke,  as  well  as  St.  Mark  and  the  tranflator  of  St. 
Matthew,  abided  by  the  exprelTions,  which  they  found, 
as  they  were  regardlefs  of  the  ornaments  of  flyle.  It 
is  likewife  poffible  that  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  followed 
thefe  early  accounts  in  the  arrangement  of  the  recorded 
facts,  and  that  hence  arofe  the  deviation  from  St.  Mat- 
thew's order,  which  has  occafioned  fo  much  perplexity 
to  the  harmonifts. 

Another  argument  for  the  opinion  that  the  Evange- 
lifts  made  ufe  of  written  documents  is,  that  St.  Luke, 
who  when  left  to  himfelf  was  able  to  write  good  Greek, 
has  fometimes  in  his  Gofpel  fuch  harlh  Hebraifms,  as 
he  would  hardly  have  ufed,  unlefs  he  had  drawn  from 
written  documents.  I  will  mention  a  few  examples, 
Ch.  i.  49.  a,ytov  ro  oyofj-x  uvrs,  if  it  is  equivalent  to 
3  ayjoi/  ro  ovoy.oi.  aurs',  is  a  harfh  Hebraifm. — Of  iXiog, 
ver.  50.  54.  58.  72.  I  have  already  treated.  Vol.  L 
ch.  iv.  fed.  7. — ETToino-E  jcparo?,  ver.  51.  is  exaftly  de- 
rived from  the  Hebrew  ^^n  r\ti/V'°>  res  magnas  geflit, 

vicit. — McJicrOri'a*  fAts?,  tu  A^^aa^,  ver.  54,  ^^.  is 

the  fame  Hebraifm  as  we  find  in  the  Septuagint,  Pfalm 
xcviii.  3.  £;iAvn(r6»)  ra  sXiBg  aura  tw  Ia>cwS,  and  Pfalm  cxix. 
49.    wvn(r0»Tt  ruv  Acywv  <rsTw  ^aXw  (r». — V.  Jo.  zr^o  zir^o(rw7ra 

Taxu^ia",  and  V.  79.  (TXia  ^avara'*  are  manifeft  Hcbra- 

ifms. — Ch.   vii.    21.    i^i^XTriva-i  xa-oXXa?   octto — (/.ufiym*   is 

an  harlh  exprelTion,  which  no  where  occurs  in  the  New 
Teftament,  except  in  the  prefent  inftance,  and  at  Mark 
iii.  10.  v.  29.  34.     Homer  indeed,  in  defcribing  a  dif- 

order 

'f  Mar»|  is  the  common  literal  tranflation.  In  the  Septuagint,  of 


CHAP.  in.  Cauje  of  Agreement  in  ihejame  Exprejfions.    95 

order  with  which  the  Greeks  were  afflifled,  fays,  they 
were  lafhed  with  Jupiter's  fcourge  '^ :  but  Homer  had 
here  the  .image  of  a  fcourge  before  his  eyes,  and  wrote 
in  allegory,  whereas  a  writer  who  literally  calls  a  difeafe 
a  fcourge,  and  ufes  fuch  expreflions  as  ^  to  be  afflidled 
with  a  fcourge,'  '  to  be  cured  of  a  fcourge,'  no  longer 
thinks  on  the  original  meaning  of  ju«rtH-  Pure  Greek 
writers  never  applied  the  word  in  this  manner. — Ch.  ixo 
51-53,  xcr^oo-wTToi/  difharmonioufly  occurs  not  lefs  thaa 
three  times,  where  a  pure  Greek  writer  would  not  have 
ufed  it  even  once.  In  the  fecond  inftance,  73-^0  zTpoa-u-sys 
avTH  is  a  common  Hebraifm  '^ :  in  the  fecond  and  third 

inflances,  ro  ■ar^oa-urrov  aura  £r>l^»^£  ra  ziro^£U£o-9«t  iig  Ifpa- 
4raA»j]W.,    and   ro    ZTpoa-unrov   «ut8  r\v   Tjooivoy-ivov   tig   ItPHTaXnys, 

are  lefs  common  Hebraifms,  of  which  we  find  examples 
in  2  Kings  xii.  17.  Jerem.  xlii.  15.  2  Chron.  xxxii. 
2'  . — Luke  xii.  8.  og  uv  o^w-oAoyno-ft  tv  e/WtO*,  and  0  u»of  Ts 
a^0^w•7r8  oy.oXoyntrii  lu  avra,  a  Syriafm,  which  I  havc 
already  explained^. — Luke  xiii.    16.  ih  in  the  fenfe  of 

jam,  is  a  Syriafm  borrowed  from  j<^'%  of  which  I 
recoiled:  no  other  inflance  in  the  whole  New  Tefta- 
ment^. 

y  See  Vol.  r.  ch.  iv.  feft.  5. 

^  Unlefs  Luke  xiii.  7.  is  to  be  confidered  as  another  inftance.     In 
the  Septuagint  is  an  example  at  Deut. '  *  viii.  4. 


CHAP. 


96  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  chap.  iv. 

CHAP.     IV. 

OF  ST.  Matthew's  gospel. 

SECT.     I. 

Account  of  St.  Matthew  J  and  of  the  time  when  he  wrote 
his  Gojpel. 

ST.  MATTHEW  is  faid  to  have  written  his  Gofpel 
before  the  other  three  EvangeHfts*.     His  name  in 
Hebrew  is  "Ti^  contra6led  from  TinD,  and  not  rmrSD 

which  in  Greek  would  be  expreffed  by  MarOia? '.  His 
profefllon  and  call  to  the  apoftolic  office  he  himfelf  re- 
lates, ch.  ix.  9. :  and  by  his  long  attendance  on  Chrift 
he  was  enabled  to  communicate  accounts  on  which  we 
can  depend. 

It  has  been  the  common  opinion,  and  I  acceded  to 
it  in  the  firft  edition  of  this  Introduftion,  that  St. 
Matthew  was  named  like  wife  Levi,  and  that  he  was 

the 

»  I  purpofely  let  this  fentence  remain  doubtful,  as  I  wrote  it  in 
tlie  fecond  edition  of  this  Introduftion,  at  a  time  when  the  alTertion 
that  St.  Matthew  really  compofed  his  Gofpel  before  the  other  three 
Evangelifts,  which  1  made  in  the  firft  edition,  began  to  appear  to  me 
uncertain.  Soon  after  the  fecond  edition  appeared.  Dr.  Biifchingpub- 
lifhed  his  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gofpels,  in  which  he  aflerted,  p.  97, 
that  St.  Luke  wrote  before  St.  Matthew  :  and  not  obfcrving  that  J 
had  already  begun  to  waver  in  my  former  opinion,  requefted  me  to 
favour  him  with  my  fentiments  in  regard  to  his  own.  To  this  I  an- 
fwer  that  I  am  fo  far  of  his  opinion  at  prefent,  as  to  believe,  that 
when  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel,  he  knew  nothing  of  a  Gofpel  written 
by  St.  Matthew,  at  leaft  not  of  a  Greek  Gofpel,  fuch  as  Theophilus 
could  read:  for  Ch.  i.  1-^4.  he  fpeaks  of  the  Gofpels,  which  then 
exifted,  as  Gofpels  written  by  perfons,  who  were  not  eye-witnelfes, 
and  whofe  accounts  therefore  flood  in  need  of  that  corredlion  which 
he  gave  them,  by  tracing  up  every  relation  to  its  firft  fource.  But  as 
I  believe  tliat  St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Hebrew,  I  am  not 
certain  that  the  original  was  not  in  exiftence,  when  St.  Luke  wrote 
his  Gofpel :  I  will  only  affirm  that  the  tranflation  had  not  then  been 
m^de.  That  St.  Mark  wrote  later  than  St.  Luke  I  have  no  doubtj 
pf  which  I  (hall  aflign  the  realbns  hereafter. 


sEct.  I.  Of  Sl  Matthew's  Gojpel.  ^y 

the  fon  of  Alphceus,  becaufe  St.  Mark,  ch.  ii.  14.  relates 
the  call  of  Levi,  a  receiver  of  tribute  and  fon  of  Al- 
phseus,  and  St.  Luke,  ch.  v.  27.  relates  alfo  the  call  of 
Levi,  both  with  the  fame  circumftances,  and  nearly  in 
the  fame  words,  as  St.  Matthew  relates  his  own  call. 
Grotius  in  one  of  his  Notes  to  Matth.  ix.  contradifts 
this  opinion:  and  Theodore  Hafc  has  publifhed  in  the 
fifth  volume  of  the  Bibliotheca  Bremenfis  a  treatife  en- 
titled, Difquifitio  de  Levi  a  Chriflo  ad  apoftolatum  vo- 
cato,  in  which  he  has  endeavoured  to  fhew,  that  Levi, 
mentioned  by  St.  Mark,  is  not  St.  Matthew,  but  the 
apoltle  Lebbeus.  Heumann  in  his  Expofition  of  St. 
Mark's  Gofpel  has  adopted  the  fame  fcntiments,  and 
fupported  them  by  new  arguments:  Lardner  on  the 
contrary,  in  the  third  volume  of  his  Supplements  to  the 
Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory,  p.  317-323,  has  en- 
deavoured to  confute  the  opinion  maintained  by  Theo- 
dore Hafe.  After  having  weighed  the  arguments  on 
both  fides,  I  am  inclined  to  entertain  the  following 
opinion,  which  is  a  medium  between  both,  and  which 
Grotius  himfelf  adopted. 

The  accounts  which  are  given  by  St.  Matthew, 
ch.  ix.  9.  by  St.  Mark,  ch.  ii.  14.  and  by  St.  Luke, 
ch.  V.  27.  contain,  as  to  the  main  point,  a  relation  of 
one  and  the  fame  tranfaftion,  as  muft  be  evident  to 
every  one  who  compares  Matth.  ix.  1-17.  Mark  ii. 
1-22.  Luke  V.  17-39.  and  examines  the  whole  con- 
nediion*.  But  it  is  not  therefore  a  necefiary  confequence 
that  St.  Matthew  and  Levi  were  one  and  the  fame  per- 
fon,  fince  it  is  at  lead  pofllble,  that  two  receivers  of 
tribute  were  called  on  the  fame  day,  and  even  from  the 
fame  tribute-houfe^  One  of  them  was  St.  Matthew; 
and,  as  it  was  of  more  importance  to  the  readers  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  to  be  informed  of  the  call  of  it's 
author  to  the  apoftlePjip,  than  of  the  call  of  Levi, 
cfpecially  if  Levi  was  not  called  to  be  an  apoflle,  it  is 
cafy  to  conceive  the  reafon,  why  St.  Matthew  mentioned 
only  his  own  call,  and  was  filcnt  in  refpe6l  to  that  of 
Levi.     St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  on  the  contrary,   might 

Vol.  III.  G  with- 


9S  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel  chap.  iv. 

with(5ut  impropriety  be  filent  in  refpedl  to  St.  Matthew, 
and  mention  only  the  call  of  Levi,  partly  becaufe  Levi, 
as  being  the  Ton  of  Alphojus,  was  related  to  Chrift*,  and 
perhaps  through  this  relationfhip  occafioned  the  call 
likewife  of  St.  Matthew;  and  partly,  becaufe  perhaps 
Levi  was  the  principal,  and  St.  Matthew  only  an  in- 
ferior pcrfon  at  the  tribute-houfe,  a  fuppofition,  which 
is  not  improbable,  as  St.  Mark  exprefsly  relates  that  the 
entertainment,  which  was  given  to  Jefus  on  this  occa- 
fion,  was  in  the  houfe  of  Levi,  and  St.  Luke  defcribes 
alfo  Levi  as  the  mafter  of  the  feaft;  whereas  St.  Mat- 
thew, after  having  related  his  own  call,  does  not  fay 
that  the  entertainment  was  given  in  his  houfe,  but  fays 
only,  *  as  Jefus  fat  at  meat  in  the  houfe' ^. 

My  reafons  for  believing  that  St.  Matthew  and  Levi 
were  different  perfons,  notwithftanding  both  were  tax- 
gathers,  and  both  were  called  at  the  fame  time,  are  the 
following. 

I.  In  the  catalogue  of  the  twelve  Apoftles,  St.  Mark'' 
and  St.  Luke*^  afcribe  to  our  Evangelift  no  other  name 
than  that  of  Matthew.  Is  it  credible  then,  that  in  de- 
fcribing  his  call  to  the  apoftlefliip,  they  fliould  both 
have  agreed  in  naming  him  Levi,  and  have  thus  occa- 
fioned an  unneceffary  confufion  to  the  reader  ?  ^ — The 
fame  argument  operates  likewife  againft  the  opinion, 
that  Levi  is  the  fame  pcrfon  as  Lebbgeus. 

1.  The  fons  of  Alphjeus,  at  lead  of  that  Alphceus, 
with  whom  we  are  acquainted  in  the  New  Teilament^, 
were  near  relations  of  Jefus,  for  their  mother,  whofe 
name  was  likewife  Mary,  was  filter  to  Jefus's  mother. 
They  were  James,  Jofes,  Simon  and  Judas,  and  they 
are  mentioned  Matth.  xiii.  55.  and  there  called  brethren 
of  Chri(P.  One  of  them,  namely  James,  is  exprefsly 
called  the  fon  of  Alphscus,  Matth.  x.  3.  Mark  iii.  iB, 
Luke  vi.  15.:  and  of  their  mother  we  find  an  account 
Matth.  xxvii.  56.  Mark  xv.  46.  If  St.  Matthew 
therefore  was  a  fon  of  the  fame  Alphseus,  he  was  a  near 
relation  of  Jefus',     But  of  this  relationlhip  we  no  where 

find 
»>  Ch.  iii.  18.    ,  'Ch.  vi.  15. 


SECT.  I.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  99 

find  the  fmallefl:  trace:  and  at  the  principal  pafTage^, 
where  St.  Matthew  names  the  relations  of  Chrift,  he  is 
filent  in  refpedt  to  himfelf*. 

But,  though  I  believe  that  Levi  and  St.  Matthew 
were  not  the  fame  perfon,  I  Ihall  not  attempt  to  diicover 
which  of  the  twelve  Apollles  Levi  really  was.  I  fee 
no  necellity  for  fuppofing  that  Levi  was  an  Apoftle  at 
all :  at  leaft  the  command,  which  he  received  to  follow 
Chrift,  does  not  necefiarily  imply  that  he  was  admitted 
into  the  number  of  the  twelve,  fmce  Chrift  felefted 
feventy  difciples,  in  addition  to  the  twelve  Apoftles". 

We  know  therefore  very  little  of  St.  Matthew,  before 
his  call  to  the  Apoftlefhip,  and  are  unacquainted  even 
with  the  name  of  his  father.  The  accounts,  which  are 
given  of  his  death,  are  likewife  attended  with  great 
uncertainty,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  doubt,  whether  he 
died  naturally,  or  fufFered  martyrdom".  But  fince  we 
know  for  certain  that  he  was  an  Apoftle  of  Chrift,  this 
fingle  circumft"ance  is  fufficient  to  prove  both  the  cre- 
dibility and  infpiration  of  his  Gofpel. 

The 

'  Ch.  xlii.  55. 

"=  To  the  preceding  arguments  I  added,  in  the  fecond  edition,  the 
following.  That  St.  Matthew  was  a  fon  of  Alphsus,  and  confe- 
quently  brother  of  St.  James,  is  likewife  improbable  from  the  manner 
in  which  St.  Matthew  mentions  himfelf  in  the  lift  of  the  Apoftles, 
ch.  X.  3.  He  writes  thus  :  Thomas,  and  Matthew  the  tax-gatherer; 
James  the  fon  of  Alphseus,  and  Lebbaeus  furnamed  Thaddaeus.'  Now 
if  St.  Matthew  as  well  as  St.  James,  had  been  a  fon  of  Alph^us,  he 
would  furely  not  have  neglefled  to  mention  it :  and  he  would  have 
written.  '  Matthew  the  tax-gatherer,  fon  of  Alphasus,  James  his  bro- 
ther, and,'  &c. — This  argument  may  be  applied  with  not  lefs  force 
againft  the  identity  of  Levi  and  Lebbaeus.  For  if  they  had  been  one 
and  the  fame  perfon,  St.  Matthew  would  have  written,  '  James  the 
fon  of  Alphasus,  and  Lebbaeus  his  brother,  who  was  furnamed  Thad- 
dseus:'  efpecially  as  St.  James  and  Thaddaens  ftand  in  the  fame  pair, 
which  is  not  the  cafe  with  St.  James  and  St.  Matthew. 

This  obje£lion  I  omit  at  prefent,  becaufe  Lebbsus  was  certainly 
brother  of  James,  though  it  did  not  occur  to  me  that  he  was  (o, 
when  I  made  the  objeftion.  But  I  have  thought  proper  to  print  ii 
in  a  note,  as  a  caution  to  others,  left  any  one  fhould  hit  on  the  fame 
argument,  and  fuppofe  it  to  be  valid '". 

G    2 


loo  Of  St,  Matthew's  Go/pel.         chap,  iv. 

The  year  like  wife  in  which  St.  Matthew  wrote  his 
Gofpel,  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty.  Ancient 
teftimonies  contradift  ancient  teitimonies  on  this  fubjedt. 
Theophyla6l  and  Euthymius,  who  lived  in  the  eleventh 
and  twelfth  centuries,  contend  that  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel  was  written  in  the  year  of  Chrifb  41  '^,  which 
makes  it  the  mod  ancient  of  all  the  books  of  the  New 
Teflament.  The  fame  is  afferted  in  moft  of  the  fiib- 
fcriptions  to  this  Gofpel,  and  likewife  in  a  life  of  St. 
Matthew,  written  in  Arabic''*'.  Eufebius  however,  to 
whom  appeal  has  been  made  in  fupport  of  this  opinion, 
has  not  advanced  it '^.  Nicephorus  relates  that  it  was 
written  fifteen  years  after  the  afcenfion,  but  Irenieus 
fays  that '  St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Gofpel,  at  the  time, 
when  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter  were  preaching  at  Rome"^, 
which  according  to  fome  critics^  was  in  the  year  61, 
though  it  really  mud  have  been  much  later.  For  fur- 
ther information  on  this  fubjed,  I  refer  the  reader  to 
Lardner's  Supplements  to  the  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel 
Hillory,  Vol.  I.   p.  95.  and  following  pages. 

In  a  cafe  therefore  where  our  hiftorical  accounts  are 
fb  contradictory,  it  is  the  fafeft  method  to  make  no 
pofitive  affirmation  whatfoever.  Arguments  a  priori 
can  never  decide  on  a  queftion,  which  merely  relates  to 
a  matter  of  fa6t :  and  after  the  reafons,  which  have 
been  affigned  by  Mafch  ^  and  Lardner,  we  are  left  in 
the  fame  date  of  uncertainty,  as  before.  Both  of  thefe 
writers  delivered  their  opinions  independently  of  each 
other',  and  the  latter  endeavours  to  prove  by  arguments 
a  priori,  that  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  written  above 
thirty  years  after  the  afcenfion,  whereas  the  former  has 
attempted  to  fhew  by  a  limilar  mode  of  reafoning,  that 
it  was   written  at  a  much  earlier  period.     Dr.  Mafch 

contends, 

»  Adv.  HiEref.  Lib.  III.  Cap.  I. 
g  See  Mill.  Prol.  §  61—64. 

•>  In  his  Eflay  on  the  Original  Language  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel'*, 
§  2. 

\  The  one  publifhed  in  1755?  the  other  in  1756. 


SECT.  r.  Of  St,  Matthew's  Go/pel.  loi 

contends,  '  it  is  probable  that  the  Apoflles  foon  pro- 
vided for  an  authentic  hiftory  of  Chrift's  tranfaflions, 
bccaufe  many  years  did  not  elapfe  before  they  feparated 
to  preach  the  Gofpel  in  various  parts  of  the  world/ 
and  he  adds  ^  that  a  meafure  fo  neceffary  for  the  con- 
verfion  of  unbelievers,  and  for  the  fupport  of  believers, 
could  hardly  admit  a  delay  of  thirty  years.*  But  to 
this  argument  we  may  reply,  that  as  long  as  the  verbal 
preaching  of  the  Apoflles  lafled,  written  accounts  were 
not  altogether  neceflary :  and  Mafch  himfelf  is  of  opi- 
nion that  feven  or  eight  years  elapfed  after  the  afcenfion 
without  any  written  Gofpel.  The  fame  arguments  then, 
which  are  ufed  to  vindicate  Divine  Providence,  in  per- 
mitting feven  or  eight  years  to  elapfe,  notwithftanding 
fo  many  converts  were  made  on  the  day  of  Pentecofb, 
who  lived  at  a  diftance  from  Palefline,  and  feemed 
therefore  to  ftand  in  need  of  written  documents,  are 
applicable  to  a  period  of  thirty  years,  or  to  the  whole 
period,  during  which  the  Apoftles  continued  to  teach 
verbally. — Dr.  I.ardner,  who  by  arguing  a  priori  as 
well  as  Dr.  Mafch,  deduced  a  very  different  conclufion, 
fays  in  the  Supplement  to  the  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel 
Hiftory,  Vol.  I.  p.  ii6.  *  The  hfe  of  Jefus  could  not 
be  forgotten  in  thirty  or  forty  years.'  And  he  prefently 
after  adds,  ^  If  about  thirty  years  after  our  Lord's  af- 
cenfion, his  hiftory  was  written  by  eye-witncflcs  or  their 
companions,  it  was  foon  enough :  yea,  it  was  the  fitteft 
time  of  all.  At  the  year  fixty  of  our  Lord's  nativity, 
according  to  the  vulgar  £ra,  and  later,  there  certainly 
were  enougli  ftich  perfons,  as  thofe  juft  mentioned,  ftill 
living,  to  record  his  words  and  works,  and  more,  who 
were  willing  and  defirous  to  read  written  hiftories  of 
him,  than  before  :  and  alfo  more  to  tranferibe  and  copy 
out  of  thofe  hiftories  for  their  own  ufe,  and  for  the  ufe 
and  benefit  of  others,  than  in  any  preceding  time.' 
Now  though  I  admit  with  Lardner  that  the  year  So 
would  not  have  been  too  late,  yet  I  would  not  therefore 
infer  that  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  not  written  fooner : 
for  even  had  it  been  written  within  a  year  after  Chrift's 

G  3  afcen- 


IG2  Of  St.  Matthew^s  Go/pel.  chap,  iv, 

afcenfion,  it  could  hardly  be  faid,  that  its  compofition 
was  premature. 

Equally   indecifive    are   the   internal   marks,    which 
Lardner  fuppofed  he  had  difcovered  in  the  Gofpel  of 
St,  Matthew,  and  from  which  he  argued  that  it  could 
not  have  been  written  till  after  the  year  60.     Now  I 
have  no  objeftions  to  make  againft  any  attempt  to  de- 
termine the   date    of   a   publication    from    its   internal 
marks :  but  in  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  I  am  unable  to 
difcovcr  any  fuch  marks,  as  could  lead  to  a  conclufion 
in  refpecSt  to  the  year,  when  it  was  written.     Lardner 
indeed  fuppofes  that  this  Gofpel  difcovers  fo  complete 
an  in  fight  into  the  doftrine  of  the  call  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  the  abolition  of  the  Levitical  law,  as  the  Apofties, 
he  fays,  did  not  poffefs,  till  many  years  after  the  death 
of  Chrifh  '^ :   whence  he  concludes  that  it  muft  have 
been  written  many  years  after  that  event.     But  I  cannot 
fuppofe,  that  the  Apoftles,  after  that  they  had  received 
the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  ftill  retained  their  Jewifh 
prejudices,    and   moreover    retained   them    in   fuch    a 
rnanner,  as  to  be  unable  at  any  time  to  give  a  true  and 
faithful  account  of  Chrift's  do6lrines,  fince  they  wrote 
under  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Deity.     It  is  true 
that  the  Apoftles  did  not  infift  on  the  abolition  of  the 
Levitical  law  in  Paleftine,  for  this  dodlrine  belonged 
properly  to  other  countries,  and  God  permitted  thofc 
who  had  been  educated  in  the  Levitical  law,  ftill  to 
retain  it :    yet  it  does  not  neceflarily  follow  that  the 
Apoftles  believed  it  ftill  continued  to  have  the  force  of 
a  divine  obligation.     In  the  prefence  of  the  Jews  they 
avoided  a  doctrine,  which  was  not  intended  for  them, 
and  which  could  not  have  failed  to  have  given  them 
offence.     Again,  the  Apoftles,  it  is  true,  during  feveral 
years  did  not  go  abroad,  to  preach  the  Gofpel  to  the 
Gentiles.     But  fliall   we   conclude   therefore   that  they 
were  prevented  by  Jewifti  prejudices  from  attempting 
the  converfion  of  the  Gentiles  ?     The   Pharifees  them- 
felves,  who  compafled  land  and  water  to  make  a  pro- 
felyte,    would    hardly    have    gone    fo   fari    and   they 

would 


SECT.  I.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  103 

would  only  have  infifted  on  circumcifion  for  the 
Gentile  converts.  That  St.  Peter  was  commanded  in 
a  vifion  to  preach  the  Gofpel  to  Cornelius,  does  not 
appear  to  me  to  imply  that  previous  to  that  command 
St.  Peter  had  confidered  it  as  unlawful :  and  it  is  pro- 
bable that  he  had  no  other  motive,  than  mere  tendernefs 
for  the  Jews,  who  were  unwilling  to  receive  into  the 
church  thofe  who  had  not  been  circumcifed,  for  abllain- 
ing  from  all  connection  with  the  Gentiles,  till  he  had 
been  exprefsly  informed,  that  the  time  was  now  arrived 
for  the  converfion  alfo  of  thofe,  who  had  not  been  ini- 
tiated in  the  law  of  Mofes.  But  even  if  we  admit  that 
St.  Peter,  before  he  had  the  vifion  in  the  houfe  of  Cor- 
nelius, retained  the  national  prejudice  which  the  Jews 
in  general  had  againft  the  Heathens,  we  muft  ftill 
afcribe  his  condu£t,  not  to  an  error  of  the  underftand- 
ing,  but  (imply  to  a  want  of  energy  in  the  will. 

Were  it  true,  that  the  Apoftles  were  not  entirely  free 
from  fuch  erroneous  notions,  which  however  it  would 
be  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  yet  St.  Matthev/,  confidered  as  a  mere  human 
hiftorian,  was  furely  able  to  give  a  true  and  faithful 
account  of  the  dodrines  which  he  had  heard  delivered 
by  Chrift.  If  they  appeared  to  him  extraordinary,  and 
contrary  to  his  former  nodons,  he  might  have  accom- 
panied them  v;ith  a  comment  expreffive  of  his  former 
prejudices :  yet  thefe  prejudices  would  n6t  have  ren- 
dered his  memory  fo  weak,  as  to  be  unable  to  retain 
the  dotlrines,  Vv'hich  he  had  aftually  heard,  nor  his 
hand  fo  untrue,  as  to  be  unable  to  record  them.  The 
firft  example  which  Lardner  has  produced  is  from 
Matth.  xxviii.  19.  'Go  ye,  and  teach  all  nations.' 
But  as  this  command  was  given  by  Chrift  before  his 
afcenfton,  and  not  invented  by  St.  Matthew  thirty  years 
afterwards,  I  can  fee  no  reafon  why  St.  Matthew  could 
not  have  recorded  it  feven  years,  or  even  feven  days, 
after  it  was  delivered,  as  eafily  as  at  a  later  period.  If 
he  underftood  not  the  call  of  the  Gendles  in  its  full 
extent,  he  might  have  thought  within  himfelf,  that  they 

G  4  ought 


104  Of  St.  Matthew* s  Gofpel.  chap,  iv. 

ought  at  the  fame  time  to  be  circumcifed  :  yet  his  own 
private  opinion  would  not  have  prevented  hirn  from 
deUvering,  as  an  honeft  man,  the  command  of  Chrift, 
in  the  form,  in  which  he  had  received  it. 

I  have  hitherto  reprefented  Lardner's  internal  marks 
of  time  in  the  moft  advantageous  hght.  But  his  other 
examples  have  really  lefs  weight  than  that,  which  I  have 
juft  examined.  For  inftance,  *  li  he  had  not  known 
that  our  Saviour  was  defigned  to  be,  or  was  already 
become  a  bleffing  to  the  Gentiles,  he  would  fcarcely 
have  thought  of  inferting  the  hiftory  of  the  Magi 
coming  from  the  Eaft  to  Jerufalem.'  A  ftill  more  ex- 
traordinary argument  he  derives  from  the  confecration 
of  the  Eucharift,  *  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  which  is  given  for  many,  that  iSy  for  all  men.* 
Internal  marks  of  this  defcription  Lardner  has  enu- 
merated to  the  amount  of  fourteen,  not  one  of  which 
is  of  any  real  value  *^ :  yet,  though  his  arguments  arc 
weak,  the  propofition  itfelf,  namely,  that  St.  Matthew 
did  not  write  his  Gofpel  before  the  year  60,  is  probably 
true,  and  I  adopt  it  on  the  authority  of  Irenseus. 

One  difficulty  however  attends  the  teftimony  of  Ire- 
naeus  on  this  fubjedl.  In  a  preceding  paragraph  of  this 
fedlion,  where  I  quoted  the  words  of  this  Greek  father, 
I  cOnfidercd  them  as  applying  to  the  time,  when  St. 
Paul  was  prifoner  for  the  firil  time  in  Rome,  of  which 
•we  read  an  account  in  the  twenty-eighth  chapter  of  the 
Afts  of  the  Apoftles'^  But  at  that  time  St.  Peter 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  in  Rome  :  and  as  Irenseus 
exprefsly  fays,  that  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  was 
written,  *  while  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  were  preaching 
in  Rome,  and  laying  the  foundation  of  the  church  in 
that  city'','  Lardner  underflands  St.  Paul's  fecond  im- 
prifonment  in  Rome,  which  ended  with  his  martyrdom. 

According 

k  The  Greek  words  of  Irenajus,  quoted  by  EufebiuSj  (Hift.  Ecclef, 
Lib.  V.  cap.  8.)   are  th  Ylir^a  ncci  t«  HccvXh  fy  P&)^»)  ivixyyi>>i^o^vj'jiy 


SECT.  r.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gojpel,  105 

According  to  this  explanation,  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel 
was  written,  not  in  the  year  61,  but  in  64  or  6^.  On 
this  fubjeft  more  will  be  faid  hereafter. 

Before  I  deliver  my  own  lentiments,  I  mufl  mention 
a  fourth  opinion,  which  is  very  different  from  either  of 
the  three  already  mentioned,  and,  though  almoft  def- 
titute  of  hiftorical  evidence',  refers  the  compofition  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  to  a  much  earlier  period.  Tille- 
mont"  namely  contends,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  his 
Gofpel  in  the  third  year  after  Chrift's  afcenfion*'.  He 
argues  thus:  When  St.  Paul  was  at  Jerufalem  in  the 
fourth  year  after  Chrift's  afcenfion",  he  faw  no  one  of 
the  Apoftles  there,  except  St.  Peter  and  St.  James"; 
the  other  Apoftles  therefore,  and  confequently  St.  Mat- 
thew, muft  have  already  left  Jerufalem.  But  St.  Mat- 
thew is  faid  to  have  written  his  Gofpel  at  Jerufalem*': 
hence  it  follows,  that  he  wrote  it  before  St.  Paul's  ar- 
rival. Now  this  induvSlion  is  wholly  infufficient  for  the 
eftablifhment  of  an  hiftorical  fad,  as  it  is  not  only  un- 
fupported  by,  but  even  contrary  to  the  teftimony  of 
ancient  writers.  The  words  of  St.  Paul,  '  I  went  to 
Jerufalem  to  fee  Peter,  but  other  of  the  Apoftles  faw 
I  none,  except  James,'  in  flidl  imply  that  there  were 
other  Apoftles  at  that  time  in  Jerufalem**,  with  whom 
St.  Paul  made  no  acquaintance,  becaufe  he  was  not  come 
to  learn  the  Gofpel  from  the  Apoftles,  but  had  learnt 
it  by  immediate  infpiration  from  the  Deity.  The  obje6t 
of  St.  Paul  in  the  firft  chapter  of  the  Epiftle  to  the 
Galatians,  is  to  ftiew  how  little  connexion  he  had  with 

the 


^  I  purpofely  ufe  the  expreffion  '  ahnoj}  dellitute  of  hiftorical  evi- 
dence,' becaufe  Cofmas  of  Alexandria  might  be  quoted  in  fupport  of 
Tillemont's  opinion:  for,  according  to  Cofmas,  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel 
was  written  at  the  time  of  the  difperfion  of  the  Chriftians  after  the 
death  of  Stephen^®.  But  a  writer  of  the  fixth  century  can  no  more 
be  confidered  as  evidence  for  an  hiftorical  fad  in  the  lirll  centur/» 
(han  Tillemont  himfelf. 

p»  Memoires,  Tom.  I. 

»  QaLi.  18,  19, 


io6  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

the  Apoftlesj  and  that  his  knowledge  was  not  derived 
from  them  :  his  account  therefore,  that  he  faw  only 
St.  Peter  and  St.  James  at  Jerufalem,  can  never  war- 
rant the  inference  that  all  the  other  Apoitles  had  left 
it. 

To  the  preceding^ opinion  may  now  be  added  a  fifth, 
in  which  however  no  particular  year  is  determined  for 
the  compofition  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  Dr.  Srorr 
in  his  treatife  *  On  the  Defign  of  the  Evangelical  Hif- 
tory  and  Epiftles  of  St,  John,  §  62.'  contends  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  later  than  St.  Mark,  and  derived 
from  him  a  confiderable  part  of  his  materials.  But 
Storr's  arguments  have  not  rendered  this  opinion  even 
probable. 

Having  related  the  fentiments  of  others,  I  will  now 
briefly  ftate  my  own.  Though  I  cannot  pretend  to 
determine  with  any  certainty,  I  acknowledge  that  the 
relation  of  Iren'cijus  appears  to  me  the  moft  probable  : 
not  only  becaufe  Irenseus  is  the  moft  ancient  writer  on 
this  fubject,  but  likewife  for  other  reafons.  St.  Luke, 
as  I  Ihall  fliew  hereafter,  could  not  well  have  feen  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthev/  before  he  wrote  his  own ;  or, 
he  would  have  avoided  every  apparent  contradidiion  to 
an  eye-witnefs,  and  moreover  would  not  have  arranged 
his  fa6ls  in  a  manner  fo  very  different  from  that  of  St. 
Matthew.  But  if  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  written 
feveral  years  before  that  of  St.  Luke,  it  could  hardly 
have  been  unknown  to  this  Evangelift,  efpecially  as  he 
had  been  in  Jerufalem,  and  even  wrote  his  Gofpel,  as 
I  fhall  endeavour  to  fhew  hereafter,  during  St.  Paul's 
imprifonment  at  C^efarea.  Befidcs,  when  an  ancient 
father  afllgns  a  date  to  the  publication  of  a  book,  we 
have  rather  reafon  to  fufpeft,  that  he  has  made  'it  too 
ancient,  than  that  he  has  made  it  too  modern. 

Dr.  Mafch,  in  his  treatife  on  tlie  original  language 
of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  §  z.  prefers  to  the  teftimony 
of  Irena!us  the  accounts  of  Theophyla6l  and  Euthymius, 
who  lived  near  a  thoufand  years  later.  He  fays,  that 
Irenasus,  in  the  very  place,  when  he  fpeaks  of  the  time 

when 


SECT.  I.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gojpel.  107 

when  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  writterij  has  made  two 
evident  miftakes :  firft,  in  faying  that  St.  Mark  wrote 
his  Gofpel  after  the  death  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul, 
though  it  is  certain  that  St.  Mark  fuffered  martyrdom 
before  them :  and  fecondly,  in  defcribing  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul  as  preaching  both  of  them  at  the  fame  time  in 
Rome,  which  is  not  true.  The  falfity  of  thefe  accounts 
therefore,  Dr.  Mafch  contends,  deftroys  the  credibility 
of  IrentEUs  as  to  the  remaining  part  of  the  ftory. 

I  fhali  not  enter  into  the  inquiry  at  prefent,  whether 
Iren^eus  was  miftaken  in  regard  to  thefe  two  pofitions, 
as  I  (ball  examine  them  hereafter.  On  the  firft,  I  fhall 
acknowledge  that  Irenieus  really  was  miftaken,  though 
I  fliall  not  undertake  to  determine  in  what  year  St. 
Mark  fuifered  martyrdom,  as  it  is  uncertain  whether 
he  fuffered  martyrdom  at  all.  But  the  fecond  pofition 
I  cannot  confider  as  neceffarily  erroneous :  for  though 
St.  Peter  could  not  have  been  at  Rome  when  St.  Paul 
came  thither  a  prifoner  from  Jerufalem,  yet  I  can  fee 
no  ground  for  the  affertion,  that  they  were  not  after- 
wards together  in  Rome,  and  fuffered  martyrdom  there. 
Though  I  ftiall  not  enter  into  this  controverfy,  which  be- 
longs to  the  province  of  ecclefiaftical  hiftory,  yet  I  muft 
obferve,  that  if  the  teftimony  of  a  v^riter,  who  lived 
near  the  time,  when  the  facts  which  he  has  recorded, 
are  faid  to  have  happened,  is  for  this  reafon  to  be  rc- 
jefled,  that  he  has  introduced  into  his  narrative  fome 
inaccurate  circumftances,  there  will  remain  but  a  fmali 
portion  of  hiftory,  in  which  we  can  confide.  We 
know  by  experience  what  happens  to  ourfelves,  when 
we  relate  a  ftory,  which  we  have  heard  from  others. 
Error  very  frequently  mixes  itfelf  with  the  truth.  In 
the  examination  of  the  ftory,  the  miftakes  are  rejefted, 
as  foon  as  they  are  difcovered  to  be  fuch,  and  that, 
which  is  true,  is  feparated  from  that  which  is  falfe  : 
and,  fmce  we  ftiould  act  unjuftly,  if  we  difcarded  the 
whole,  becaufe  a  part  is  inaccurate,  we  muft  give  credit 
to  the  remainder,  till  that  alfo  can  be  ftiewn  to  be 
equally  ungrounded. 

Farther, 


io8  Of  Si.  Matthe'x^s  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

•  Further,  Dr.  Mafch  contends,  what  I  believe  every 
one  will  readily  grant,  that  feveral  accounts  of  the  life 
of  Chrift  had  been  drawn  up,  before  St.  Luke  wrote 
his  Gofpel.  But  the  inference  which  he  thence  de- 
duces, I  cannot  fo  readily  admit.  He  fays,  the  cir- 
cumftance,  that  fo  many  perfons  had  then  written  an 
hiflory  of  Chrift's  tranfadtions,  may  be  moft  eafily  ex- 
plained on  the  hypothefis,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  his 
Gofpel  in  the  year  41:  fince  in  that  cafe  it  is  eafy  to 
conceive,  that  his  example,  and  the  commendations  be- 
llowed on  his  Gofpel,  might  induce  others,  though 
they  had  no  authority  for  that  purpofe,  to  engage  in  a 
iimilar  undertaking.  But  on  the  contrary,  if  we  fup- 
pofc  that  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  not  written  before 
the  year  61,'  it  follows  that  the  firll  accounts  which  are 
given  of  the  life  of  Chrift,  were  written  by  unautho- 
rized perfons,  which  Dr.  Mafch  contends.  Divine 
Providence  would  hardly  have  permitted.  Hence  he 
argues  that  the  firft  Life  of  Chrift  was  written  by  an 
Apoftle. 

Now  this  kind  of  reafoning,  in  which  we  argue  from 
what,  according  to  our  opinion.  Divine  Providence 
ought  to  have  performed  or  neglecSbed,  has  never  af- 
forded me  the  fmalleft  conviftion,  when  the  queftion 
limply  related  to  what  adually  has  or  has  not  happened, 
even  in  cafes,  where  I  have  fancied,  that  I  could  clearly 
perceive,  why  one  mode  of  proceeding  would  have  been 
more  beneficial  than  another.  Our  views  are  too  con- 
fined, and  we  know  too  little  of  the  whole  chain  of 
caufes  and  efFe(5ls,  to  determine  what  the  wifdom  of  the 
Deity  ftiould  ordain:  we  muft  believe,  that  whatever 
is  ordained,  is  for  the  beft,  even  though  to  our  imper- 
feft  views  it  ftiould  appear  otherwifc.  The  hiftory  of 
mankind  can  furnifti  us  with  numberlefs  examples, 
which  we  might  fuppofe  to  be  incompatible  with  the 
wifdom  and  the  juftice  of  the  Deity  :  we  know  that 
powerful  combinations  are  frequently  formed  to  violate 
and  fupprefs  the  truth,  and  that  even  thofe  warriors, 
whofe  objed  is  tyranny  and  rapine^  are  not  feldom  re- 
warded 


SECT.  I.  Of  St.  Matthew* s  Gofpel.  109 

warded  by  fplendid  vidories.  We  do  not  call  in 
queftion  the  truth  of  fuch  combinations  and  vi6lories, 
becaufe  we  cannot  reconcile  them  with  divine  wifdom : 
but,  fatisfied  of  the  reality  of  the  fads,  we  ftill  confide 
in  the  Deity,  and  truft  that  the  final  event  will  not  be 
unworthy  the  great  Creator  of  all  things.  And  as  we 
argue  in  political  hiftory  we  argue  likewile  in  ecclefi- 
aftical.  The  long  hiflory  of  heretics  would  be  reduced 
to  nothing,  if  we  concluded,  that  God  would  never 
fufi^er  what  appears  to  us  to  be  detrimental :  and  we 
fliould  be  obliged  to  deny,  that  the  very  numerous 
abufes,  which  prevailed  in  the  Chrillian  Church  before 
the  Reformation,  had  ever  exifted.  But  the  difadvan- 
tages,  which  would  arife  from  the  circumftance,  that 
the  firft  accounts  of  Chrift's  miniftry,  were  not  written 
by  Apoftles,  is  really  not  fo  great  as  Dr.  Mafch  fuppofes. 
The  firft  verbal  accounts  which  were  communicated 
out  of  Paleftine,  were  certainly  not  communicated  by 
the  Apoftles :  and  if  the  firft  written  accounts  were 
not  communicated  by  them,  yet  as  long  as  they  lived 
and  taught,  there  was  little  danger  to  be  apprehended 
from  the  erroneous  relations  of  other  writers.  And, 
whatever  inconveniencies  might  have  followed,  yet  as 
foon  as  the  four  Evangeiifts  had  written  their  Gofpels, 
thofe  inconveniencies  were  removed.  At  leaft  the  for- 
mer erroneous  accounts  could  then  do  no  greater  injury, 
than  if  they  had  been  written  many  years  afterwards : 
for  the  credibility  of  an  hiftorian  depends  on  his  cha- 
ra6ler  and  circumftances,  not  on  the  priority  of  his 
compofition.  And  this  is  the  reafon,  why  our  four 
Gofpels  alone  have  defcended  to  pofterity,  while  other 
narratives  of  Chrift  have  almoft  totally  vanilhed. 

I  have  no  determined  opinion  on  this  fubjed:,  which 
I  wifti  to  fupport  in  oppofition  to  other  critics.  Though 
I  am  inclined  to  abide  by  the  teftimony  of  Irenasus, 
becaufe  it  is  the  moft  ancient  which  we  have,  I  will  not 
pretend  to  decide  whether  the  words  of  Irena^us  fliould 
be  fo  explained,  as  to  denote  the  period  when  St.  Paul 
was  a  prilbner  in  Rome  for  the  firft  time,  or  the  period 

of 


no  Of  St.  Matthew* 5  Go/pel,  chap,  ir, 

of  his  fecond  imprifonment,  when  he  fuffercd  martyr- 
dom with  St.  Peter.  If  we  adopt  the  firft  explanatiorij 
we  may  be  able  perhaps  to  alTign  the  motive,  which 
induced  St.  Matthew  to  write  his  Gofpel.  According 
to  the  accounts  of  ecclefiaftical  writers",  it  was  written 
for  the  immediate  ufe  of  the  Hebrews,  that  is,  of  the 
Jewifh  converts  to  Chrifbianity.  Now  thefe  Hebrews 
underwent  a  fevere  perfecution,  during  the  time  that 
St.  Paul  was  prifoner  at  Rome  :  and  this  very  perfecu- 
tion occafioned  the  well-known  Epiftle,  which  they 
received  from  St.  Paul.  What  therefore  could  be  more 
neceffary,  or  more  proper  in  that  fituation,  than  to 
furnifh  them  with  an  authentic  narrative  of  the  miracles, 
and  particularly  of  the  refurreftion  of  Chrift  ?  It  is 
therefore  not  improbable  that  both  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel  and  St.  Paul's  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  were 
written  with  the  fame  intent,  to  confirm  the  faith  of  the 
Jeivi/h  converts  to  Chrijiianity,  and  to  prevent  a  relapfe  to 
Judaifm.  This  I'uppofition  agrees  likewife  with  the  ac- 
count which  is  given  by  an  anonymous  writer  of  the 
fevendi  century,  at  the  beginning  of  his  *  Imperfect 
work  on  St.  Matthew,'  ufually  afcribed  to  Chryfof- 
tomP. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  St.  Matthew  wrote  a  few 
years  later,  namely  when  St.  Paul  was  prifoner  for  the 
fecond  time  in  Rome,  we  can  more  ealily  afiign  a 
reafon  for  it's  being  unknown  to  St.  Luke,  when  he 
wrote  his  Gofpel,  for  in  that  cafe  St.  Luke's  Gofpel 
was  written  before  St.  Matthew's  *^.  It  is  true  that  this 
fuppofition  contradifts  the  commonly  received  opinion, 
that  St.  Matthew's  is  the  moft  ancient,  an  opinion  fup- 
ported  by  no  lefs  authority  than  that  of  Origen  ***.     To 

this 

">  Eufebii  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  III.  cap.  24..  39.  Lib  V.  cap.  10. 
Irena;us  adv.  Haeref.  Lib.  IIL  cap.  i.  Origenis  Fragm.  Tom.  I. 
commentar.  in  Matthseum.  Epiphanius  adv.  Haref.  XXX.  feft.  3. 
Dorothei  Synopfis  de  vita  prophetarum,  in  Biblioth.  Patrum  Maxima, 
Tom.  1.  p.  427. 

P  See  Chryfoft.  Opera,  Tom.  VL  p.  j  i.  cJ.  Paris. 


SECT.  II.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  iii 

this  very  ancient  opinion  it  is  fuppofed  to  be  owing, 
that  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  is  generally  placed  firft  in 
the  Greek  manufcripts ;  but  this  rule  does  not  prevail 
univerfally,  for  there  is  a  manufcript  at  Vienna,  in 
which  the  firft  place  is  allotted  to  the  Gofpel  of  St. 
John,  on  account  perhaps  of  the  fuperior  dignity  of  its 
author. 


SECT.     II. 

Attempt  to  reconcile  the  contradictory  accounts,  in  reJpeSl  to 
the  time  when  St.  Matthew's  Gojpel  was  written. 

THOUGH  according  to  fome  writers  the  Gofpel  of 
St.  Matthew  was  written  only  eight  years  after  the 
afcenfion,  but  according  to  others  at  a  much  later 
period,  we  may  reconcile  this  feeming  contradiftion,  for 
it  is  poffible  that  both  of  thefe  accounts  are  true.  If 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  written  originally  in  Hebrew, 
and  afterwards  tranflated  into  Greek,  the  former  date 
may  denote  the  time  of  the  original  compofition,  and 
the  latter  may  relate  to  the  year  in  which  this  Gofpel 
nrft  appeared  in  Greek  ^  That  this  is  the  true  ftate  of 
the  cafe  appears  to  me  highly  probable.  For,  on  the 
one  hand,  much  may  be  faid  in  favour  of  the  account 
given  by  Iren^eus,  and  on  the  other  hand  there  is  ftrong 
internal  evidence  for  the  affertion,  that  it  was  written 
fo  early  as  eight  years  after  the  afcenfion,  that  is,  in  the 
year  41  of  the  Chriftian  aera.  In  this  year  Herod 
Agrippa  became  king  of  Judaea  and  Samaria*^.  It  may 
be  alked  then,  whether  St.  Matthew,  if  he  had  written 
after  the  year  41,  would  have  faid,  ch.  ii.  i.  ^  When 
Jefus  was  born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judaea  in  the  days  of 
Herod  the  king,'  without  diftinguilliing  by  fome  epithet 
the  firft  and  great  king  Herod,  from  the  later  king 
Herod*?  If  fo,  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  muft  have  been 

written 

^  Jofeph.  Archsol.  XIX.  j. 


112  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  chap.  iv. 

written  either  in  the  beginning  of  the  year  41,  or  before 
that  year,  as  Pearce  has  already  obferved  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Evangelifts^  It  is  true  that  this  ar- 
gument applies  immediately  to  the  two  firft  chapters 
only,  on  which  a  doubt  is  entertained  whether  they 
were  written  by  St.  Matthew.  But  if  it  proves  that  an 
addition  to  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  not  written  after 
the  year  41,  it  will  follow  of  courfe  that  the  Gofpel 
itfelf  was  not  written  later*.  I  can  fee  therefore  no 
impropriety  in  believing  that  both  the  early  and  the 
later  date,  afTigned  to  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  are  con- 
fident with  the  truth :  that  it  was  originally  written  in 
Hebrew'  in  the  beginning  of  the  year  41,  before 
Herod  Agrippa  was  appointed  king  of  Judasa,  but 
that  the  Greek  tranflation  of  it  was  not  made  till  61, 
or  later  ^ 


SECT.     IIL 


Of  the  original  language  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.     Intro- 
duSlory  remarks  to  this  inquiry. 

I  NOW  come  to  a  much  controverted  queftion,  in 
what  language  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  originally 
written ;  whether  in  the  Greek,  which  is  now  extant, 
as  many  modern  writers  contend,  or  in  Hebrew,  as  all 
the  ancient  authors,  who  have  exprefsly  delivered  their 
fentiments  on  this  fubjeft,  have  affirmed.  By  Hebrew 
we  are  not  to  underftand  at  prefcnt  the  language,  in 
which  the  books  of  the  Old  Teftament  are  for  the  moft 
part   written,    but    the    Chaklee    dialed,    which    was 

Ipoken 

*  On  this  account  therefore  it  might  have  been  unknown  tci 
St.  Luke  ^ 


SECT.  iir.  Of  Si.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  113 

fpoken  at  Jerufalem  in  the  time  of  the  Apoftles',  and 
to  which  the  ancient  Fathers  apply  the  name  of 
Hebrew,  as  well  as  to  the  language  fpoken  before  the 
captivity. 

I  {till  retain  the  opinion,  which  I  advanced  in  the 
firft  edition  of  this  Introdu.ftion,  that  we  ought  to  abide 
by  the  teftimony  of  the  ancients,  and  to  alTume  a 
Hebrew  original  for  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel :  though  I 
acknowledge  that  this  opinion  has  in  fome  meafure  loft 
of  it's  certainty,  fmce  the  appearance  of  a  publication 
which  was  direfted  againft  my  defence  of  it^  This 
publication,  which  was  written  by  Dr.  Mafch,  and 
printed  at  Halle  in  1755,  is  entided,  ^  ElTay  on  the 
orisiinal  language  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel'*. 

The  opinion  of  modern  writers  of  the  Proteftant 
church,  is  for  the  molt  part  unfavourable  to  a  Hebrew 
original.  I  purpofely  fay  of  the  Proteftant  church, 
becaufe  the  members  of  the  church  of  Rome  adhere 
in  general  to  the  opinion  of  the  Fathers  ^  efpecially 
Richard  Simon,  to  whom  the  crlticifm  of  the  New 
Teftament  is  highly  indebted,  and  who  has  written  a 
profoundly  learned  defence  of  a  Hebrew  original  of  St, 
Matthew's  Gofpel,  in  his  Hiftoire  cridque  du  Texte 
du  N.  T.  ch.  5,  6.  Maius,  in  his  Examen  hiftoriag 
cridcEB,  cap.  ^y  G.  and  Schroder  in  his  dTflertation  Dc 
lingua  Math£ei  authentica,  have  contradided  Simon. 
Their  objedlions  I  endeavoured  to  anfwer  in  the  firfl: 
edition;  but  at  prefent  I  fhall  chiefly  confine  myfelf  to 

Dr, 

=  That  Chaldee  was  the  common  language  fpoken  at  Jerufalem  in 
the  time  of  the  Apoltles,  I  have  fliewn  in  the  Introduftion  to  the 
Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  I  have  prefixed  to  the  Commentary  on 
that  Epiftle',  §  u. 

'  This  feftion  I  added  in  the  fecond  edition,  in  confequence  of  the 
publication  to  which  1  here  allude :  but  a  later  and  more  minute 
examination  of  the  paffages  in  Origen  and  Eufebius,  which  Dr. 
Mafch  had  quoted  in  fupport  of  a  Greek  original,  has  really  confirmed 
me  in  my  foriher  opinion.  I  leave  the  fentence  however  unaltered, 
that  the  reader  may  perceive,  with  what  caution  I  have  examined  the 
queftion. 

Vol.  Ill,  H 


114  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap,  iv* 

Dr.  Mafch's  more  complete  work  on  this  fubje6b,  be- 
caufe  an  anfwer  to  his  arguments  will  at  the  fame  time 
contain  an  anfwer  to  thofe  of  his  predeceflbrs. 

But  even  among  the  Proteftants  there  are  not  wanting 
writers  who  have  ably  defended  a  Hebrew  original  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel ;  for  inftance,  among  the  Lu- 
therans, Conr.  Horneius,  George  Calixtus,  i^gid, 
Hunnius.  J.  Conr.  Dannhauer,  J.  Meifner,  and  even 
the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  who,  if  I  miftake  not, 
are  quoted  to  that  purpofe  even  in  Schroder's  diflerta- 
tion'*'.  The  late  Schwartz,  in  his  treatife,  De  foloecifmis 
difcipulorum  Jefu  antiquatis  ^,  p.  49,  fays  very  de- 
cidedly, *  Omnis  antiquitas  conipirat  in  tribuenda  ei 
hifloria  Chrifti  Syriaca.  Andquitatis  autem  confenfui 
pertinaciter  et  prasfrafte  refragari  temeritatis  cujufdam 
cfle  videtur  et  impudentia^.*  Among  the  members  of 
the  Calvinift  church,  1  will  mention  Rhcnferd  and 
Rcland  :  and  Mafch"  has  named  feveral  others,  as  well 
as  members  of  the  church  of  England^,  who  have 
adopted  the  opinion,  which  he  has  endeavoured  to 
confute.  But  as  it  is  not  my  intention  to  write  an  hif- 
tory  of  the  controverfy,  I  fliall  take  no  further  notice 
of  the  authors  who  have  defended  my  fide  of  the  quef- 
tion  :  and  thofe  which  I  have  already  mentioned  I  have 
introduced  with  no  other  view,  than  to  fliew  that  the 
opinion,  which  I  defend,  is  not  heredcal. 

In  the  Introdu6lion,  which  I  have  prefixed  to  my 
Expofition  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  reader 
will  find  many  obfervations,  which  are  applicable  to  the 
prefent  inquiry  :  particularly  in  the  19th  and  20th  fec- 
tions,  where  I  have  fliewn  that  theological  proofs,  as 
they  are  called,  which  are  grounded  merely  on  certain 
pofidons  laid  down  in  the  fyftems  of  dogmadc  theology, 
are  inadmiflible  in  deciding  a  queftion  of  hiftory^.  In 
fa6l  fuch  proofs  ought  not  to  be  called  theological,  for 
no  pofidon  can  be  admitted  as  theological,  unlefs  it  can 
be  proved  from  the  Bible  :  but  that  St.  Matthew  wrote 
in  Greek  is  an  article,  for  which  we  find  no  authority 

ia 
"  Pag.  8,  9,  •      . 


^TCT.  Ill,  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gojpd.  I15 

in  the  Bible,  the  queftion  being  purely  hiftorical,  and 
having  no  relation  to  doftrinai  Divinity,  though  it  has 
material  influence  on  the  interpretation  of  St.  Matthew's 
Golpel. 

Equally  indecifive  are  the  arguments,  which  are 
drawn  from  the  fuppofition,  that  a  Greek  original  would 
have  been  more  confiftent  with  the  wifdom  of  Provi- 
dence, becaufe  the  Greek  language  was  more  generally 
known.  It  is  not  for  us  to  determine,  what  the  Divine 
Wifdom  ought  to  have  ordained,  but  (imply  to  examine 
what  adlually  was  ordained.  Befides,  in  the  prefent 
inftance,  the  fuppofition  of  ^n  Hebrew  original  is  by 
no  means  inconfiftent  widi  Divine  Wifdom.  The  Jews 
had  been  hitherto  the  peculiar  people  of  God  :  in  the 
very  age,  in  which  St.  Matthew  wrote,  they  had  been 
diftinguiflied  by  the  prefence  of  the  Meffiah  among 
them,  who  preached  to  this  nation  alone,  nor  did  the 
Apoftles  go  forth  to  convert  the  Gentiles,  till  they  had 
firft  preached  the  Gofpel  to  the  inhabitants  of  Judaea. 
The  firil  Chriftian  communities  confifted  of  Jewifh 
converts ;  and  the  language  then  fpoken  by  the  Jews, 
not  only  in  Paleftine,  but  on  the  borders  of  the  Tigris 
and  Euphrates,  and  probably  in  Perfia  and  Arabia, 
was  no  other  than  Hebrew,  or,  as  we  more  properly 
term  it  at  prefent,  Syro-Chaldee.  Was  it  therefore 
unbecoming  Divine  Providence,  that  one  Gofpel  out  of 
the  four  fhould  have  been  written  in  Hebrew,  that  the 
Eaftern  Jews  might  have  a  Gofpel  in  their  own  lan- 
guage, as  well  as  they,  who  lived  in  countries  to  the 
weftward  of  Paleftine,  and  underflood  only  Greek  ? 
Was  no  care  to  be  taken  for  the  many  thoufands  of 
Jewifh  Chriftians,  who  fled  to  Pella  and  the  neighbour- 
ing cities  ?  Were  the  Nazarenes,  though  this  name 
became  afterwards  an  heretical  appellation,  to  be  totally 
neglefted  ?  The  anfwers,  which  Dr.  Mafch  has  given 
to  queries  of  this  kind,  though  not  delivered  in  the  fame 
words,  ,the  reader  will  find  p.  143,  144,  of  his  above 
quoted  publication.  He  fays,  the  Greek  language  was 
generally  underflood  in   Paleftine,  a    pofition  which  I 

H  2  fhall 


ii6  Of  St.  Matthew's  GofpeL         chap,  iv, 

fhall  examine  in  the  fequel:  but  however  well  it  n.ight 
be  known  in  Paleftine,  it  certainly  was  not  underftood 
by  the  Jews,  who  lived  to  the  eaftward  of  that  country. 
To  other  objedions  drawn  from  arguments  a  priori, 
and  from  the  fuppofition  of  what  ought  to  have  been 
performed,  I  fhall  make  no  reply,  becaufe  they  are 
%vholly  foreign  to  a  queftion  of  hiftorical  fad'. 


SECT.    IV. 


Tejlimonies  cf  the  Ancient s,  relative  to  an  Hebrew  Original 
of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel. 

AS  our  prefent  queflion  is  hiftorical,  the  decifion 
of  it  mufl  principally  depend  on  the  teftimony  of 
ancient  writers.  It  is  true  that,  if  we  take  the  tefti- 
mony in  the  ftrideft  fenfe  of  the  word,  fo  as  to  denote 
the  evidence  of  perfons  who  were  contemporary  with 
St.  Matthew,  we  fhall  not  be  able  to  produce  any  on 
this  fubjeft.  But,  where  ecclefiaftical  hiftory  fails  us  in 
the  firft  century,  we  muft  be  contented  with  the  ac- 
counts, which  come  the  nearefl  to  that  period  :  and 
for  the  fake  of  brevity,  I  muft  beg  leave  to  ufe  the 
terms  '  witnefs'  and  *  teftimony,'  though  the  fa6t,  for 
which  I  quote  the  authority  of  ancient  writers,  did  not 
lie  within  their  own  a6lual  experience.  Mains  indeed 
objects,  that  we  ought  not  fo  much  to  examine  what 
the  ancients  have  reported,  as  whether  they  have  re- 
ported the  truth.  But  this  objeftion  is  totally  ufelefs, 
for  thefe  reports  alone  can  determine,  what  is  the  truth. 
On  a  point  of  do6trine  the  objedion  of  Maius  would 
be  valid :  for  in  fiich  a  cafe  the  Fathers  do  not  teltify 
a  fad,  but  fimply  deliver  their  opinion,  which  is  no 
proof.  Further,  I  admit  that  when  the  Fathers  relate 
what  is  highly  improbable,  we  are  not  obliged  to  give 
credit  to  their  accounts:  but  tjie  pofition  *  St.  Matthew 
wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Hebrew/  is  furely  not  attended 

with 


SECT.  IV.         Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  ny 

with  the  rmalleft  improbability.  I  fhall  proceed  there- 
fore to  examine  what  the  ancients  have  reported  on  this 
fubjedl. 

The  firft  evidence  for  a  Hebrew  original  of  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gofpel,  is  Papias,  who  lived  very  near  the  time 
of  the  Apoftles.  His  words  are  preferved  by  Eufcbius, 
towards  the  end  of  the  thirty- ninth  chapter  of  the  third 
book  of  his   Ecclefiaftical   Hiftory,  and    are  as  follow: 

MarOaJOf  f/.tv    nu    E^poa^i    iiocXixru)    ra    Xoyicc    a-vviypa.'^cy.TO* 

»j^jM,t)i/£U(r£  (J'  avra  w?  n^vi/txro  iKag-og.  According  to  Papias 
then,  not  only  was  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  written  in 
Hebrew,  but  there  already  exifted  in  his  time  feveral 
Greek  tranflations  of  it,  fo  that  the  tranflation,  which 
we  have  at  prefent,  is  not  the  only  one,  which  was 
made  of  the  Hebrew  original,  though  this  alone,  in 
confequence  of  its  fuperior  excellence,  has  defcended 
to  pollerity.  Dr.  Mafch  indeed  interprets  the  words 
fi^fA.n)/tv(7£  ug  n^vvoiTo  sKarog  in  a  different  manner':  but 
as  this  part  of  the  evidence  of  Papias  does  not  affecl  our 
prefent  inquiry,  I  fhall  not  enter  into  any  controverfy 
about  it. 

The  advocates  for  a  Greek  original  have  not  only 
endeavoured  to  weaken  the  evidence  of  Papias  in  favour 
of  a  Hebrew  original,  but  have  endeavoured  likewife  to 
employ  it  in  fuch  a  manner  as  to  weaken  the  teftimony 
of  other  ecclefiaftical  writers  on  the  fame  fide  of  the 
queftion.  Papias,  they  fay,  was  credulous  and  fuper- 
Ititious  in  the  extreme,  a  believer  in  the  Millennium, 
a  writer  who  reported  fabulous  miracles,  and  who  gave 
credit  to  every  ftory  which  he  heard.  A  witnefs  of  this 
charadter,  fays  Dr.  Mafch,  is  not  to  be  credited  im- 
plicitly, and  even  in  cafes,  where  it  is  poftible  that  he 
fpeaks  the  truth,  he  will  find  it  difficult  to  procure 
belief  Thus  the  evidence  of  Papias,  the  oldeft  writer 
on  this  fubjecl,  being  fet  afide,  the  next  ftep  is  to 
render  all  later  accounts  fufpicious,  by  faying,  that  they 
are  founded  merely  on  the  relation  of  Papias,  and  con- 
fequently  that  they  muft  be  rejeded,  if  Papias  deferves 
no  credit.     But  that  later  writers  had  no  other  authority 

H  3  for 


it8  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.         chap.  iv. 

for  the  aflcrtion,  that  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  was  written 
in  Hebrew,  is  mere  conjefture,  for  it  is  fupported  by  no 
authority  whatfoever :  and  whoever  reads  the  account 
of  Origen  in  particular  muft  conclude,  that  he  did  not 
report  what  Papias  only  had  afTerted,  but  what  had 
been  handed  down  by  tradition,  and  was  the  general 
belief  in  the  time  of  Origen.  To  rejed:  the  teftimony 
of  every  ancient  author,  on  the  bare  fuppofition  that 
their  accounts  were  drawn  only  from  the  report  of  a 
credulous  v;itnefs,  is  furely  unjuft. 

But  the  fuperftition  of  Papias  does  not  appear  to  me 
to  be  of  fuch  a  nature  as  to  weaken  his  evidence  to  a 
plain  fa6t,  which  is  wholly  unconnected  with  the  mar- 
vellous :  and  his  fimplicity  renders  him  in  my  opinion 
an  important  witnefs  on  this  occafion.  His  heterodox 
notions  and  chiliaftic  dreams,  which  he  had  in  common 
with  many  of  the  Fathers,  cannot  afFeft  his  teftimony, 
■when  he  relates  what  is  unconnected  with  fnch  opinions: 
and  the  force  of  the  objeition  can  apply  only  to  his 
alledged  credulity  and  weaknefs  of  underftanding, 
How  far  he  w^as  weak  and  credulous  we  can  Judge  only 
from  the  accounts  of  Eufebius,  who  read  and  quoted 
him :  for  the  works  of  Papias  themfelves  are  no  longer 
extant.  Now,  though  it  is  a  rather  arbitrary  procedure, 
to  make  the  character  of  a  witnefs,  of  whom  the  Chrif- 
tians  of  the  fecond  and  third  centuries,  efpecially  Ire- 
na:us,  had  a  good  opinion,  depend  on  the  judgment 
of  a  writer  of  the  fourth  century,  even  though  that 
"writer  was  a  man  of  eminence,  yet  I  have  no  objection 
in  this  inftance  to  follow  Eufebius,  and  will  therefore 
quote  his  own  words,  that  the  matter  may  not  appear 
worfe  than  it  really  is.  They  are  as  follow''  :  *  I  havp 
already  related  that  the  Apoftle  Philip  lived  with  his 
daughters  at  Hierapolis,  to  which  I  mi;ft  now  add  an 
account  of  a  miracle,  which  Papias,  who  lived  in  the 
fame  period,  fays  he  heard  from  the  daughters  of  Philip, 
namely,  that  a  dead  perfon  was  in  their  time  reftored 
to    life.     He  mentions    alfo   another   miracle,    which 

happened 
^  Hilt.  Ecclef,  Lib.  HI.  cap.  39. 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Matthew' s  Gojpel.  119 

happened  to  Jufl-us  furnamed  Barnabas,  who  is  faid  to 
have  drunk  poifon,  without  receiving  any  injury.— 
This  fame  writer  has  recorded  many  other  things, 
which  he  had  learnt  from  oral  tradition,  fuch  as  certain 
parables  and  doctrines  of  our  Saviour,  of  which  we 
find  no  account  elfewhere,  and  alfo  fome  things  which 
are  more  fabulous.  Among  thefe  I  reckon  the  llory> 
that  after  the  refurreftion  of  the  dead,  a  temporal  king- 
dom of  Chrift  Vill  be  eflablifhed  on  earth,  and  will  laft 
a  thoufand  years.  Such  notions  I  fuppofe  he  acquired 
from  a  falfe  interpretation  of  the  figurative  and  myftical 
language  of  the  Apoftles :  for,  if  we  may  judge  from 
his  writings,  he  appears  to  have  had  a  very  weak  under- 
Handing.' 

That  this  judgement  of  Eufeblus  is  fufficient  to 
deftroy  the  credit  of  Papias,  when  he  relates  a  fimple 
faft  unconne6led  with  the  marvellous,  is  more  than  I 
am  able  to  difcover.  Through  weaknefs  of  under- 
(landing  he  gives  a  too  literal  explanation  of  figurative 
language:  but  in  the  prefent  inftance  we  are  not  to  in- 
quire whether  Papias  expounded  rightly,  we  have  only  to 
afk  whether  he  related  faithfully  :  and  Eufebius  himfelf, 
though  he  condemns  his  mode  of  interpretation,  does 
not  even  doubt  that  certain  accounts  of  the  Apoftles 
had  been  literally  tranfmitted  to  him,  on  which  he 
founded  his  inrerpretations.  Eufebius  therefore,  who 
is  the  only  ancient  writer,  who  can  be  quoted  to  the 
difadvantage  of  Papias,  denies  only  his  ability  as  a 
commentator,  and  does  not  call  in  queftion  his.  iideUty 
as  a  witnefs. 

Another  charge  againft  Papias  is,  that  in  confequence 
of  his  credulity  he  has  related  fabulous  miracles.  But 
the  examples,  which  Eufebius  has  produced  in  fupport 
of  the  charge,  are  in  themfelves  neither  abfurd  nor 
incredible :  they  are  of  the  fame  kind  as  others,  which 
are  related  in  the  Bible,  and  that  Juftus  drank  poifon 
without  injury  is  not  inconfiftent  with  the  promifes, 
which  Chrift  had  given  to  his  Apoftles.  Thefe  miracles 
therefore  bear  no  other  mark  of  falfekpod,  than  tha.t, 

H  4  Papias 


I20  Of  St.  Matthew'' s  Gojpel.  chap.  iv. 

Paplas  alone  has  related  them.  But  if  we  admit  that 
they  are  falfe,  does  it  follow,  that  a  writer  is  to  be  re- 
jefted  when  he  relates  common  fadls,  becaufe  at  other 
times  he  gave  credit  to  the  marvellous  ?  We  aft  not  in 
this  manner  in  refpe6l  to  the  writers  of  the  middle  ages ; 
for  though  we  rejeft  their  fabulous  legends  of  the  faints, 
to  which  through  the  fuperftition  of  the  times  they  too 
eafily  gave  credit,  yet  we  receive  their  teftimony  as  far 
as  it  relates  to  plain  hiftorical  occurrences. 

Thirdly,  Papias  is  charged  with  weaknefs  of  under- 
flanding,  and  on  this  ground  Dr.  Mafch  particularly 
refls.  He  allows,  that  when  a  man  is  credulous, 
merely  in  confequence  of  his  fuperftition,  his  teftimony 
is  admiflible  in  refpeft  to  fafts,  which  do  not  favour 
of  the  marvellous  :  but,  he  aflerts,  that  the  evidence  of 
a  man,  whofe  credulity  arifes  from  a  natural  weaknefs 
of  underftanding,  is  at  all  times  to  be  lufpefted.  Yet 
in  courts  of  juftice,  where  the  nature  of  evidence  is  well 
underftood,  this  principle  is  never  adopted.  A  weak 
man  may  hear  as  perfedlly  as  a  man  of  profound  un- 
derftanding, and  if  he  is  but  honeft,  as  Dr.  Mafch 
himfelf  acknowledges  that  Papius  was,  and  had  faith- 
fully inquired  of  eye-witnefTes,  or  perfons  contemporary 
with  the  fa6t  in  queftion,  we  may  furely  admit  his  evi- 
dence in  refpeft  to  what  he  had  heard  of  thofe  perfons. 
Eufebius,  from  whofe  writings  alone  the  arguments  are 
borrowed,  which  are  employed  againft  Papias,  does  not 
infer  from  his  fimplicity  that  his  accounts  in  general  are 
falfe ;  but  on  the  contrary,  if  we  except  the  Millennium 
and  fome  other  marvellous  ftories,  he  quotes  the  rela- 
tions of  Papias,  as  matters  well  worthy  of  notice, 
According  to  Eufebius,  the  weaknefs  of  Papias  confifted 
merely  in  a  fuperftitious  belief  of  miracles,  and  in  his 
literal  acceptation  of  figurative  language :  his  credulity 
therefore  was  of  the  fuperftitious  kind,  which  by  Dr. 
Mafch's  own  acknowledgement  does  not  render  evi- 
dence inadmiffible.  For  my  own  part  I  can  never 
confider  a  witnefs  as  fufpicious,  merely  becaufe  he  is 
deficient  in  underftanding:  on  the  contrary,  his  very 

fmiplicity 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  121 

fimplicity  would  rather  induce  me  to  confide  in  the 
accuracy  of  his  relation:  for  men  of  genius  and  lively 
imagination  introduce  frequently  into  their  narratives 
their  own  lentiments  and  adlions,  whereas  they  who  arc 
devoid  of  thefe  endowments,  report  without  ornament 
or  addition  what  they  have  literally  heard. 

I  have  hitherto  argued  on  the  fuppofition  that  Papias 
was  really  as  weak  and  as  credulous,  as  Eufebius  pre- 
tends: but  if  we  may  judge  from  the  extracts  which 
Eufebius  has  given  from  the  writings  of  Papias,  the 
charge  will  appear  to  be  at  leafb  doubtful.  The  two 
miracles  which  he  has  recorded,  even  though  they 
fhould  not  be  true,  are  far  from  being  ridiculous  or 
abfurd,  and  if  Papias  received  his  information  from  the 
daughters  of  Philip,  it  was  no  impeachment  of  his 
underftanding,  that  he  believed  them.  And  as  to  the 
parables  and  fpeeches  of  Chrift,  which  Papias  declared 
he  had  received  from  oral  tradition,  though  not  con- 
tained in  the  Gofpels,  Eufebius  is  fo  far  from  confider- 
ing  it  as  a  mark  of  weaknefs  that  Papias  committed 
them  to  writing,  that  on  the  contrary  he  appears  to 
believe  that  Chrift  adtually  dehvered  what  Papias  re- 
ported. It  is  merely  in  the  interpretation  of  thefe 
parables  and  fpeeches,  in  which  Eufebius  difcovers  the 
weaknefs  of  Papias:  and  he  condemns  him  only,  for 
interpreting  literally  and  not  myftically.  Now  here  it 
mufl  be  particularly  obferved,  that  Eufebius  was  a 
determined  admirer  of  Origen,  the  great  father  of 
allegory":  when  he  cenfures  therefore  a  writer,  wJio 
explained  the  Scriptures  on  different  principles,  v»7e 
ought  not  to  produce  his  cenfure  as  a  proof,  that  this 
writer  was  deficient  in  underftanding.  Origen  himfclf, 
eminent  as  as  he  was,  would  appear  to  us,  if  we  judged 
merely  from  his  mode  of  interpreting  Scripture,  to  be 
as  weak  as  Papias  appeared  to  Eufebius.  Neither  is 
Papias's  belief  in  the  Millennium  a  proof  of  the  charge, 
which  is  brought  againft  him:  for  this  belief  he  had  in 
common  with  many  Fathers,  whofe  underftanding  was 
never  called  in  queftion*     And  here  again  the  difciple 

of 


J 12  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  rv. 

of  Orlgen  appears  to  have  been  prejudiced  againft 
Papias,  for  no  other  reafon,  than  becaufe  Papias  had 
entertained  a  notion,  which  had  been  difcarded  by  his 
mafter.  Origen  had  taken  great  pains  to  explode  the 
dodlrine  of  the  Millennium  j  Papias  was  the  mod 
ancient  writer  in  its  defence,  and  his  authority  greatly 
contributed  to  its  propagation.  Eufebius  therefore,  a 
decided  Origenian,  endeavoured  to  deftroy  the  credit 
of  Papias,  in  order  to  remove  one  of  the  principal  fup- 
ports  of  the  Millennium.  That  Eufebius  was  preju- 
diced, and  that  his  predecefTors  thought  better  of 
Papias,  appears  from  what  he  himfelf  acknowledges : 
for  immediately  after  the  words  above  quoted,  he  adds, 
•  Yet  (that  is,  notwithftanding  the  weakneffes  with 
which  he  had  juft  charged  him)  he  was  the  caufe  that 
moft  ecclefiaftical  w-iters  after  his  time,  appeahng  to 
Papias  as  to  one  of  the  earlieft  Fathers,  have  adopted 
the  fame  opinion.  This  was  the  cafe  with  Ircnasus, 
and  with  odiers  who  entertained  fimilar  notions.'  It 
is  therefore  extremely  doubtful,  whether  this  ancient 
advocate  of  the  Millennium  was  fo  deficient  in  under- 
ftanding,  as  the  adverfary  of  that  opinion  has  repre- 
fented  him.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  admit  that  the 
reprefentation  be  juft,  we  mufb  not  go  further  than 
Eufebius  himfelf  has  done,  and  becaufe  Papias  was 
■wanting  in  fagacity,  afcribe  to  him  likewife  a  want  of 
fidelity. 

So  much  for  what  Eufebius  has  faid  againft  Papias: 
let  us  now  attend  to  what  he  has  faid  in  his  favour. 
In  the  chapter  from  which  the  former  quotation  was 
made,  Eufebius  writes  thus:  "  Papias  informs  us  in 
the  preface  to  his  books,  that  he  himfelf  had  neither 
feen  nor  heard  the  holy  Apoftles:  but  that  he  had 
learnt  the  Chriftian  faith  from  thofe  who  knew  the 
Apoftles.  His  own  words  are,  "  I  think  proper  to 
relate  to  thee  what  I  have  heard  from  the  elders,  and 
have  well  retained  in  my  memory,  and  to  add  an  ex- 
planation, in  order  to  confirm  the  truth.  I  was  never 
pleafed,   as   moft  perfons   are,   with  thofe  who  relate 

much. 


^ECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Matihew's  Go/pel.  1 1^ 

much,  but  with  thofe  who  relate  what  is  true :  riot  with 

thofe  who  hand  down  foreign  do6trines,  but  with  thofc 

who  deliver   the  commands,    which  were   intruded  to 

them  by  the  Lord,  and  which  come  from  the  fountain 

of  truth.      Whenever   I  met  with  any  who  had  been 

converfant  with  our  elders^,  I  carefully  enquired  into 

what  the   elders  had  faid:    what  Andrew,  what  Peter 

had  faid:  what  Philip,  or  Thomas,  or  James,  or  John, 

pr   Matthew,    or  any  other   difciple  of  the  Lord  had 

faid:  what  Ariftion  and  John  the  prefbyter  had  faid. 

For  I  was  of  opinion,    that  I  could  not  learn  fo  much 

from  the  reading  of  books,  as  from  the  verbal  accounts 

of   perfons   then   alive. — He   relates  that    he   himfelf 

had  heard  Ariftion  and  John  the  prefbyter,  and  in  his 

writings,    where  he  delivers  what  he  had  heard  from 

them,  he  frequently  quotes  them   by  name."     Now  a 

writer  of  this  defcription,  who  ftudioufly  endeavoured 

to  difcover  the   truth,  and  for   that  purpofe  inquired 

diligently  of  perfons,  who  had  been  converfant  with  the 

Apoflles,  and  among  them  with  St.  Matthew,    whofc 

name  he  mentions,  may  be  as  defeflive  in  underfland- 

ing,  as  Eufebius  or  any  any  one  pleafes,  yet,  confidered  as 

an  honefl  man,  he  is  an  important  and  irreproachable 

witnefs  in   the  examination   of  the   queflion,    in  what 

language  St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Gofpel. 

The  fecond  witnefs  is  Iren^eus,  who  in  his  third  book 
againft  Herefies,  Chap.  I.  fays,  ^  Matthew  compofed 
a  Gofpel  among  the  Hebrews  in  their  own  dialect''.' 
Dr.  Mafch  admits  that  the  words  of  Iremeus  are  clear, 
and  that  they  admit  of  no  other  interpretation:  the 
only  objeftion  therefore,  which  he  makes  is  this,  that 
Irenasus  probably  derived  his  intelligence  from  Papias, 
for  whom  he  had  great  veneration.  But  if  Irenseus, 
he  adds,  derived  his   intelligence  from  a  perfon,  who 

deferved 

y  Papias  here  means  the  Apoflles  and  their  contemporaries. 

2  The   Greek  words  of  Irenaeus,  as  quoted  by  Eufeb'us.    Hift. 
Ecclef.  Lib.  V.  cap.   8.   are,    o  fxiv  h  MarGaioj   iv  to*,-  ECgatoij  e* 


124  Of  St,  Matthew's  GofpeL  chap.  iv. 

deferved  no  credit,  we  can  no  more  depend  on  the  ac- 
counts of  Irenaeus,  than  on  thole  of  Papias.  Now 
this  argument  is  founded  on  a  mere  fuppofition  :  for  no 
one  can  prove,  that  Irentcus  had  no  other  authority 
than  Papias  for  what  he  has  afferted,  or  that  any  other 
accounts  were  then  in  circulation,  which  contradifled 
the  aflertion  of  Papias.  Dr.  Mafch  indeed  requires, 
that  we  fhould  bring  a  pofitive  proof,  that  Irenseus  did 
not  borrow  his  informauon  on  this  fubje6t  from  Papias  ^ 
fmce  it  is  certain  that  he  had  feveral  other  erroneous 
notions,  which  he  did  derive  from  Papias :  and  till  this 
proof  has  been  given,  he  maintains  that  Irenaeus,  to  fay 
the  lead  of  him,  muft  be  declared  neutral.  Now  thefe 
erroneous  notions  relate  to  the  Millennium,  which 
many  writers,  both  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times, 
have  believed,  without  forfeidng  their  credit  as  hifto- 
rians. 

Next   follows  Pant^nus,    who   was   prefident   of  a 
fchool  in   Alexandria,    toward  the  end  of   the  fecond 
century,  and  is  reprefented  by  Eufebius,  as   a  man  of 
great  learning.     It  is  true  that  not  only  the  writings  of 
Pantaenus  are  loft,  but  that  no  extra6ls  from  them  are 
now  on  record.     Striftly  fpeaking,  therefore  we  cannot 
produce  Pantcenus  as  evidence  for  a  Hebrew  original  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.     However  it  is  related  of  Pan- 
tasnus,  that  he  travelled  into  India,  to  preach  the  doc- 
trines of  Chrift,  and  that  he  found  many  who  were  al- 
ready converts    to   Chriftianity,    in   vv/hole   hands   was 
the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew.     This  information 
comes  from  Eufebius,  who  in  his  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory, 
B.  V.   ch.  lo.  writes  of  Pantiunus  as   follows:  *  It  is 
faid,  that  he  difplayed  fo  much  ardour  for  the  Divine 
Word,  that  he  went  a  preacher  of  the  Gofpel  to  the 
nations  of  the  Eaft,    and  came  as  far  as  India.     For 
there  were  at  that  time  many  preachers  of  the  Word, 
who  were  animated  with  a  divine  zeal  of  imitating  the 
Apoftles  by  contributing   to  the   enlargement  of  the 
Gofpel,  and  the  eftablilhment  of  the  Divine  Word: 
of  whom  Panticnus  was  .one,  who  is  faid  to  have  gone 

to 


SECT.  IV,  Of  St.  Matthew'' s  Gofpel.  125 

to  the  Indians.  Here  it  is  related  that  he  found  in  the 
hands  of  feveral,  who  had  already  heard  of  Chrift,  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  J  that  St.  Bartholomew,  one  of 
the  Apoftlcs,  had  preached  to  them,  and  delivered  to 
them  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  written  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  which  was  preferved  among  them  to  that  day.' 
Dr.  Mafch  contends  that  this  whole  relation  has  fo 
much  the  appearance  of  a  fable,  that  Eufebius  himfelf 
did  not  believe  it,  and  that  a  man  mufl  be  as  credulous 
as  Papias,  if  he  did  not  doubt  its  truth.  Perhaps  the 
ftory  appeared  improbable  to  Dr.  Mafch  in  confequence 
of  the  word  '  India,'  which  he  took,  according  to  its 
common  acceptation,  for  the  country  between  the  Indus 
and  the  Ganges :  though  in  fact,  even  if  this  fenfe  be 
afcribed  to  it,  the  account  is  not  incredible,  for  it  appears 
from  the  very  circumflantial  Syriac  accounts  collected 
by  Afleman,  that  the  Chriftian  religion  was  not  only 
propagated,  but  flourifhed,  in  the  Eaft  Indies  at  a  very 
early  age,  and  continued  till  the  fourth  century,  after 
which  period  it  was  gradually  extinguifhed.  But  the 
word  India,  in  ecclefiaftical  hiftory,  is  frequently  ufed 
to  denote  the  happy  Arabia,  as  Tillemont  has  rightly 
obferved  in  his  Memoires  pour  fervir  a  rhiftoire  eccle- 
fiaftique,  under  the  article  Bartholomew.  At  prefent 
the  matter  is  more  clear  than  it  was  in  Tillemont's 
time.  In  Arabia  Felix  were  two  different  kinds  of 
inhabitants,  which  are  mentioned  by  Mofes  in  the 
tenth  chapter  of  Genefis,  namely,  Cufliites  (from  whom 
the  AbyfTinians  derive  their  origin),  and  the  defcendants 
of  Joktan  :  the  former  are  called  by  the  Syrians,  as  well 
as  by  the  Hebrews,  K»a>D,  that  is,  Cufhites,  the  latter 
Jwjjoi,  that  is,  Indians  ^.  Now  that  Panttenus  preached 
the  Gofpel  in  Arabia  Felix  is  hy  no  means  incredible, 
cfpecially  as  Alexandria,  the  place  of  his  refidence,  was 
at  no  great  diftance,  and  had  a  much  greater  com- 
mercial intercourfe  with  that  country,  than  it  has  at 
prefent.     Further  Arabia  Felix,  where  many  Jews  re- 

fided, 

»  See  on  this  fubjedl  AffemanI  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom.  I.  p,  359. 


J 26  Of  St.  Matthew's  GofpH.  chaI*.  iti 

fided,  and  where  even  kings  had  been  converted  to  the 
Jewiih  religion,  is  a  country  where  we  might  not  un- 
reafonably  expe6l  to  hear  that  a  Hebrew  Gofpel  had 
cxifted,  fince   the  Apoftle   Bartholomew  would   hardly 
have  brought  a  Greek  Gofpel  into  a  country,  where  the 
Greek  language  was  not  fpoken.     Nor  is  it  improbable 
that  thi3   Hebrew  Gofpel  was   ftill   extant   in   Arabia 
Felix  at  the   end  of  the  fecond  century,    though    in 
Paleftine  itfelf  it  did  not  fo  long  continue  to  be  in 
common  ufe.     That  Eufebius  did  not  fay  in  pofitive 
terms,  *  Panttcnus  travelled  into  India,'  but  only    '  it 
is  faid  that  Panti^nus  travelled  into  India,'  is  no  proof 
that  Eufebius  himfelf  gave  no  credit  to  the  account : 
though  I  confefs  that  the  account  is  not  fo  certain,  as 
it  would  have  been,  if  Eufebius  had  exprelTed  himfelf 
more  flrongly.     If  it  be  true,    it  not   only   affords  a 
ftrong  argument  for  a  Hebrew  original  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel,  but  furnifhes  likewife  an  anfwer  to  the  objec- 
tion, that  no  ecclefiaftical  writer  has  ever  pretended  to 
have  aftually  feen  the  Hebrew  original.     On   the  ccher 
hand  if  the  relation  given  by  Eufebius  is  a  forgery,  it 
proves  at   leaft  that   it  was   the    ancient   opinion,  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Hebrew,  or  the  flory, 
that  Pant£Enus  faw  it  in  that  language,  would  not  have 
been  invented. 

To  the  argument  drawn  by  Dr.  Mafch,  from  the 
circumftance,  that  Jerom*  has  related  the  ftory  of  Pan- 
tcenus  with  feveral  additions  to  the  account  given  by 
Eufebius,  it  is  hardly  neceffary  to  make  a  reply :  for 
polidcal  as  well  as  ecclefiaftical  hiftory  would  foon  be 
reduced  to  a  very  narrow  compafs,  if  it  were  allowable 
to  erafe  every  fa6l,  which  different  hiftorians  iiad  dif- 
ferently related,  or  which  through  length  of  time  had 
been  augmented  by  an  acceffion  of  circumftances  not 
mentioned  in  the  firft  account.  To  the  objecStion  that 
the  Hebrew  Gofpel  feen  by  Pant^nus  was  not  neceffarily 
the  original  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  fince  it  might 
have  been  only  a  Hebrew  tranflation  made  by  St.  Bar- 
tholomew, I  anfwer^  that  if  the  ancients  had  not  ge- 
nerally 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gcf^el.  127 

nerally  believed,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew, 
the  expreffion  *  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  written  in  the 
Hebrew  language,'  ufed  by  Eufebius  and  Jerom,  would 
leave  it  undetermined  whether  they  meant  an  original 
or  a  tranllation :  but  fince  the  ancients  really  did  be- 
lieve in  a  Hebrew  original,  I  do  not  fee  how  the  words 
of  Eufebius  and  Jerom  can  be  underflood  of  a  tranf- 
lation. 

The  fourth  witnefs  is  Origen,  whofe  evidence  on  this 
fubje6t  Eufebius  has  preferved  in  the  fixth  book  of  his 
Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,  ch.  xxv.  As  Dr.  Mafch ''  con- 
tends, that  Origen  himfelf  did  not  believe  what  he 
related  in  refped  to  the  language  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel,  and  Schroder  pretends,  that  Origen  followed 
only  the  authority  of  Papias,  and  therefore  is  not  to  be 
coniidered  as  feparate  evidence,  I  will  quote  the  words 
of  Eufebius  and  Origen,  that  the  reader  may  judge  for 
himfelf.  '  In  the  firft  book  of  his  Commentaries  on 
the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  Origen,  obferving  the 
ecclefiaftical  canon,  declares  that  he  acknowledges  only 
four  Gofpels,  expreffing  himfelf  thus :  "  As  I  have 
learnt  by  tradition  (iv  zrci^ffJca-ii  y.ct^uv)  concerning  the 
four  Gofpels,  which  alone  are  received  without  difpute 
by  the  church  of  God  under  heaven :  the  firft  was 
written  by  St.  Matthew,  once  a  tax-gatherer,  afterwards 
an  Apoftle  of  Jefus  Chrift,  v/ho  publifhed  it  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Jewifh  converts,  compofed  in  the  Flebrew 
language :  the  fecond  is  that  according  to  St.  Mark, 
&c."  The  bare  reading  of  this  pafTagc  is  fufficient  to 
enable  the  reader  to  judge,  whether  the  two  preceding 
objections  have  any  foundation.  If  Origen  had  derived 
his  information  from  the  writings  of  Papias,  he  would 
hardly  have  faid,  '  As  I  have  learnt  by  tradition' :  and 
even  if  he  had  not  ufed  this  expreffion,  it  would  h.^rdly 
be  credible  that  Origen,  whofe  opinions,  both  in  refpedt 
to  the  Millennium  and  in  refpeft  to  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture,   were  diametrically  oppofite   to  thofe  of 

Papias, 

^  Pag.  184. 


128  Of  St,  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

Papias,  would  have  blindly  followed  him  in  the  prefenr 
inftance,  if  the  notion  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in 
Hebrew  had  been  confined  to  Papias  alone.  Befidcs 
Origen  declares  that  he  had  learnt  by  tradition,  not  only 
that  the  Gofpel  in  qiieftion  was  written  in  Hebrew,  but 
alio  that  it  was  the  firfl  Gofpel,  that  it  was  compofed 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Jewifh  converts,  and  that  its  au- 
thor was  St.  Matthew  the  Apoftle.  Did  Origen  learn 
all  this  from  Papias  only  ? 

A  fimilar  reply  may  be  given  to  the  objecftion  of 
Dr.  Mafch,  who  contends  that  Origen  did  not  believe 
what  he  related,  and  that  the  exprefiion  iv  zra^a^oa-u 
ftaSwi/  fignifies  nothing  more  than  *  I  have  learnt  by 
hearfay,'  or,  *  I  have  heard  it  reported.'  But  the  term 
•Bra^atToo-K  in  ecclefiaftical  hillory  fignifies  not  merely 
report  or  hearfay,  but  a  communication  of  accounts  on 
which  we  may  depend  %  of  which  the  very  example  in 
queftion  affords  a  proof:  for  through  the  channel  of 
■sra^oc^oa-ig  Origen  fays  that  he  had  learnt,  ^  that  the  firft 
of  our  four  Gofpels  was  written  by  St.  Matthew,  who 
was  once  a  tax-gatherer,  and  afterwards  an  Apoftle  of 
Chrift,'  which  Dr.  Mafch  would  certainly  not  confider 
as  an  uncertain  rumour.  It  is  evident  likewife  that 
Eufebius  took  the  word  in  a  mod  refpe6lable  fenfe  : 
iince  he  introduces  the  quotation  from  Origen,  which 
begins  with  w?  sv  zjoc^a^oa-ei  ixcc^uv,  by  faying,  that  he  ac- 
knowledged only  four  Gofpels,  obferving  the  ecclefiaftical 

canon,    (toi/  iXKXn(na.ri>iOV  <p\jXot.rruv  xa.]/ova.j. 

The  fifth  witnefs  is  Eufebius  himfelf,  who  has  not 
only  quoted  all  the  preceding  authorities  for  a  Hebrew 
original  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  without  even  hindng 
that  any  objections  could  be  made  to  them,  but  like- 
wife  in  the  place  where  he  fpeaks  in  his  own  perfon  on 
this  fubjed,  and  where  we  muft  of  courfe  exped  that 
he  delivers  his  own  fcndments.  He  writes,  namely  in 
the  third  book  of  his  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,  ch.  xxiv. 
as  follows.  *  Matthew  having  firft  preached  to  the 
Hebrews  delivered  to  them,  when  he  was  preparing  to 
depart  to  other  countries,  his  Gofpel  compofed  in  their 

native 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  I2p 

native  language*^.'     This  pafTage  is  fo  clear,  that  one 
might  fuppofe  it  impofTible  to  make  any  objedion  to 
it:   yet  Dr.   Mafch   contends*^,    that  Eufebius    himfelf 
did  not  give  credit  to  what  he  has  here  related.     *  As 
an  ecclefiaftical  hiftorian,  fays  Dr.  Mafch,  Eufebius  was 
in    duty    bound    to    record    the    accounts    which    then 
cxifted,  but  was  not  obliged  to  deliver  his  own  private 
opinion.       It    was   not    his    intention    to   relate    in    his 
Eccleiiaftical   Hiftory   fuch  fads   alone   as   were   indif- 
putably  true,  but  to  form  a  complete  repofitory  of  all 
the  accounts,  of  whatfoever  kind,  which   had  been  re- 
lated by  others:   becaufe,  according  to  the  tafte  of  thofe 
times,  his  readers  were  anxious  to  know  a  multitude  of 
ftories,  but  were  totally  indifferent  as  to  cridcal  inqui- 
ries.'    So  unfavourable  a  pifture  does  Dr.  Mafch  draw 
in  the  prefent  inftance  of  Eufebius's  Ecclefiaitical  Hif- 
tory :  yet  in  another  place ",  where  he   quotes  a  pafTage 
from   the   writings  of  Eufebius,  which   he  fuppofes  to 
be  favourable  to  his  own  opinion,  he   fays  :  *  I  confider 
the   teftimony  of  this  meritorious  writer,  when  united 
with   that  of  Origen,  as   fufficiently   important  to   be 
oppofed  to  the  aflertions   of  all  the  other  fathers  put 
together.' — But  how  can  it  be  proved  that  Eufebius  in 
the  palTage  above-quoted  from  his  Ecclefiaflical  Hiftory, 
related  a  ftory  which  he  himfelf  difbelieved  ?  Dr.  Mafch 
indeed  has  difcovered  in  Eufebius's  Expofition  of  the 
Pfalms,  from  which  by  the  help  of  an  indu6lion,  which 
is  liable  however  to  many  objections,  he  concludes  that 
Eufebius  himfelf  believed  that  St.   Matthew  wrote  in 
Greek :  but  this   matter  I  fhall  particularly  confider  in 
the  next  feftion,  and  ftiall  confine  myfelf  therefore  at 
prefent  to  the  pafTage  with  which  we  are  immediately 
concerned.     Now  it  muft  be  obferved,  that  Eufebius 
does  not  introduce  his  relation,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote 
in  Hebrew,  with  any  fuch  exprefTion  as,  *  it  is  faid,' 

or 

'   HaTgiy  y^6;TT*)  y^a^A  'Eraga^s;  to  x«t   avrov  iva-yyihut, 
*  Pag.  190 — 200.  «  Pag.  155. 

Vol.  III.  I 


^3®  Q/"'5"/.  Matthew's  Gcfpet,  chap,  iv, 

or  *  Papias  and  Origen  relate'  -,  but  writes  in  pofitive 
terms,  and  in  his  own  perfon,  without  appealing  either 
dire6lly  or  indiredly  to  any  other  author,  fo  that  we 
cannot  poffibly  fuppofe  him  to  have  difbelieved  what  he 
related,  without  direftly  charging  him  with  an  inten- 
tional violation  of  the  truth.  To  the  argument  ufed  by 
Dr.  Mafch^  that  Eufebius  could  not  have  aflerted  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Greek,  without  entering  into  a 
long  confutation  of  Papias,  Irenceus,  Origen,  and  other 
ccclefiaftical  writers,  we  may  anfwer,  that  Eufebius  has 
on  many  other  occafions  accompanied  his  accounts 
with  expreffions  of  doubt  and  even  abfolute  denial, 
without  entering  into  a  prolix  difcuffion  of  them.  No 
reafon  can  be  aiTigned  therefore  why  he  fliould  not  have 
accompanied  his  account,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in 
Hebrew,  with  fome  expreflTions  at  leaft  of  doubt,  if  he 
difbelieved  what  he  reported.  Further,  this  argument 
not  only  furnillies  a  proof  of  the  opinion,  which  it  is 
intended  to  fupport,  but  really  operates  againft  it. 
For  if  Eufebius  ventured  not  in  his  Ecclefiaftical  Hif- 
tory  to  afiert  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Gofpet  in 
Greek,  becaufe  it  was  his  bufinefs  merely  to  record 
whatever  accounts  he  could  collect,  and  a  contradiction 
of  the  aflertion,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote,  in  Hebrew, 
would  neceflarily  have  involved  him  in  a  long  confu- 
tation, it  follows  that  there  was  only  one  voice  on  this 
fubje6b,  and  that  there  were  no  accounts  then  exifting, 
that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Greek.  For  an  hiftorian, 
who  makes  it  his  bufinefs  to  furnlfh  his  readers  with 
whatever  intelligence  he  can  procure,  would  hardly  in 
a  cafe  where  the  reports  were  contradiftory  to  each 
other,  negledt  to  mention  that,  which  he  believed  to 
be  the  true  one,  and  relate  only  that,  which  he  believed 
to  be  falfe. 

The  other  teflimonies  in  favour  of  the  opinion  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,  1  fhall  produce,  without 
either  quoting  the  words  of  the  refpedive  authors,  or 

making 


t  V 


rag.  191. 


s£CT.  IV,  Of  St.  MciUhew's  Gofpei.  131 

making  any  further  remarks^:  partly  becaiife  they  are 
lefs  liable  to  objeAion,  and  partly  becaufe  they  are  lefs 
important  than  the  preceding.  In  the  third  century 
we  have  the  authority  of  Dorotheus :  in  the  fourth 
century  that  of  Athanafius,  Cyril  of  Jerufalem,  Epi- 
phanius,  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  Chryfoftom,  and 
Jerom ;  of  whom  the  laft  mentioned  writer,  on  account 
of  his  learning  and  his  refidence  in  Paleftine,  deferves 
very  particular  attention.  In  the  fifth  century  we  have 
Augurtin,  though  I  admit  that  he  is  no  great  authority 
in  the  prefent  inquiry  :  in  the  eleventh  century  Theo- 
phylaft,  and  in  the  fourteenth  Nicephorus  Callifli, 
whom  I  fhould  have  omitted  as  too  modern,  if  they 
afforded  not  a  proof  that  fo  late  as  their  time  no  con- 
tradidory  account  had  forced  itfelf  into  notice  among 
the  Greeks,  Theophyla6l  efpecially  warrants  this  in- 
ference, for  he  was  a  very  diligent  and  accurate  inter- 
preter of  Scripture,  and  yet  we  find  in  his  writings  no 
trace  v/hatfoever  of  a  fuppofition  that  St,  Matthew 
wrote  in  Greek.  This  learned  bifhop  in  the  Preface  to 
his  Expofition  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  fays  *  Matthew 
firll  wrote  a  Gofpel  in  the  Hebrew  language  for  the 
fake  of  the  Hebrew  believers,  eight  years  after  Chrift's 
afcenfion :  and  John,  as  is  reported,  tranflated  it  from 
the  Hebrew  into  Greek'  ^.  The  latter  claufe  contains 
a  report,  which  no  writer  before  Theophyladl,  has  ever 
mentioned,  and  is  contradifted  by  Papias,  who  fays 
that  every  one  interpreted  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  as  well 

as 

8  Whoever  wifhes  for  more  information  relative  to  thefe  may  con- 
fult  either  Schroder  or  Lardner. 

•^  M»T6-«io?  OT^wTo?  'STccvrui  ly^ct-^e  to  ivayyiXiof  t^^xiat  (puvri  «r^o{ 
Ttf  e|  i^^ociut  -njETTiravy.oTa;  iactx  oxtw  £t»]  t>!?  t»  Xgirs  aym'^y.-^su'i;, 
M(Tt(ppotffi  ^i  TSTo  Iwavm?  a9ro  t«?  tQ^uioo;,  oj<;  ^£•ys^7».  Simon  in  h;s 
Hift.  Crit.  du  Texte  du  N.  T.  p.  120.  quotes  from  the  Codex  Regius 
2871,  a  fubfcription  of  a  fimilar  import,  namely.  To  xara  MarSam/ 
ivol.yyl'K^oy  iQ^cnh  ^iuKiKTu  ypa(pi»  e|e^oG/)  iv  Isgao-wXvifAj  eg^^vst/fisi'  fls 
VTTO  luxna. 

I  2 


132  Of  St.  Matthew'' s  Gcfpel.         chap.  1  v. 

as  he  could,  and  byjerom',  who  fays,  it  is  uncertain 
who  made  our  tranflation  of  it.  St.  John's  peculiar 
llyle  likewife  is  a  fufficient  proof  that  he  was  not  the 
tranflator.  The  latter  part  therefore  of  Theophylaft's 
account  I  acknowledge  is  falfe  :  but  we  muft  not  there- 
fore reje£t  the  former  part.  For  he  declares,  in  pofitive 
terms,  and  without  any  expreffions  of  doubt,  that  St. 
Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew:  but  that  St.  John  was  the 
tranflator,  a  ftory  probably  invented  in  order  to  enhance 
the  canonical  authority  of  the  Greek  tranflation,  he 
mentions  as  a  mere  report,  without  vouching  for  its 
truth. 

Though  the  fubfcriptions  to  the  books  of  the  New 
Teftament  are  of  no  great  authority,  becaufe  their  au- 
thors are  unknown,  and  fome  of  them  are  manifeflly 
erroneous :  yet,  fince  many  Greek  manufcripts  contain 
fiibfcriptions  to  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  expreflive  of  the 
opinion  that  he  wrote  in  Hebrew,  but  none,  as  far  as 
I  recollefl,  expreflive  of  the  opinion  that  he  wrote  in 
Greek,  this  uniformity  in  the  manufcripts  is  not  un- 
worthy of  notice.  The  fubfcription  in  the  Codex 
Regius  2871  I  have  already  quoted:  and  it  appears 
from  Wetfl:ein's  Prolegomena,  p.  46,  that  the  Codex 
Stephan.  ig,  at  the  end  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  has 

fx  T«  v.a.T<x  MarOaiov  EuayyeAia,    i<ypo!.(pr\  Ef^ajfi  ji/  HaAairii'M 

^irx  irn  71  TH?  ocvx7.t,^(u}i;.  Wecllcin's  Codex  80,  num- 
bered   136,    in    my   catalogue,    has    ¥.y^oi,:pyi    tu    If^atraAr^ 

EC^atJ^j  JjaAsjtTw :  and  a  Roman  MS.  defcribed  in 
Blanchini  Evangeliarium  quadruplex,  P.  i.  p.  516. 
has  ty^xgir)  to  jcara  MarOaic/i/  ivayyi?\.iov  sQpoi^f^  aq.Tnu 
TloiXOrifUfrii/. 

The  Syriac  and  Arabic  fubfcriptions  agree  with  the 
Greek.  In  the  Syriac  verfion,  at  the  clofe  of  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gofpel,  we  find  *  Here  ends  the  holy  Gofpel 
according  to  the  preaching  of  Matthew,  which  he 
preached  in  Palefline,  in  the  Hebrew  language.*  The 
word  *  preaching'   in  the  Syriac  fubfcriptions   has  the 

fame 

*  Catal.  Scriptorum  Ecclefiafticorum  *, 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  133 

fame  fenfe  as  *  writing,'  as  appears  from  the  fubfcrip- 
tions  to  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  John.  In  the 
Arabic  verfion,  publifhed  by  Erpeniiis,  is  the  following 
fubfcription  to  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  which  I  quote 
in  the  original,  becaufe  the  edition  of  Erpenius  is  fcarce  : 

jj«l       /    ^       rj-AAAN    (^^-^     ^lyWjJI     /    ^1    vAw^IStLj 

'  Here  ends  the  copy  of  the  Gofpel  of  the  Apoftle 
Matthew.  He  wrote  it  in  the  land  of  Paleftine,  by 
infpiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  Hebrew  language, 
eight  years  after  the  bodily  afcenfion  of  Jefus  the 
Mefliah  into  heaven,  and  in  the  firft  year  of  the  Roman 
emperor  Claudius  Caefar.'  The  fame  opinion  was 
entertained,  I  believe  univerfally,  by  the  learned  Syrians. 
At  leaft,  the  two  mofl:  eminent  Syrian  writers,  Barfali- 
bseus  and  Gregorius  Bar-Hebr^eus,  who  lived  in  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries,  ailert  in  their  Prefaces 
to  the  Evangelifts,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew'': 
and  Ebed  Jefu,  metropolitan  of  Armenia,  in  the  thir- 
teenth century,  fays  in  his  Catalogue  of  Syrian  writers^: 
*  Matthew,  who  compofed  the  firft  book  of  the  New 
Teftament,  wrote  in  Paleftine,  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage.' 

Before  I  conclude  this  feclion,  I  muft  take  notice  of 
an  inaccuracy,  of  which  I  was  guilty  in  the  firft  edition 
of  this  Introdu6lion,  becaufe,  if  I  left  it  unnoticed, 
others  might  fall  into  the  fame  miftake.      I  quoted, 

namely, 

^  See  Affeman's  fecond  note  in  his  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom.  III.  P.  i, 
p.  8. 


134  ^/  ^^'  ^^it^^"^'^  Go/pel  chap.  iv> 

namely,  Hegefippus,  who  lived  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
fecond  century,  and  before  his  converfion  to  Chriftianity 
was  of  the  Jewilh  religion.  Now  fincc  the  Jewifh  con- 
verts efpecially  may  be  fuppofed  to  have  ufed  a  Hebrew 
Gofpel,  the  teftimony  of  Hegefippus  would  in  this 
refpeft,  as  well  as  on  account  of  its  antiquity,  be  of 
very  great  importance  in  the  prefent  inquiry.  But 
fmcc  Eufebius,  from  whom  alone  we  can  derive  infor- 
mation on  this  fubjeft,  the  works  of  Hegefippus  being 
no  longer  extant,  has  not  quoted  the  words  of  this 
writer  reladve  to  a  Hebrew  Gofpel,  but  fpeaks  only  in 
his  own  perfon,  and  ufes  exprefiions,  which  are -not 
decifive,  I  admit  that  the  account  of  Hegefippus,  in 
the  form  in  which  we  have  it,  does  not  furnifh  us  vv'ith 
any  certain  information  in  regard  to  the  language,  in 
which  St.  Matthew  wrote.     The  pafTage  in  queftion  is 

as  follows':  £)t  rm  xaO  Ef^aiaf  Euay-yEAia,  km  t«  Suoiana™, 

E^^xiuv  ixvlov  zstTTifivnivoa.  Here  Eufebius  fays,  that 
Hegefippus  quoted  from  the  Gofpel  according  to  the 
Hebrews :  but  fince  he  has  not  added  that  this  Gofpel 
was  the  fame  as  the  Hebrew  original  of  St.  Matthew^ 
this  paffage  is  indecifive. 

J  Hlft.  Ecclef.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  22. 

*"  This  TO  Sy^jaxoK  was  probably  the  Syriac  tranflation  of  Tatian'5 
Diatefiaron,  on  which  Ephrem  the  Syrian  wrote  a  commentary. 
See  Aflemani  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom.  III.  P.  i.  p.  iz,  13.  and  Beauibbre 
liiiloire  des  Manicheens,  Tom.  I.  p.  304.. 


SECT. 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gojpel.  13  j 


SECT.     V. 

Examination  of  the  queflion.,  whether  Origen  and  Eufehius 
in  any  part  of  their  writings  have  argued,  as  if  they 
Jupfofed  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Greek. 

IT  appears  from  the  preceding  fedlion  that  the  tef- 
timony  of  the  ancient  writers,   who   have  faid  any- 
thing exprefsly  on  this  fiibje6l,  is  unanimous  in  favour 
of  a  Hebrew  original.     But  Dr.  Mafch  has  endeavoured 
to  draw  over  Origen  and  Eufehius  to   his  party  by  the 
aid    of  an   indudion   from    certain    pafTages   in    their 
writings,  which  in  his  opinion  imply  a  Greek  original : 
whence  he  argues,  that  in  the  places,  where  Origen  and 
Eufebius  have  related  in  pofitive  terms  that  St.  Matthew 
wrote   in   Hebrew,  they  have  related  what  they  them- 
felves  did  not  believe.     Before  I  examine  the  paflages, 
which  Dr.  Mafch  has  feleded  for  this  purpofe,  I  muft 
beg  leave  to  obferve  that,  even  if  they  imply  what  he 
fuppofes,  they  will  not  prove  that  Origen  and  Eufebius 
entertained  the  fentiments  which  he  afcribes  to  them. 
Perhaps   no  author  can   be    produced,  who  is    fo  uni- 
formly confiftent  and  fyftematical,  as  never  to  advance 
a   fentiment   in    one  part  of  his   writings,  from  which 
inferences  may  be  deduced,  that  are  at  variance  with 
what  he   has  afTcrted  elfewhere.     We  do  not  examine 
every  fentence  which  we  write  in  its  full  extent,  and  in 
all  its  confequences:  and  therefore  as  we  do  not  always 
fore  fee  the  ufe  which  may  be   made  of  what  we  have 
written,  we    may  at  one   time   indiredlly  contradi6t  an 
opinion,  which   at  'another    time    we    had  direftly   af^ 
firmed.     Suppofe  an  author  then  thus   circumftanced, 
and  that  his   real  opinion   was  required.     Ought  it  to 
be  determined  by  the  pafTage  where  the  notion  was  only 
implied,  or  by  the   pafTage,   where   it    was    exprefsly 
declared.?   Origen  fays  in  exprefs  terms  that  St.  Mat- 
thew  wrote  in  Hebrew :  Eufebius  fays  the  fame,  not 
only  where  he  quotes  from  other  writers,  but  where  he 
I  4  fpeaks 


136  Of  St.  Matthew^s  Gojpel.         chap.  iv. 

fpeaks  in  his  own  perfon,  and  where  he   fpeaks  pro- 
felTcdly  on  the  fubjed.     Admitting  then  that  two  other 
paflages  can  be  produced,  for  inftance  from  their  com- 
mentaries on  the  Bible,  in  which  the  fame  authors  have 
■written  in  a  manner  which  appears  to  be  inconfiftent 
with   their  former   pofitive   affertions,    I   afk,  whether 
their   direft  teftimony   is  not  to  be    preferred   to    that 
which  they  have  given  only  by  implication  ?  I  think  no 
doubt  can  be   made  that  it  ought.      Befides,  when  a 
man  affumes  the  charader  of  an  hillorian,  he  is  more 
attentive  to  the  fa6ls,  which  he  relates,  than  when  he 
merely  alludes  to  them   in  a  commentary.     This  we 
know  from  our  own  experience:  and  every  one  who  has 
pafled  through  a  regular  courfe  of  divinity  in  any  of 
our  German  univerfities  may  have  had  an  opportunity 
of  obferving,  that  his  profefibr  in  reading  Ie6lurcs  on 
exegetical  or  dogmatical  theology,  has  been  guilty  of 
inaccuracies   relative  to  dates  and   councils,  which   he 
would  have  avoided  in  reading  ledlures  on  eccleliaftical 
hiftory. 

Thus  far  I  have  argued,  as  if  the  paflage  produced 
by  Dr.  Mafch  really  contradi6led  thofe,  which  I  have 
quoted  in  the  preceding  fedion.  I  will  now  examine 
the  pafTages  themfelves,  and  fee  whether  they  warrant 
the  conclufions,  which  have  been  drawn  from  them. 

I.  Origen  in  his  Commentary '  on  St.  Matthew" 
reje6ls  the  words,  *  Thou  fhalt  love  thy  neighbour  as 
thyfelf,'  ch.  xix.  19,  and  fays:  *  It  is  manifcft,  that 
there  is  a  material  dilFercnce  in  the  manufcripts  °,  which 

has 


"  Pag.  381.  of  the  Cologne  edition,  or  Vol.  III.  p.  671  of  the 
Benedidtine  edition. 

"  According  to  Dr.  Mafch's  reprefentation,  p.  146.  one  mij^ht 
fiippofe  that  thefc  words  applied  to  Matth.  xix.  19.  and  that  Origea 
meant  to  fay,  there  was  a  difference  in  the  MSS.  in  refpedl  to  the 
words,  '  Thou  fhalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyfelf.'  But  as  far  as  I 
underlland  Origen,  this  is  not  his  meaning :  he  obferves  only  in 
general  terms,  that  many  alterations  had  been  made  in  the  MSS.  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel ;  and  from  this  general  aflertion  endcavoms  to 
juftify  a  critical  conjefture  at  the  place  in  queftion. 


SECT.  V.  Of  St,  Mattheiv's  Go/pel.  137 

has  been  occafioned  either  by  the  negligence  of  tran- 
fcribers,  or  by  the  audacioufnefs  of  thofe  who  have 
ventured  to  alter  the  fcriptures,  or  by  the  liberties 
which  have  been  taken  in  adding  or  erafing,  in  order 
to  improve  the  text.' '  Now  as  Origen,  fays  Dr  Mafch*, 
was  accuftomed  to  corre6l  the  Greek  verfions  of  the 
Old  Teftament  by  the  affiftance  of  the  Hebrew,  he 
would  hardly  have  neglefted  in  the  prefent  inftance, 
where  he  doubted  the  geniiinenefs  of  a  paflage  in  the 
Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  to  have  had  likewife 
recourfe  to  the  Hebrew  original,  as  the  fureft  means 
of  determining  the  queftion,  if  a  Hebrew  original  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  had  exifted. — This  is  the  ob- 
jection :  I  will  now  proceed  to  the  anfwer. 

That  Origen  did  not  appeal  to  a  Hebrew  original, 
in  order  to  determine  the  authenticity  of  doubtful 
pafifages  in  the  Greek  Gofpel,  I  readily  admit :  but  I 
cannot  confider  this  negleft  as  a  proof,  that  no  Hebrew 
original  exifted.  Dr.  Mafch  indeed  aflerts,  p.  147, 
that  Origen  had  read,  and  occafionally  quoted  a 
Hebrew  Gofpel,  which  was  reported  to  be  that  of  St. 
Matthew :  but  as  I  know  not  on  v/hat  authority  this 
affertion  is  made,  I  cannot  enter  into  a  difcuflion  of 
it '.  If  Origen  was  in  pofleflion  of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel 
ufed  by  the  Nazarenes,  v/e  are  not  certain  that  he  con- 
fidered  this  Gofpel  as  the  fame  with  the  Hebrew  Gofpel 
of  St.  Matthew :  and  therefore  his  negleft  to  appeal  to 
it  in  the  cafe  in  queftion  will  prove  nothing  ^  But 
fuppofe  Origen  really  believed  that  a  Hebrew  Goipel 
In    his  pofleffion  was  St.  Matthew's   original :    yet  an 

appeal 


p  Jerom  not  only  had  read  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by  the 
Nazarenes,  but  tranflated  it  into  Latin,  and  moreover  was  inclined 
to  believe  that  it  was  the  original  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  *.  Yet 
in  his  Commentary  on  this  Gofpel  he  leaves  it  unnoticed  in  places 
where  he  examines  the  authenticity  of  readings  :  for  inftance,  tun, 
Matth.  V.  22.  He  thought  probably  that,  even  if  it  was  the  ori- 
jginal,  it  was  too  corrupted  to  be  of  any  fervice  in  a  cafe  of  cri- 
ticifm. 


138  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  chap.  ir. 

appeal  to  it  would  not  have  been  the  only  decifive  me- 
thod of  determining  the  authenticity  of  a  text,  fince 
an  original  icfelf  may  be  corrupted  as  well  as  a  tranf- 
lation  ^  In  examining  a  doubtful  pafTage  of  the  Latin 
verfion,  in  St.  Luke  or  St.  John's  Gofpel  for  inftance, 
of  which  no  doubt  is  entertained  that  they  were  written 
originally  in  Greek,  we  do  not  inftantly  conclude  that 
the  pafTage  is  genuine,  when  we  have  found  that  it  is 
in  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke  or  St.  John:  for  the 
Greek  may  be  corrupted  as  well  as  the  Latin.  Now  it 
is  not  improbable  that  Origen  thought  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  had  been  fo  corrupted,  as  to 
render  it  an  improper  criterion  in  fettling  the  text  of 
the  Greek :  and  if  it  was  the  fame,  as  that  which 
the  Nazarenes  ufed,  he  did  not  think  fo  without 
reafon. 

Further  if  we  read  in  connedion  all  that  Origen  has 
written  ^  on  the  palTage,  *  Thou  Ihalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bour ^s  thyfelf,'  our  furprize  that  he  did  not  appeal  to 
the  Hebrew  Gofpel  will  be  ftill  more  diminiihed.  He 
alleges  various  arguments,  and,  as  far  as  I  can  judge,  in 
the  name  of  others,  rather  than  in  his  own,  to  fliew 
that  a  doubt  may  be  entertained  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  pafTage  in  queflion,  but  comes  to  no  abfolute 
decifion  either  one  way  or  the  other.  His  principal 
argument  is  the  following.  Jefus  appears  to  have  ap- 
proved the  young  man's  anfwer,  *  All  this  have  I  kept 
from  my  youth,'  becaufe  St.  Mark  immediately  adds, 
*  Then  Jefus  beholding  him,  loved  him.'  But  if  the 
commandment,  '■  Thou  fhalt  love  thy  neighbour  as 
thyfelf,'  had  been  obferved  by  this  young  man  from  his 
youth,  there  failed  nothing  to  his  moral  accompiifli- 
mentsj  fince  the  love  of  our  neighbour  is  the  fulfilling 
of  the  law :  and  confequendy  Jefus  would  not  have 
replied,  *  If  thou  wilt  be  perfed,  fell  that  thou  haft, 
and  give  to  the  poor.' — ^It  appears  from  what  I  have 
already  faid,  that  Origen's  inquiry  in  the  prefent  in- 

ftance 

<  Tom.  III.  p.  669—672. 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  Matthew*s  Gofpel.  135 

fiance  is  by  no  means  a  critical  one  :  and  therefore  if 
he  had  poffeffed  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew 
in  its  utmoft  purity,  we  need  not  be  furprifed,  if  he 
had  not  appealed  to  it.  Immediately  after  the  fentence 
which  Dr.  Mafch  has  quoted  from  Origen's  Commen- 
tary, and  which  I  have  given  in  a  preceding  paragraph, 
Origen  writes  as  follows.  '  I  have  difcovered,  through 
the  affiftance  of  God,  a  method  of  corre6ling  the  dif- 
ferences in  the  copies  of  the  Old  Teltament,  and  have 
ufed  the  other  editions  as  a  criterion.  When  I  found 
variations  in  the  copies  of  the  Septuagint,  I  examined 
the  readings  of  the  other  editions,  and  retained  thofe 
which  they  confirmed.  Some  readings  which  were  not 
in  the  Hebrew,  I  marked  with  an  obelus,  not  venturing 
wholly  to  rejedt  them.  Other  readings  I  marked  with 
an  afterifk,  namely  fuch  as  were  not  in  the  Septuagint, 
but  which  I  added  from  the  other  editions,  becaufe  they 
were  confirmed  by  the  Hebrew^.'  Now  fmce  Origen 
relates  this  in  the  very  place  where  he  examines  whe- 
ther Matth.  xix.  19.  be  genuine,  and  yet  has  not  rc- 
courfe  to  the  fame  critical  method  of  determining  the 
queftion,  as  he  had  applied  in  the  Septuagint,  it  appears 
that  he  was  not  inclined,  at  lead  not  at  that  time,  to 
undertake  the  fame  laborious  tafk  in  refpeft  to  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gofpel,  as  he  had  undertaken  in  regard  to  the 
Greek  verfion  of  the  Old  Teftament.  He  plainly  dif- 
tinguilhes  the  critical  from  the  exegetical  examination 
of  a  reading :  he  Ihews  from  his  own  example  relative 
to  the  Old  Teftament,  in  what  manner  critical  inquiries 
muft  be  conduded,  and  then  concludes.  Shall  we 
infer  therefore  that  in  Origen's  opinion  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel  was  not  written  in  Hebrew,  becaufe  he  did  not 
appeal  to  it .''  I  think  not :  but  I  leave  it  to  the  reader, 
to  draw  that  inference,  which  he  thinks  the  moft  pro- 
bable 7. 

2.  There  is  another  paflage  in  Origen's  works,  which 
Pr.  Mafch  confiders  as  ftill  more  decifive  than  that 
which  I  have  already  examined:    namely,  in  Origen's 

Homily 


14-0  Of  St.  Matthew^s  Gofpel.  chap,  iv. 

Homily  on  the  Preface  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel'.  Here 
Origen  difcovers  in  the  word  i'n-i-x^et^y\<s-M  a  tacit  cenfure, 
on  the  part  of  St.  Luke,  of  thofe  who  had  written 
Gofpels  before  him,  a  cenfure  inapplicable  to  men  in-^ 
fpired  by  the  Lloly  Spirit,  and  obferves :  *  Matthew 
did  not  take  in  hand,  but  wrote  by  the  inftigation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit:  in  like  manner  Mark,  and  John,  as 
alfo  Luke.  But  they  who  compofed  the  Gofpe),  in- 
titled.  The  Gofpel  of  the  Twelve,  took  in  hand, '^ 
Now  fmce  Jerom  relates  that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed 
by  the  Nazarcnes,  which  was  the  fame  as  that  which  is 
known  by  the  name  of  *  The  Gofpel  of  the  Twelve,* 
was  called  likewife  by  many  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of 
St.  Matthew  %  Dr.  Mafch  confiders  the  paflage  juft 
quoted  as  a  proof  that  Origen  exprefsly  rejefted  the 
Hebrew  Gofpel  afcribed  to  St.  Matthew,  and  that  he 
oppofed  it  to  the  infpired  Greek  Gofpel.  But  this  is 
more  than  I  can  admit :  for  though  Origen  rejedls  the 
Gofpel,  called  the  Gofpel  of  the  Twelve,  and  oppofes 
it  to  infpired  Gofpels,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he 
rejeded  therefore  St.  Matthew's  Hebrew  Gofpel,  unlels 
it  can  be  proved  that  in  Origen's  opinion  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel,  of  which  he  fpake,  was  the  very  fame  as  that 
which  St.  Matthew  had  written '°.  As  far  as  relates  to 
the  prefent  inftance,  it  is  of  no  confequence  what  others 
thought  of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes, 
but  what  Origen  himfelf  thought  of  it:  and  it  is  not 
improbable  that,  though  Origen  believed  St.  Matthew 
had  written  in  Hebrew,  (for  he  has  exprefsly  declared 
it)  he  did  not  believe  that  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Na- 
zarenes, was  the  fame  as  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  Or 
if  he  believed  it  to  have  been  originally  the  fame,  yet 
in  confequence  of  the   many  alterations  and  additions, 

which 


'  Dr.  Mafch  quotes  from  Simon  Hift.  Crit.  des  Commentateurs  du 
N.  T.  ch.  V.  p.  82.  where  Simon  has  quoted  the  paffage  from  G;-eek 
manufcripts.  It  has  been  fince  publifhcd  in  the  Bcnedii5line  edition 
of  Origen's  works,  Vol.111,  p.  932. 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gojpel.  141 

which  had  been  made  in  it,  he  might  have  thought 
proper  to  diilinguifh  it  from  the  genuine  uncorrupted 
Gofpcl  of  St.  Matthew". 

3.  Dr.  Mafch  produces  a  pafTage  from  Euftbius's 
Commentary"  on  the  Pfalms,  from  which  he  fays,  this 
cccleliaftical  writer  manifeflly  fignifies  that  in  his  opi- 
nion St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Greek  '*.  Eufebius  namely 
in  his  Annotation  on  Pfalm  Ixxviii.  1.  which  in  the 
Septuaffint  runs   thus,   Ai/oi^w  zv  Trocpx^oXxt?  to  ^ou,oi.  ju,a* 

(pXiy'^oiJt.O'A    7r^oQAri;ji.iXTos,    air'    ocpy^v?,    but    in    St.  Matthcw's 

Goipel,  ch.  xiii.  35,  is  quoted  in  the  following  manner, 

Avot^co  iv  z!Txpa,QoXaig  to  foy.%  jU,a*       s^fU^OjUai  }iiy.Dvy.[xsvx  octto 

xxTaQoKng   xocrij^aj    explains   this   difference    by   faying : 

EQponog    uv    0   MarGaio?   oixfia   cx^oarsi    m^psron.      By    oixetx 

fXiJotrt?  Dr.  Mafch  underitands  ^  St.  Matthew's  own 
tranflation,'  and  hence  argues  that,  according  to  the 
reprefentation  of  Eufebius,  St.  Matthew  wrote  in 
Greek.  But  the  word  tx^oa-ig  does  not  neceffarily  flgnify 
a  tranflation:  it  fignifies  literally  an  edition,  and  may 
be  apphed  to  the  Hebrew  as  well  as  to  the  Greek.  Nor 
will  ojxeia ,  even  if  sx^oa-i?  be  conftrued  tranflation,  flg- 
nify ^  Matthew's  own,'  but  will  rather  denote  a  tranf- 
lation which  was  in  ufe  where  St.  Matthev/  lived ;  with 
which  explanation  the  word  my^^^irai  well  agrees.  I 
believe  indeed  that  E'ufebius,  by  the  words  EQ^uiog  m 
0  M^ktS;*:;^?  or.jpio.  iK^oirei  xs^^nTcn,  meant  to  fay,  *  Matthew, 
as  being  a  Hebrew,  ufed  the  edition  of  his  own  country,' 
that  is,  the  Hebrew  Bible^  and  therefore  quoted  the 
pafTage  as  he  found  it  in  the  Hebrew.  But  even  if 
fKJ'oo-if  muft  be  conftrued  tranflation,  Itill  oixhx  iK^ing 
in  reference  to  St.  Matthew,  will  denote  a  Chaldee  and 
not  a  Greek  tranflation.  The  explanation  therefore 
given  by  Dr.  Mafch  is  not  defenfible.  But  were  it  true 
that  the  words  of  Eufebius  admitted  of  the  interpretation 
which  he  has  given  them,  yet  no  one  can  deny  they  are 
capable  alfo  of  another:  and  fince  Eufebius  has  at  other 
times  pofitively  declared,  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in 
Hebrew,  the  explanation  which  agrees  with  this  opinion, 

and 


142  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pet  chap.  fV. 

and  makes  Eufeblus  confident  with  himfcir,  is  furely 
preferable  to  that,  which  involves  him-  in  a  glaring 
contraditlion. 


SECT.     VI. 

Additional  arguments  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that  St.  Mat-* 
thew  wrote  in  Hebrew. 

AS  I  have  fhewn  in  the  two  preceding  feftions  that 
the  teftimony  of  the  ancients  is  uniformly  in  fa- 
vour of  a  Hebrew  original,  it  may  appear  unnceceflary 
to  produce  any  other  arguments,  fmce  queftions  of  hif- 
tory  muft  be  finally  determined  by  hiftorical  evidence. 
But  if  any  reafons  can  be  affigned  which  fhew  that  the 
faft,  for  which  I  contend,  is  probable  in  itfelf,  they 
may  be  admitted  as  auxiliary  or  corroborative  evidence. 

In  the  firft  place  then,  it  is  agreed  on  all  fides ',  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Paleftine,  and  for  the 
immediate  ufe  of  the  inhabitants  of  that  country,  or, 
as  ecclefiaftical  writers  call  them,  the  Elebrews.  But 
if  St.  Matthew  wrote  for  the  immediate  ufe  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Paleftine,  it  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that 
he  wrote  in  the  language  of  that  country,  that  is,  Syro- 
Chaldee,  which  eccleliaftical  writers  call  Hebrew,  as 
well  as  the  more  ancient  language  of  the  Old  Teftament. 
This  fubjefl  I  have  examined  at  large  in  the  Introduc- 
tion 

*  Dr.  Semler  indeed  makes  an  exception;  for  in  his  Hift.  Eccl. 
feledla  capita,  Tom.  I.  p.  42,  he  fays,  Carpocrates  et  Cerinthus 
cum  Alexandria;  verfati  ftierint,  et  tamen  Matthasi  evangelio  ufi, 
fequitur  ut  falfum  fere  fit,  Matthjei  Evangelium  PalaslHnenfibus  fuifle 
deftinatum.  But  the  circumftanee  that  Carpocrates  and  Cerinthus 
read  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  in  Alexandria,  affords  not  even  a  pre- 
fumption,  that  he  did  not  write  it  for  the  immediate  ufe  of  the  inha- 
bitants of  Paleftine.  Both  Dr.  Semler  and  myfelf  have  read  St.  Luke's 
Gofpel ;  we  might  therefore  fay  on  the  fame  principles,  Sequitur  ut 
falfum  fit  LucjE  Evangelium  Theophilo  fuiffe  deftinatum. 


SECT,  VI.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  143 

don  to  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews*:  and,  as  what  I  have 
faid  on  the  language  of  that  Epiftle  is  equally  applicable 
to  that  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  I  refer  the  reader  to 
it  for  further  information \ 

Dr.  Mafch  indeed  has  brought   nine  arguments"  to 
prove  that  the  Jews  even  of  Jcrufalem  univerfally  un- 
derftood  Greek:   but  they  really  are  of  no  value  what- 
foever.      His   firft    argument    is,    that  in  the  Jewifli 
fynagogues,  as  foon  as  a  fedtion  had  been  read  from 
the  Hebrew    Bible,  it   v/as   ufual  to  explain  it  to   the 
people   by  reading  it  in    the  Chaldee    or    the    Greek 
verlion.     Now  it  is   true  that  the  Greek  verfion  was 
read  in  the  Jewifli  Synagogues  in  Egypt,  in  Afia  Minor, 
and  other  countries  where  the  Jews  themfelves,  as  well 
as  the  reft  of  the  inhabitants,    fpoke   Greek :    but  in 
Judaea,    and   in  all  thofe   countries    which  lay  to  the 
eaftward,  the  Chaldee  verfion  was  ufed.     In  the  prelent 
inquiry  therefore   which  is  confined  to  Jud^a  alone,  it 
is  wholly  foreign  to  the  purpofe  to  argue  from  the  prac- 
tice of  reading  the  Greek  Bible*.    Another  argument  is, 
that  many  apocryphal  books  were  written  in  Greek,  and 
that  Aquila  made  a  Greek  tranflation  of  the  Old  Tef- 
tament:  but  this  proves  only  that  there  were  countries 
in  which  the  Jews  fpoke  Greek,  not  that  it  was  fpoken 
in   Paleitine,  and  that  too  above  fifty  years  before  the 
time  of  Aquila"'.     The  affertion   that  the  Greek  lan- 
guage was   inLroduced    into    Paleftine  in    the    time  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  is  more  than  any  one  can  prove: 
on  the  contrary,  the  viftories  of  the  Maccabees,  and  the 

fubfe- 

*  Sea.  2.  «  Pag.  138 — 142. 

"^  Dr.  Mafch  fays,  *  What  fervice  could  Aquila  propofe  to  render 
to  the  Jews  by  making  a  new  Greek  tranflation  of  the  Old  Teftament, 
unlefs  the  Greek  language  was  univerfally  known  to  them  ?  Anfwer, 
That  they,  who  did  underfland  Greek,  might  read  it. — It  is  furely 
a  very  extraordinary  conclufion,  that  becaufe  Aquila,  who  was  a 
native  of  Pontus,  and  lived  half  a  century  after  the  deftrudion  of 
Jerufalem,  tranflated  the  Old  Teftament  into  Greek,  the  inhabitants 
of  Judsa  in  the  time  of  the  Apoftles  likewife  fpoke  Greek. 


144  Of  St.  Mattheiv's  Go/pel.  chap.  ivV 

fubfequent  enmity  of  the  Jews  toward  the  Grecian  kings 
of  Syria,  muft  have  prevented  the  introdii6lion  of  ti.ac 
language.  Another  argument  ufed  by  Dr.  Mafch  is, 
that  in  the  Targum,  and  alfo  in  the  Talmud,  feveral 
Greek  words  and  expreffions  occur:  whence  he  infers, 
that  the  Greek  language  muft  have  been  well  known  to 
the  Hebrews.  Nov/  we  might  with  equal  reafon  con- 
tend, that,  becaufe  many  Latin  and  French  words  have 
been  adopted  in  the  German  language,  the  Latin  and 
French  languages  are  univerfaily  underftood  in  that 
country,  and  that  a  Latin  or  French  Bible  would  be 
intelligible  to  a  German  congregation.  But  every  one 
knows  that  this  conclufion  would  be  fuife :  and  there- 
fore we  cannot  conclude,  from  fimilar  premifcs,  that  at 
Greek  book  would  have  been  intelligible  to  a  Jewifh 
congregation  in  Jerufalem.  In  the  Syriac  language  a 
much  greater  number  of  Greek  words  was  adopted, 
than  we  find  in  any  Targum,  or  even  in  the  Talmud  : 
yet,  the  Greek  language  was  fo  little  underftood  by  the 
common  people  in  Syria,  that  the  Syrian  fathers,  not 
excepting  Ephrem,  who  lived  at  EdefTa,  a  Grecian 
colony,  thought  it  necefiary  to  write  in  the  language 
of  the  country ^ — As  Dr.  Mafch's  other  arguments 
prove  nothing  more  than  that  the  Greek  language 
was  fpoken  by  the  Jews  who  lived  in  the  countries  which 
lay  weftward  of  Paleftine,  and  that  they  who  lived  in 
Jerufalem  might  have  learned  Greek  from  the  foreign 
Jews  who  reforted  to  that  city,  it  would  be  ufelcfs  to 
attempt  a  confutation  of  them.  To  his  objeflion,  that 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  if  written  in  Hebrew,  Tthat  is, 
Syro-Chaldee)  would  have  been  confined  in  its  ufe  to 
a  very  fmall  diflri6t,  I  anfwer,  that  Syro-Chaldee  was 
fpoken  not  only  by  the  Jews  of  Paieftine,  but  alfo  by 
the  Jews  of  Syria  and  Mefopotamia.  In  Arabia  like- 
wife  were  many  Jewifh  families ;  and  though  Syro- 
Chaldee  was  not  the  language  of  Arabia,  as  it  was  of 
Syria  and  Mefopotamia,  yet  the  Jews  who  fettled  there, 
and  brought  with  them  their  Chaldee  paraphrafe,  re- 
tained 


SECT.  vr.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpet.  145 

rained  probably  their  native  language.  Nor  miifl  we 
forget  that  Arabia  is  the  country,  where  Pant^nus  is 
faid  to  have  k^n  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew 
at  the  end  of  the  fecond  century ;  whence  we  fee  that 
it  continued  in  ufc  among  the  eaftern  Jews  long  after 
the  dcftrudion  of  Jerufalem,  and  the  difperfion  of  the 
Jews  of  Paleftine. 

If  St.  Matthew  wrote  before  St.  Luke,  whether  in 
the  year  41,  or  49,  is  immaterial,  a  fecond  reafon  for 
fuppofing  that  he  wrote  in  Hebrew  may  be  fought  in 
the  preface  to  St.  Luke's  Gofpel.  In  this  preface  St. 
Luke,  at  leaft  as  I  underlland  him,  cafts  an  indire6t 
cenfure  on  the  Gofpels  which  had  been  written  before 
his  own.  Confequently,  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  if  ic 
then  exifted,  muft  have  been  unknown  to  St.  Luke. 
But  this  is  inexplicable  on  any  other  fuppofition  than 
that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew :  for  had  he  written 
in  Greek,  whether  in  41,  or  49,  his  Gofpel  could  not 
have  remained  unknown  to  St.  Luke,  who  had  travelled 
with  St.  Paul  through  fo  many  different  countries,  who 
had  been  with  him  in  Jerufalem,  and  Ipent  two  years 
in  Csefarea'''.  However  I  Ihall  not  inlift  on  this 
argument,  becaufe  it  depends  on  the  fuppofition 
that  St.  Luke  wrote  later  than  St.  Matthew,  which, 
though  admitted  by  Dr.  Mafch,  fome  authors  have 
denied. 

A  third  probable  argument  may  be  derived  from  the 
quotations  in  St.  Matthew's  Golpel  from  the  Old  Tef- 
tament :  for  they  more  frequently  agree  with  the  Hebrew 
text,  than  with  the  text  of  the  Septuagint '',  as  Jerom 
has  obferved  in  feveral  places.  Now  this  phasnomenon 
cannot  be  better  explained,  than  on  the  hypothefis  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,  and  that  his  Greek 
tranllator  gave  fometimes  a  literal  tranflation  of  the 
Hebrew  quotations,   but  at  other  times  confulted  the 

Septu- 

*  See  Vol,  I.  ch.  v.  fe£l.  3.  of  this  Introduftion* 

Vol,  III.  .       K 


146  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pet.  chap,  iv, 

Septuagint,  and  quoted  the  paffages,  as  they  flood  in 
the  Greek  verfion  ^. 


SECT.    VII. 

Examination  of  the  olje^ions,  which  have  heen  made  to  the 
opinion y  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew  '. 

I,  ^T~^HE  firfl  objcdion  is,  that  among  all  the  writers 
X  who  have  alTerted  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in 
Hebrew,  not  one  has  pretended  to  have  aftually  feen 
and  ufed  the  original. 

Now  there  are  many  books,  befide  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel,  which  are  no  longer  extant  in  the  language  in 
which  they  were  written,  and  yet  we  do  not  doubt, 
that  thofe  books  once  exifted.  It  is  furely  not  incre- 
dible that  a  Gofpel  written  in  Hebrew  might  dwindle 
into  oblivion,  and  become  gradually  extind:,  after  the 
deftrudion  of  Jerufalem,  and  the  difperfion  of  the 
Hebrew  Jews.  Paleftine  ceafed  at  the  end  of  the  firfl 
century  to  be  a  feminary  for  Jewifh  converts,  who  un- 
derllood  Hebrew :  and  to  the  Greek  Chriftians,  a 
Hebrew  Gofpel  was  of  no  value. 

But  fuppofe  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  continued  feveral 
centuries  in  exiftence,  yet,  if  wc  except  Origen  and 
Jerom,  perhaps  none  of  the  fathers,  who  have  fpoken 
of  this  Gofpel,  were  able  to  read  it.  The  objedtion- 
therefore  applies  chiefly,  if  not  entirely  to  Origen  and 
Jerom,  But  Jerom  not  only  declares  that  he  had  feen 
the  Hebrew  Gofpel,  which  was  believed  to  be  St.  Mat- 
thew's 

y  The  exclamation  of  Chrjft  on  the  crofs,  Matth.  xxvii.  46.  Eli, 
£li,  lama  fabafthani,  is  given  in  the  Syriac  verfion,  without  any  in- 
terpretation :  but  in  the  parallel  paffage  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel,  an 
interpretation  is  added  in  the  Syrij:c  verfion,  as  well  as  in  the  Greek. 
This  difference  is  not  unworthy  of  notice,  though  I  do  not  think  it 
«f  fuffiqient  importance,  to  ground  aii  argument  upon  it. 


SECT.  VII.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  147 

thew's  oiiginal,  but  even  that  he  made  a  tranflation  of 
it.  Origen  indeed  rejeds  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by 
the  Nazarenes,  which  is  the  Gofpel  that  Jerom  tranf- 
lated,  whence  it  is  inferred  that  in  Origen's  opinion  the 
author  of  it  was  not  an  Apoftle.  But  this  inference  is 
liable  to  many  objedions :  for  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the 
Nazarenes,  which  Jerom  tranflated,  may  have  been 
originally  the  work  of  St.  Matthew,  and  afterwards  fo 
corrupted  by  alterations  and  additions,  as  defervedly  to 
lofe  all  canonical  authority.  On  this  fubjeft  I  fhall  fay 
nothing  further  at  prefent,  becaufe  it  will  be  particularly 
confidered  in  one  of  the  following  fedions.  But  whe- 
ther it  is  admitted  that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by  the 
Nazarenes  was  originally  the  work  of  St.  Matthew  or 
not,  yet,  if  we  may  credit  the  accounts  of  Eufebius 
and  Jerom,  Pantsenus  at  leaft  faw  it  in  the  hands  of 
the  Chriftians  in  Arabia  Felix,  a  country  where  we  may 
not  unreafonably  fuppofe  that  a  Hebrew  Gofpel  muit 
have  been  longer  preferved  than  in  Paleiline  itfelf'^. 

1.  Another  opinion  is,  that  if  St.  Matthew  wrote  In 
Hebrew,  and  by  Hebrew  is  to  be  underftood  the  lan- 
guage fpoken  in  Paleftine  in  the  time  of  the  Apoftles, 
a  Syriac  tranflation  of  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew 
would  have  been  wholly  unneceiTary :  for,  as  the  Chaldee 
dialed  fpoken  in  Jerufilem  differed  from  the  Syriac 
only  in  the  form  of  the  letters  and  in  the  punftuation, 
a  Syrian  need  only  have  learnt  the  Hebrew  charadlers, 
to  have  underftood  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  in  the  ori- 
ginal. 

But  if  St.  Matthew  wrote  In  ancient  Hebrew,  this 
objedion  will  not  apply.  And  if  by  Hebrew  we  un- 
derftand  Chaldee,  we  mufl  recollect  that  we  have  a 
Syriac  verfion  of  the  Chaldee  palTages  in  the  book  of 
Daniel.  This  queflion  I  have  fully  examined  in  the 
fixteenth  fedion  of  my  Introdu6lion  to  the  Epiftle  to 
the  Hebrews,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader  for  further 
information*. 

3.  The 

^  See  Seft.  4.  of  this  chapter. 
K  2 


148  Of  St.  Matthetv's  Gofpd.  chap.  iv. 

3.  The  third  objeftion  is,  that  in  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel  an  interpretation  is  given  of  feveral  Hebrew 
words,  for  inftance,  Ch.  i.  ■23.  xxvii.  2^-  46.:  which 
would  not  have  been  given,  if  St.  Matthew  had 
written  in  Hebrew,  for  the  ufe  of  the  Hebrews. 

Now  if  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Chaldee,  an  interpre- 
tation of  Hebrew  words  vv^as  not  improper :  and  in 
whatever  oriental  language  he  wrote,  his  Greek  tranf- 
lator  would  have  added  interpretations  of  the  oriental 
expreffion,  which  he  retained  in  the  tranflation,  or 
Greek  readers  would  not  have  underftood  them  '. 

4.  The  fourth  objeftion  is,  that  in  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel  paflages  of  the  Old  Teftament  are  fometimes 
quoted  not  according  to  the  Hebrew  text  but  according 
to  the  Septuagint  text:  for  inllance,  Ch.  ii.  18.  iii.  3. 
iv.  4.  6. 

Now  this  is  a  very  extraordinary  objedlion,  becaufe 
the  paflages  of  the  Old  Teftament  are  commonly  quoted 
in  this  Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrew  text,  as  is 
obferved  by  Jerom,  who  alUgns  as  a  reafon  for  it,  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew.  It  is  true,  that  fome 
few  quotations  in  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew 
agree  with  the  text  of  the  Septuagint.  But  this  will 
not  prove  that  St.  Matthew  himfelf  wrote  in  Greek 
and  quoted  from  the  Septuagint :  for  Hebrew  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Teftament  made  in  a  Gofpel  written 
originally  in  that  language,  may  fometimes  at  leaft  have 
been  given  by  a  Greek  tranflator  in  the  words  of  the 
Greek  verfion,  which  was  in  general  ufc.  Ircn^us  cer- 
tainly wrote  in  Greek,  and  qtioted  from  the  Greek  text 
of  the  New  Teftament:  yet  in  the  Latin  tranflation  of 
the  works  of  Iren^eus,  the  quotations  from  the  New 
Teftament,  inftead  of  being  verbally  rendered  from  the 
Greek,  are  given  in  the  words  of  the  Latin  verflon. 
But  if  the  agreement  of  thefe  quotations  with  the  Latin 
verfion  will  not  prove  that  Irensus  wrote  in  Latin,  nei- 
ther will  the  agreement  of  the  quotations  in  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gofpel  with  the  text  of  the  Greek  verfion,  prove 
that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Greek  ^. 

5.  Dr. 


SECT.  vir.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gojpel.  149 

5.  Dr.  Mafch  objefls*  that  in  the  genealogy  of 
Chrifb,  in  the  firft  chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel, 
the  proper  names  are  written  with  the  orthography  of 
the  Septiiagint.  Further,  that  in  feveral  places,  where 
there  are  no  formal  quotations  from  the  Septuagint,  we 
find  phrafes  and  modes  of  expreflion,  which  were  ma- 
nifeftly  taken  from  it:  for  inftance,  ch.  v.  4.  5,  34. 
vii.  8.  xxiv.  15.  29.  XXV.  n^6.  compared  wirh  Ifaiah 
Ixi.  2.  Ix.  21.  Ixvi.  I.  Prov.  viii.  17.  Dan.  ix.  27. 
Ifai.  xiii.  10.  Ezek.  xviii.  7. 

Now  I  (hall  make  no  objedtions  to  thefe  feven  ex- 
amples (though  I  do  not  think  them  happily  chofen, 
for  fome  of  them  are  real  quotations),  becaufe  if  not 
feven  only  but  feventy  palTages  could  be  produced  from 
the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  which  contained 
expreffions  ufed  in  the  Septuagint,  they  would  not 
prove  that  it  was  not  a  tranflation.  Arguments  of  this 
kind  are  merely  neutral  and  prove,  neither  on  the  one 
fide,  nor  on  the  other.  They  fhew  only  that  the 
perfon,  who  wrote  the  Greek  Gofpel,  was  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  language  of  the  Septuagint :  but  they 
leave  the  queflion  wholly  undecided  whether  that 
perfon  was  an  original  writer,  or  only  gave  a  tranflation 
of  the  work  of  another.  Both  Jews  and  Chriftians, 
who  lived  in  countries,  where  the  Greek  language  was 
fpoken,  and  of  courfe  read  the  Bible  in  the  Greek 
verfion,  were  by  daily  habit  fo  familiarifed  with  its 
exprefllons,  that  it  would  have  been  hardly  in  their 
power  to  write,  whether  an  original  or  a  tranflation, 
without  occafionally  introducing  them.  Befides,  four 
of  thefe  feven  examples  are  taken  from  Chrift's  fermon 
on  the  mount;  if  they  prove  therefore,  that  this  dif- 
courfe  in  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  is  not  a 
tranflation,    they  muft  prove  at  the   fame   time,  that 

Chrift 

»  Pag.  130—134. 
K3 


150  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  chap.  iv. 

Chrifl  delivered  it  in  Greek,  which  is  more  than  Dr. 
Mafch  himfelf  would  allow  ''. 

With  refpecl  to  the  firft  part  of  this  objedion,  that 
the  proper  names  in  the  genealogy  of  Chrift  are  writter^ 
as  they  are  in  the  Septuagint,  it  cannot  prove  that  the 
genealogy  was  written  originally  in  Greek,  unlefs  it 
can.  be  fhewn  that  a  tranflacor  in  rendering  from  the 
Hebrew,  mud  *neceffarily  have  retained  the  Hebrew 
orthography.  When  Dr.  Mafch  fays,  that  a  tranflator 
could  not  have  written  all  thefe  proper  names  as  we 
find  them  in  the  firft  chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpei, 
without  turning  every  inftant  to  the  Septuagint,  he 
muft  fuppofe,  that  a  Greek  tranflator  of  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  in  the  firft  century  was  in  the  fame  fituation  as 
he  or  I  fhould  be,  if  we  had  to  tranflate  from  Hebrew 
into  Greek.  But  a  Greek  tranflator  would  as  readily 
adopt  the  orthography  of  the  Septuagint,  as  a  German 
tranflator  that  of  Luther's  verfion:  for  the  Greek  Bible 
was  to  him,  what  the  German  Bible  is  to  us.  Befides, 
this  objeftion,  if  valid,  would  prove  too  much :  for  it 
would  apply  alfo  to  St.  Matthew  himfelf. 

6.  Dr.  Mafch  afi^erts",  that  in  St.  Matthew's  Greek 
Gofpel  are  found  all  thofe  qualifications,  which  difcover 
a  work  to  be  an  original,  and  which,  without  a  mofb 
extraordinary  combination  of  circumftances,  are  not  to 
be  expe<5led  in  a  tranflation.  Moft  tranflations,  he 
fays,  efpecially  fuch  as  are  literal,  inftantly  betray 
themfelves  as  fuch :  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  difcover 
even  the  language  from  which  they  were  made,  bc- 
caufe  a  tranflator  infenfibly  adopts  the  modes  of  ex- 

prefllonj 

^  As  the  Aramsan  words,  which  occur  in  Chrift's  dlfcourfes,  are 
cxprefled  in  our  Greek  Gofpels  according  to  the  punftuation  of  the 
Chaldee  dialed,  which  was  fpoken  in  Jerufalem,  and  was  more 
refined  than  the  Syriac,  we  muft  conclude  that,  though  the  lattef 
dialed  was  fpoken  in  Galilee,  the  former  was  ufed  by  Chrift,  which 
was  probably  owing  to  the  circumftance,  that  both  Jofeph  and  Mar/ 
came  out  of  Judasa. 

*  Pag.  82—97. 


SECT.  VII.  Of  St.  Matthew* s  Gofpel.  151 

prefTion,  which  are  peculiar  to  the  language  from  which 
he  tranflates. 

Now  one  fhould  fuppofe  from  this  objeftion,  that 
the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  was  written  in  fuch 
pure  language  as  to  difcover  no  marks  of  a  Hebrew 
idiom :  for  otherwife  the  ob}e{5tion  is  wholly  inapplicable 
in  the  prefent  inflance.  But  it  is  fo  well  known  that 
the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  abounds  with  Hebrew 
idioms,  that  it  would  be  a  wafte  of  time  to  produce 
examples  ^  Even  were  it  written  in  the  pureft  Greek, 
its  language  would  be  no  abfolute  proof  that  it  was  not 
a  tranflation :  for  there  arc  fome,  though  not  many, 
tranflations,  which  are  fo  well  executed,  that  they 
might  eafily  pafs  for  originals. — On  the  other  hand,  it 
mud  not  be  underftood,  that  the  hebraizing  language 
in  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  affords  a  pofitive  argument 
for  a  Hebrew  original,  lince  St.  Matthew  himfelf 
would  not  have  written  in  pure  Greek.  Though  I  deny 
therefore  Dr.  Mafch's  inference,  I  do  not,  from  his 
premifes  alone,  infer  the  contrary. 

7.  The  feventh  objeflion  is,  that  no  tranflation  ever 
was  made  without  fome  few  miftakes :  but  that  no  one 
can  fhew  any  fuch  miftakes  in  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St. 
Matthew, 

But  this  objedbion  proves  nothing:  for  if  the  Greek 
Gofpel  is  a  tranflation,  the  original  is  loft :  and  therefore 

a  com- 


^  The  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  hebralzes  in  a  much  greater 
degree  than  the  writings  of  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul,  than  the  Gofpel 
and  Epiftles  of  St.  John,  and  the  Epiftles  of  Sc.  Peter  and  St.  James, 
It  has  even  more  Hebraifms  than  many  books  of  the  Septuagint;  for 
inftance,  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  and  the  five  books  of  Mofes, 
though  the  latter  are  a  very  clofe  tranflation  from  the  Hebrew.  The 
Apocalypfe,  though  it  contains  more  violations  of  the  rules  of  gram- 
mar, yet  is  written  in  fuch  flowing  language,  and  has  fo  much  both 
of  the  beautiful  and  the  fublime,  as  to  put  it  out  of  all  competition, 
as  far  as  the  excellence  of  compofition  is  concerned,  with  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gofpel.  The  only  book  of  the  New  Teftament,  which  is 
written  in  worfe  Greek,  is  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark ;  and  this  is 
©wing  father  to  other  caufes,  than  to  the  number  of  Hebraifms^ 

K4 


152  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

a  comparifon  between  them,  which  alone  can  determine 
the  queftion,  cannot  take  place. 

8.  The  eighth  objefticn  is,  that  the  Greek  fathers 
quote  the  Greek  Goipel  of  St,  Matthew,  as  an  infpired 
book,  and  with  fuch  confidence,  as  implies  that,  not- 
withllanding  their  declarations  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in 
Hebrew,  they  really  believed  that  they  were  ufing  the 
words,  which  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  the  Evan- 
gelift. 

To  this  obje6lion  I  anfwer  that  the  Greek  fathers 
quoted  the  feptuagint  as  an  infpired  work,  and  with  as 
much  confidence  as  they  quoted  the  Greek  Gofpe], 
They  who  have  not  accefs  to  an  original  muft  be  con- 
tented with  a  tranflation:  and,  as  fome  of  them  believed 
in  the  prefent  inftance  that  the  tranflation  was  made 
by  an  infpired  writer,  they  entertained  no  doubt  of  its 
accuracy^. 

9.  Laftly,  as  a  proof  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in 
Greek,  it  is  alledged  that  the  Greek  Gcfpel  already 
exifted,  when  St.  Mark  wrote.  In  fupport  of  this 
pofition  Dr.  Mafch*'  has  produced  the  following  ex- 
ample.    The  text  of  the   Septuagint  at  Zech,    xiii.  j: 

IS    Tla^u^ocls    rsg    TSoifjt.n/a.gy  koh    i^icnrccdixli   ra.  w^o^a]oi.  :    but 

in   St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  ch.  xxvi.  ji.  the  pafTage  is 

quoted    thus,     Tlizl.7/^00    rov    vroi^iva^    xui    <?j«(rxop7z-KrSt](7£Tat 

T«  Ts-^rXala,  TTig  zroi^v^q^  and  thefe  very  words  are  ufed 
likewife  by  St.  Mark,  ch.  xiv.  27,  with  exception  to 
rnq  zsoiiJ.vYiq,  which  St,  Mark  has  not.  This  deviation 
of  the  two  Evangelifts  from  the  Septuagint,  and  their 
verbal  agreement  with  each  other,  Dr.  Mafch  confiders 
as  a  proof,  that  St.  Mark  copied  from  the  Greek  Gofpel 
of  St.  Matthew, 

To  this  ,obje(5lion  I  anfwer  that,  though  the  text  of 
the  Septuagint  quoted  by  Dr.  Mafch  from  Zech.  xiii.  7. 
which   is   that  of  the  Roman  edition,  is  very  different 
from  the  quotation  made  in  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Mark,  it  is   by  no  means  improbable  that  in 

the 

!  V^%'  36. 


SECT.  VII.  Of  St.  Matthew's  GoJ-pel.  153 

the  time  of  the  Apoitles  there  exiRed  copies  of  the 
Septuagint,  in  which  no  fuch  difference  was  vifible. 
The  various  readings  flill  exifting  at  this  paffage  juflify 
the  conjecture :  for  inftead  of  -^aloc^txls  mg  7ro»/.*£i/a?, 
xoci  sKcnro'.tTotli  roc  TrfoQsclx,  the  Codex  Alcxandrinus  has 

iromyr,;.  The  difference  between  this  text  and  that  of 
the  Greek  Gofpcl  of  St.  Matthew  is  not  fo  material : 
it  confifts  cheifiy  between  Trala^w  and  Trola^o/,  for 
$iociTKop7n<T^r](rot/']cn  is  found  in  feveral  MSS  both  in  St. 
Matthew's  and  in  St.  Mark's  Gofpel.  Further,  this 
reading  is  quoted  by  Flaminius  Nobilius  (and  moreover 
without  T)i?  TTOi^vv;,  which  is  omitted  by  St.  Mark), 
among  the  various  readings  to  the  Suptuagint :  it  is 
confirmed  by  the  Aldine  and  Complutenfian  editions, 
and  other  authorities,  which  may  be  feen  in  the  fixth 
volume  of  the  London  Polyglot.  It  is  therefore  not 
improbable  that  in  St.  Mark's  copy  of  the  Septuagint, 
the  pafTage  in  Zechariah  was  worded  as  he  has  quoted 
it:  and  therefore  his  agreement  in  this  inftance  with  the 
Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  will  not  prove  that  he 
copied  from  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  reading  Troila^aHe  t»?  ttoi^ 
fjLEvxg,  X.  T.  A.  and  no  other,  was  in  the  copies  of  the 
Septuagint  in  the  firft  century,  it  follows  that  the  quo- 
tations from  Zech.  xiii.  7.  as  we  find  it  both  in  Matth. 
xxvi.  31.  and  Mark  xiv.  27.  was  taken  not  from  the 
Septuagint,  but  from  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Indeed 
'n-tx^a.^oili  T3?  TTOifxivagy  in  the  plural  number,  would  not 
have  fuited  the  purpofe  for  which  the  quotation  was 
made:  for  Chrifl,  who  made  it  at  the  time  when  he  was 
feized,  applied  it  to  himfelf,  who  was  the  fhepherd  that 
was  fmitten,  as  the  Apoftles  were  the  fheep  of  the  flock, 
that  were  fcattered  abroad.     It  is  true,  that  two  feparate 

and 

f  In  the  Arabic  verfion  of  Zechariah,  which  was  made  from  the 
Septuagint,  we  find  '-r-'j''^l?  which  may  denote  either  ?r<tT«|« 
or  irira^ov,  according  as  it  is  pointed, 


t54  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  it. 

and  independent  Greek  tranflators  of  the  Hebrew  text 
at  Zech.  xiii.  7.  would  not  have  agreed  perhaps  in  the 
very  words.  Yet  it  is  no  necefTary  confequence  that 
St.  Mark  copied  from  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew, 
fince  the  agreement  may  be  equally  well  explained  on 
the  fuppofition  that  the  Greek  tranflator  of  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gofpel  copied  from  St.  Mark^ 


SECT.     VIII. 


Ohfervattons  on  Jeveral  -parages  In  the  Greek  Gofpel  of 
St.  Matthew  where  the  tranflator  appears  to  have  ren- 
dered inaccurately :  with  conjectures  relative  to  the  word& 
cf  the  original,  and  the  caufes^  which  might  lead  a  tranf- 
lator into  error, 

IF  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  is  not  the  ori- 
ginal, which  was  penned  by  the  Evangelift,  we 
cannot  afcribe  to  it  a  verbal  infpiration,  and  it  is  more- 
over not  impoflible  that  the  tranflator  in  fome  few 
inftances  miftook  the  fenfe  of  his  author.  We  have 
no  reafon  however  to  be  alarmed  on  this  account,  be- 
caufe  the  moft  material  parts,  or  thofe  in  which  we  arc 
chiefly  interefl:ed,  are  recorded  likewife  by  one  or  more 
of  the  other  Evangelifl:s.  Befides,  as  the  Greek  tranf- 
lation  is  really  half  Hebrew '\  it  is  manifeft  that  it  is  a 
very  clofe  one.  Nor  is  it  difficult  for  thofe  who  are 
well  acquainted  with  Syriac  and  Chaldee,  which  arc 
abfolutely  necefl^ary  to  a  right  underfl:anding  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gofpel,  to  difcover  in  dubious  paiTages  the 
words  which  were  probably  ufed  in  the  original. 

Before  I  venture  to  ofi^er  any  of  my  gwn  conjeftures, 
I  will  mention  one,    which  was  made  by  Jerom  on 

8  This  folutlon  Is  given  by  Grotius  *. 

*  See  for  inllaace  ch.  ii.  6.  iv,  15.  xxi.  32,  xxviii.  i.  1^ 


SECT.  vni.         Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  i^^ 

oi]/£  h  croc^^arwv,  Malth.  xxviii.  I.  The  word  o^^s  is 
fomewhat  iinfuitable  to  this  paflage,  becaiife  the  events 
which  immediately  follow,  took  place  not  late  in  the 
evening,  but  early  in  the  morning,  or  between  mid- 
night and  day-break.  Jerom  therefore  fays',  Mihi 
videtur  evangeliftam  MattliJEum,  qui  Evangelium 
Hebraico  fermone  confcripfit  non  tarn  vefpere  dixifTe, 
quam  fero.  Now  I  perfectly  agree  with  Jerom,  that 
St.  Matthew  did  no:  ufe  a  word  exprefTive  of  vefpere: 
but  I  doubt  whether  he  ufed  a  word  exprefTive  oijero^ 
My  conjefture  on  this  paflage  tae  reader  will  find  in 
my  Hiftory  of  the  Refurre6lion'. 

Having  premifed  the  authority  of  Jerom,  I  will  now 
propofe  fome  conje6lures  of  my  own.  Ch.  iii.  ir. 
Traerav  J'ciaioo-u^nv  is  not  fo  fuitable  to  the  context,  as 
TTOivIa,  ra  §iy.a,iu)^.c?iO(.,  which  fignifics  *  all  command- 
ments relative  ro  religious  ceremonies"'.  Perhaps  ppl  b'2 
was  ufed  in  the  original'. — Ch.  iv.  8.  the  tempter  con- 
dufts  Chrift  to  the  top  of  a  lofty  mountain,  and  fhews 

him   Troc<Taq    ra?    |3a(riA«a?    ra   xodfj-a.        Now    if  we    take. 

thefe  words  in  a  literal  fenfe,  the  fa6l  is  utterly  impof- 
fible:  and  if  it  was  a  mere  illufion,  there  was  no  ne- 
cefllty  for  afcending  a  lofty  mountain.  Here  fome 
word  mufl  have  been  ufed  in  the  original,  which  was 
capable  of  more  than  one  tranflation :  perhaps  "inN*!!, 
which  fignifies  *  the  land,'  as  well  as  *  the  earth';  or 
bin,  which  as  well  as  ojxa|U£i/»i,  may  denote  the  land  of 
Paleftine  K  Or,  thirdly,  what  is  perhaps  the  moft  pro- 
bable conje6lure,  it  is  not  improbable  that  St.  Matthew 
wrote  O^'H  niD^DD  ^D,  that  is,  « all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  Holy  Land,' ""  and  .that  the  tranflator  miflook  0^; 
for  Kla,  which  in  the  Septuagint  is  fometimes  rendered 
by  Y.Q<Tfj.Qq^.     It  is  even  pofllblc,  as  ''2,'^  fignifies  literally 

*  beauty,' 

'  Hsdibias  Quell.  4.  Tom.  IV.  p.  173.  ed  Martianay. 

*  See  my  Note*  to  Maccab.  i.  13. 

1  Oix.«a£i/*j  is  ufed  in  this  fenfe 4,  Lukeiv.  5.  Adls  xi.  28.  ]         CS 

^  See  Daniel  viii.  9,  xi.  16.  41.  Jerem.  iii.  19. 

"  See  Gen.  ii.  1.  Deut.  iv.  ig.  xvii.  3.  Ifaiah  xxlv.  21.  xl.  46. 


156  Of  St,  Matthew^ s  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

*  beauty,'  and  y.o(Ty.oq  has  likewife  this  fenfe,  that  the 
tranflation  in  qiieftion  was  occafioned  by  a  too  literal 
adherence  to  the  original.  Now  all  the  kingdoms, 
which  exifted  in  Paleftine  in  the  time  of  Chrift,  could 
be  fe en  from  the  top  of  mount  Nebo°:  St.  Matthew 
therefore  meant  all  the  kingdoms  of  Paleftine,  which 
his  tranflator  converted  into  '  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world.' — Ch.  V.  18.  ew?  av  Travra  yi])mc'A  is  not  very 
intelligible,  for  the  queftion  relates  to  the  laws  of  God, 
and  the  laws  of  God  are  not  wniverfally  fulfilled.  Per- 
haps the  words  of  the  original  were  VOH  H^y  O  *!y» 
which  are  capable  of  a  different  tranfladon  from  mq  au 
TTocvTu  yivmui :  for  "ly  may  denote  *  for  ever,'  and  O, 
if  ^^  was  ufed  in   the   preceding  claufe,  would  fignify 

*  but.'  The  meaning  therefore  of  Chrift  was,  '  As  long 
as  heaven  and  earth  remain,  they  fhall  not  be  aboliflied, 
but  every  thing  fliall  be  executed  ^' — Ch.  v.  48.  tbx^oi 
is  fomewhat  obfcure.  A  word  expreffive  of  peace  or 
reconciliation,  would  be  more  fuitable  to  the  context, 
than  a  word  expreflive  of  perfc6tion.  Perhaps  D\tDbL!^ 
was  ufed  in  the  original,  which  admits  both  fenfes. — 
Ch.  viii.  28,  29.  mention  is  made  of  two  demoniacs, 
whereas  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  mention  only  one. 
Now,  if  the  dialed:,  in  which  St.  Matthew  wrote,  was 
the  Syriac,  this  contradiftion  may  be  afcribed  to  the 
tranflator.  For  in  Syriac,  when  a  noun  is  in  what  is 
called  the  Status  emphaticus,  it  has  the  very  fame 
orthography  in  the  fingular,  as  it  has  in  the  plural^;  and 
even  in  the  verb,  the  third  perfon  plural  is  fomedmes 
written  like  the  third  perfon  fingular,  without  the  Vau, 
namely  Vi^-o  for  o^^-o.  plowever  I  fhall  not  infift  on 
this  explanation,  becaufe  I  much  doubt  whether  St. 
Matthew  wrote  in  Syriac^. — Ch.  ix.  18.  Jairus  fays  of 
his  daughter  a^Tj  ETiXivma-i,  *  fhe  is  already  dead,' 
whereas,  according  to   St.  Mark,  he  fays   taxoi'Tooq  ly&iy 

*  fhe  is  at  the   point  of  death,'  and  receives  the  firft 

intel- 


°  See  Deut.  xxxiv.  i — 34.     From  the  top  of  Nebo,  even  mount 
Sinai  may  be  difcerned. 


SECT.  viir.       Of  St,  Matthew's  Gofpd.  157 

intelligence  of  her  death,  as  he  was  returning  home 
accompanied  by  Chrift.  Various  artifices  have  been 
ufed  by  the  harmonifts  to  reconcile  this  contradi6lion, 
and  with  very  little  fuccefs :  but  as  foon  as  we  refle6t 
on  the  words,  which  muft  have  flood  in  the  original, 
all  difficulty  vanifhes  on  this  head.  For  HDit^  riDJ^ 
may  fi^nify  either  '  fhe  is  now  dead,'  or  '  flie  is  now 
dying',^^  St.  Matthew's  trandator  rendered  the  word 
according  to  the  former  punftuation,  whereas  he  ought 
rather  to  have  adopted  the  latter,  as  appears  from  what 
is  related  by  the  two  other  Evangelifts''. — Ch.  xi.  12. 
r  j3ao-iAf»a  Twv  a^xvwv  (Sia^tV-t  is  fo  harfh  and  obfcure, 
and  the  expreflion  ufed  by  St  Luke^  on  the  fame  occa-^ 
fion,  -n  j3a<rtAn«  Ta  ©£8  iijocyyiXi^doci  is  fo  eafy  and 
natural,  that  there  is  reafon  to  doubt  whether  St,  Mat- 
thew's original  was  in  this  paflage  rendered  properly. 
Now  ivy,yyiXiC,(a  is  in  Hebrew  112^2  :  but  if  this  word 
be  written  "1D2  with  Samech  inftead  of  Sin,  as  it  is  in 
Syriac,  a  tranflator  might  render  it  by  |3»a^w,  efpecially 
if  Wi2T\  followed  in  the  fame  fentence.  For  both  "1Q2 
and  DlDII  fignify,  i.  Crudus  fuit^  i.  Violavit ;  and  the 
correfponding  Arabic  word  j  fignifies  alfo  inlempejiive 
fecit y  and  vim  intulit.  It  then  St.  Matthew  wrote 
m'^rJl'  D,!Dn  \m^'s^  IDnn  OV^^n  noS!:,  the  tranQator 
might  explain  ~1D2  by  DDH,  and  confcquently  render 
the  three  words  by  n  (ixo-iXnx  n^v  ^^avm  jSia^slaj.  I  will 
not  affirm  however  that  this  folution  is  the  true  one,  as 
it  is  rather  too  artificial. — Ch.  xxi.  2,3-  '^P'-'h  Ani'oi',  *  he 
dug  a  wine  prefs,'  is  an  incorrect  cxprcffion,  for  it  was 
properly  the  vrroXnvio'j  which  was  dug,  and  hence  St. 
Mark"^  has  a)^u?£i/  uTroAn^joi/,  v.'hich  is  correct.  St.  Mat- 
thew wrote  probably  2^3'  y^r\,  an  expreffion  ufed  by 
Ifaiah,  ch.  v.  i.  on  which  I  refer  the  reader  to  Lowth's 
note  on  that  verfe. — Ch.  xxi,  41.  Xiyxcri]/  avx'^  feems  to 
be  a  falfe  reading,  not  only  becaufe  the  words  which 
follow  were,  according  to  Sc  Mark,  uttered  by  Chrift, 

but 

P  Ch,  xvi.  16,  1  Ch.  xii.  i. 


158  Of  St  Matthew^  s  Gofpel.         chap,  i  v. 

but  becaufe  it  is  improbable  that  the  Jewifli  pricfts, 
who  certainly  underftood  the  import  of  the  parable, 
which  Chrift  had  jufl  delivered  to  them,  would  have 
anfwered  y.axa?  x«xwf  a7roA£(r«  aJIa?,  and  from  the  account 
given  by  St.  Luke  it  appears  that  they  aftually  gave  a 
very  different  anfwer'.  In  this  pafTage  therefore  St. 
Matthew  wrote  probably  n,t3N^1,  '  he  faid,'  which  was 
miftaken  for  IIDJ^'l,  ^  they  laid,'  perhaps  by  the  tran- 
fcriber,  who  wrote  the  copy,  from  which  the  Greek 
tranflation  was  made.  Further,  if  this  miftake  was 
made  in  the  vcrfe  in  queftion,  the  tranflator  muft  have 
confidered  ICK^I  ver.  42.  not  as  a  continuation  of 
Chrift's  difcourfe,  but  as  a  reply  to  what  the  Jewifli 
priefts  had  faid.  Perhaps  objeftions  may  be  made  to 
this  folution:  but  I  know  of  no  other  method  of  re- 
conciHng  in  this  inftance,  St.  Matthew  with  St.  Mark 
and  St.  Luke,  and  it  is  furely  better  to  fuppofe  that 
St.  Matthew's  tranflator  made  a  miftake,  than  to  afcribe 
the  miftake  to  the  Evangelift  himitlf.  It  is  true  that 
the  difficulty  may  be  removed  by  faying  that  Asyao-n/ 
au7w  is  an  interpolation:  but  for  this  aftertion  we  have 
no  authority,  fmce  thefe  words  are  found  in  all  the 
Greek  manufcripts,  except  the  Codex  Leiceftrenfis, 
which  cannot  be  put  in  competition  with  the  united  evi- 
dence of  all  other  manufcripts. 

To  the  example  which  now  follows  I  believe  no 
objedtion  will  be  made.  Immediately  after  Chrift  was 
faftened  to  the  crofs%  they  gave  him,  according  to  St. 
Matthew,  ch.  xxvii.  34.  vinegar  mingled  with  gall,  but 
according  to  St.  Mark,  ch.  xv.  23.  they  offered  him 
wine  mingled  with  myrrh.  Here  is  a  manifeft  contra- 
diftion,  and  of  courfe  in  one  of  the  two  accounts  there 
muft  be  an  inaccuracy.     That  St.  Mark's  account  is 

the 

*  What  is  now  the  objcft  of  confucration  muft  be  carefully  dlftijn- 
guilhed  from  that  which  took  place  fcveral  hours  afterwards,  fliortly 
before  Chrill  expired. 


SECT,  viii.         Of  St,  Matthew's  Go/pel  15^ 

the  right  one  is  probable  from  the  circumflance,  that 
Chrift  refufed  to  drink  what  was  offered  him,  as  appears 
both  from  Matth.  xxvii.  34.  and  Mark  x v.  23.  Wine 
mixed  with  myrrh  was  given  to  malefactors  at  the  place 
of  execution,  in  order  to  intoxicate  them,  and  make 
them  lefs  fenfiblc  to  pain.  Chrifb  therefore  with  great 
propriety  refufed  the  aid  of  fuch  remedies.  But  if 
vinegar  was  offered  him,  which  was  taken  merely  to 
afluage  third,  there  could  be  no  reafon  for  his  rejecting 
it.  Refides,  he  tafled  ity  before  he  reje6led  it,  and 
therefore  he  muft  have  found  it  different  from  that 
which,  if  offered  to  him,  he  was  ready  to  receive.  To 
folve  this  difficulty  we  muft  fuppofe  that  the  words 
ufed  in  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St,  Matthew  were  fuch, 
as  agreed  with  the  account  given  by  St.  Mark,  and  at 
the  fame  time  were  capable  of  the  conftru6lion,  which 
was  put  upon  them  by  St.  Matthew's  Greek  tranflator. 
Nor  is  it  difficult  to  conjeflure  what  thefe  words  were. 
Suppofe  St.  Matthew  wrote'  t^nn/tDl  {<*bn,  which 
fignifies  *  fweet  wine  with  bitters,'  or  '  fweet  wine  and 
myrrh,'  as  we  find  it  in  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Matthew's 
tranflator  overlooked  the  Jod  in  J^^bn,  he  took  it  for 
K^n "  which  fignifies  '  vinegar: '  and  ^  bitter'  he  tranf- 
lated  by  ;j(,oA)i,  as  it  is  often  rendered  in  the  Septuagint. 

Nay, 

*  I  here  write  the  words  In  Chaldee ;  to  make  them  Hebrew  we 
need  only  fubllitute  n  for  M. 

"  K7n   In  Chaldee,  \^.*j   In   Syriac,    and    »^   in   Arabic,    fig- 
nlfy  acetum.     In  Hebrew  the  word  wauld  be  written  TOT}.    Further 

T  X 

K7n  in  Chaldee  and   Syriac,    as  well  as  Jl^^  in   Arabic,    fignifies 

dulcisfuit.     Hence  J^?!!^  and  in  the  flatus  emphaticus  J>ivrT,  may 

fignify  t'inutn  duke.     In  Latin,  Didcia  is  particularly  ufed  to  denote 
wine  mixed  with  myrrh.     See  Briifonias  de  \  erboraai  Significatione, 
'  P-  365. 


i6o  Of  St.  Matthew's  GofpeL         chap.  iv. 

Nay  St.  Matthew  may  have  written  N^n,  and  have  (till 
meant  to  exprcfs  *  Iweet  wine':  if  fo,  the  difference 
confided  only  in  the  points,  for  the  fame  word  kVpt, 
which,  when  pronounced  Hale,  fignifies  *  fweet,'  de- 
notes, as  foon  as  we  pronounce  it  Hala,  '  vinegar.* 
The  trandator  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  mifunderftood 
the  words  of  the  original ;  but  St.  Mark,  who  had  been 
better  informed  by  St.  Peter,  has  given  the  true  ac- 
count'". 

Other  contradictions,  which  the  harmonifls  have  not 
been  able  to  reconcile,  might  perhaps  be  removed  in 
the  fame  manner  :  and  by  Ihewing  that  the  difcordancies 
arofe,  not  from  St.  Matthew  himfelf,  but  from  his 
tranflator,  obje6tions  may  be  anfwered,  which  have 
been  made  both  to  the  infpiration  of  the  Apoftles,  and 
to  the  Chriftian  religion  itfelf.  For  inllance,  if  it  be 
true,  that  the  reading  ^icx.  ns  ■uTpo(p-Alii  Ho-aix,  Matth.  xiii. 
35.  on  which  Porphyry  grounded  one  of  his  objections, 
be  genuine  in  refpcft  to  the  Greek  Gofpel,  and  from 
Jerom's  anfwer  we  muft  really  conclude  that  it  was 
found  in  moft  of  the  Greek  manufcripts  in  his  time, 
it  is  poffible  that  the  reading  is  not  genuine  in  refpedt  to 
the  Hebrew  original,  for  it  is  poffible  that  Ho-aja  was 
added  by  the  Greek  tranflator  who  might  have  borrowed 
it  from  the  14th  verfe.  An  author,  who  quotes  a 
paffage,  may  be  reafonably  expe6led  to  know  from  what 
book  he  quotes  it :  but  the  fame  knowledge  is  not 
always  to  be  expected  from  a  tranflator. 


SECT, 


SECT.  IX.  Of  Si,  Matthew's  Go/peL  i6i 


SECT.    IX. 

Of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes  and  the 
Ehionites :  and  whether  this  Gojpely  in  its  primitive  fiate, 
was  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew. 

^T^HE  queftion,  whether  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by 
X  the  Nazarenes  was  written  by  St.  Matthew,  muft 
not  be  confounded  with  the  queftion,  whether  St.  Mat- 
thew wrote  a  Hebrew  Gofpel  j  though  the  latter  be 
true,  the  former  may  not,  fmce  it  is  poflible  that  more 
than  one  Hebrew  Gofpel  was  compofed.  We  muft 
likewife  diftinguilh  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes  in  the 
ftate,  in  which  it  was  known  to  the  Fathers  of  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  from  the  original  ftate  of 
this  Gofpel :  for  in  its  original  ftate  it  may  have  been 
the  work  of  St.  Matthew,  and  yet  have  been  afterwards 
fo  interpolated  and  corrupted,  as  to  be  no  longer  the 
fame  GofpeP.  The  queftion  therefore  to  be  examined 
is,  whether  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes  was  originally 
the  fame  as  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  written  by  St.  Mat- 
thew. 

Among  the  various  writers  on  this  fubjeft,  I  would 
particularly  recommend  Simon  Hiftoire  critique  du 
texte  du  N.  T.  ch.  7,  8.  where  the  queftion  is  an- 
fwered  in  the  affirmative.  On  the  other  fide  may  be 
read  Mail  Examen  hiftorise  criticse,  cap.  7,  8.  :  but 
Mains  was  rather  a  zealous  adverfary,  than  a  calm  con- 
futer  of  Simon,  for  he  argued  chiefly  from  the  inter- 
polations in  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes,  which  Simon 
had  already  acknowledged  as  fuch,  and  confequently 
not  written  by  St.  Matthew.  Further  may  be  con- 
fulted  Mill's  Prolegomena,   §  42 — 49,  and  particularly 

Dr. 

"  This  diftlnftion  removes  likewife  an  objeftion  to  the  opinion 
that  St.  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,  drawn  from  the  difference  be- 
tween the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes  and  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St, 
Matthew. 

Vol.  III.  L    - 


i6l  Of  Sl  Matthew's  Go/pel.  cHap.  iv. 

Dr.  Mafch's  treatife  on  the  original  language  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gofpel,  where  the  queftion  is  examined  with 
fo  much  the  more  miniitencfs,  as  it  afforded  the  author 
an  opportunity  of  attacking  the  opinion,  that  St.  Mat- 
thew wrote  in  Hebrew,  on  its  wcakeft  fide.  On  the 
Nazarenes  and  the  Ebionites  Epiphanius  has  written  in 
his  29th  and  30th  Herefy  ;  but  as  the  accounts  given 
by  this  Greek  Father  ftand  in  need  of  critical  correc- 
tions, the  reader  would  do  well  to  confult  at  the  fame 
time  Mofheim  de  rebus  Chriftianorum  ante  Conftan- 
tinuni  Magnum,  p.  324 — 332,  and  Walcli's  Hiftory 
of  the  Heretics',  Vol.  i.  p.  99 — 124.  So  much  as  is 
neceffary  for  the  examination  of  the  prefent  queftion 
I  will  deliver  as  concifely  as  poffiblc. 

Both  the  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites  were  Chriftians  of 
Jewifh  origin,  who  lived  for  the  moft  part  to  the  eaft 
of  Jordan  and  the  Orontes ;  and  the  principal  city  of 
the  Nazarenes  was  Pella.  The  Nazarenes  retained  the 
name,  which  was  originally  borne,  not  by  a  fingle  fedl, 
but  by  the  followers  of  Ch rift  in  general^:  the  Ebionites 
derived  their  name  cither  from  the  Hebrew  word  Ebion, 
which  fignifies  *  poor,'  or,  as  lome  have  thought,  from 
a  founder  of  the  name  of  Ebion*.  Both  feds  were 
nearly  allied  to  each  other,  but  on  Tome  points  they 
differed.  The  Nazarenes  are  faid  to  have  rejefted  the 
four  Gofpels  received  by  the  church,  and  the  Ebionites 
Hill  more  books  of  the  New  Teftament.  But  as  the 
Nazarenes  did  not  underlland  Greek,  they  could  not 
have  ufed  the  Greek  Gofpels  of  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John ;  and  therefore  we  fliould  rather  fay, 
that  the  four  Greek  Gofpels  were  not  in  ufe  among 
the  Nazarenes,  than  that  they  attually  rejefted  them  : 
though  on  the  other  hand  it  is  not  improbable  that 
they  were  prejudiced  againft  Gofpels,  which  they  did 
not  underftand,  as  fome  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  for  this 
very  reafon,  were  prejudiced  againft  the  Hebrew  Gofpel, 
which  the  Nazarenes  uftd.  Among  the  Ebionites, 
there  were  feveral  who  underftood  Greek 'j  their  motive 

therefore 

y  See  A£ls  xxiv.  5. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthe'M's  Gojpel.  i6j 

therefore  for  rejefting  many  books,  which  we  receive, 
could  be  no  other,  than  that  they  contained  doflrines, 
which  were  not  compatible  with  their  own  fyftem. 
Both  feds  made  ufc  of  a  Hebrew  Gofpel,  which  was 
called  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  but  which  contained 
many  pafTages  not  found  in  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St. 
Matthew.  Both  fe6ls  agreed  in  retaining  the  Levitical 
law"",  at  the  fame  time  that  they  profefTed  the mfelves 
followers  of  Chrifb :  but  they  differed  from  each  other 
in  this  refpefl,  that  the  Ebionites  confidered  Chrift  as 
a  mere  man,  whereas,  the  Nazarenes,  if  not  all,  ar 
lead  fome  of  them,  are  laid  to  have  afcribed  to  him  a 
divine  origin.  According  to  Mofheim  and  Walch  thefe 
two  fefts  began  in  the  fecond  century "" :  and  at  the  end 
of  the  fifth  century  they  appear  to  have  been  extinft. 
Jerom,  who  wrote  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
defcribes  the  Nazarenes  as  a  fe£t  then  exifting,  but  after 
his  time  they  are  not  mentioned  in  ecclefiaftical  hiftory. 
It  is  true,  that  a  'itdi  called  Nafir?eans  exifted  at  Perrha 
on  the  Euphrates  in  the  beginning  of  the  fixth  century : 
but  they  were  totally  different  from  the  Nazarenes,  for 
they  derived  their  name,  not  from  Nazareth,  but  from 
the  Nafirsans  of  the  Old  Teftament,  and  were  a  fet 
of  fuperftitious  monks,  who  made  it  a  rule  never  to 
eat  or  drink,  except  at  the  facrament  of  the  Lord's 
fuppcr,  which  however  they  repeated  fo  frequently  every 
day,  as  to  fecure  themfelves  from  the  danger  of  dying 
cither  through  hunger  or  thirft*.  This  itd:  therefore 
mufl:  be  carefully  diftinguidicd  from  the  Nazarenes, 
who  are  the  fubje6t  of  inquiry  in  this  fcflion. 

Though  both  the  Nazarenes  and  the  Ebionites  had 
a  Hebrew  Gofpel,  which  was  called  the  Gofpel  of  St. 

Matthew, 

*  The  Ebionites  were  however  more  zealous  in  this  refpeft  than  the 
Nazarenes,  for  they  infilled  on  the  obfervance  not  only  of  the  Law 
of  Mofes,  but  likewife  of  all  the  additions  which  had  been  made  to 
it  by  the  Rabbins. 

»  See  Aflemani  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom.  I.  p.  412. 

L  2 


164  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  chap.  iv. 

Matthew,  it  is  poflible  that  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the 
former  differed  materially  from  that  which  was  ufed  by 
the  latter.  Our  accounts  of  both  are  very  imperfedt, 
but  of  the  two  we  have  the  moft  knowledge  of  that 
which  was  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes.  Jerom,  who  not 
only  read,  but  copied  and  tranflared  it,  relates  that  it 
was  written  with  Hebrew  letters,  but  in  the  Chaldee 
diale£t^  The  circumftance  that  it  was  written  with 
Hebrew  letters  was  undoubtedly  the  caufe  of  its  being 
fo  little  known  to  the  Syrians,  who  would  have  un- 
derftood  it,  if  it  had  been  written  with  Syriac  cha- 
rafters. 

It  has  been  fuppofed,  though  perhaps  without  fuffi- 
cient  reafon,  that  Tatian,  an  Affyrian  writer  of  the 
fecond  century,  made  ufe  of  the  Gofpel  of  the  Naza- 
renes, in  compofmg  his  harmony,  which  is  generally 
called  Six  Tfo-o-a^wv,  but  fometimes  Sax,  znt^i,  on  the  fup- 
pofition  that  it  was  compofed  out  of  five  Gofpels^ 
Were  the  fuppofition  grounded,  the  Harmony  of 
Tatian,  and  the  Commentary,  which  Ephrem  wrote  on 
it%  would  be  of  fome  importance  in  the  prefent  in- 
quiry :  but  neither  of  thefe  works  are  now  extant  K 
Tatian  omitted  the  genealogy  of  Chrift,  becaufe,  as 
fome  fay,  he  was  a  Docete  :  but  he  might  have  omitted 

it 

■j  111  Evangel io  juxta  Hebrsos,  quod  Chaldaico  quidem  Syroque 
fermone,  fed  Hebraicis  Uteris  fcriptum  eft,  quo  utuntur  ufque  liodie 
Nazareni,  fecundum  Apoftolos,  five,  ut  plerique  autumant,  juxta 
Matthzeuqi,  quod  et  in  Caefarienfi  habetur  bibliotheca,  narrat  hiftoria, 
&c.  Hieronym.  adv.  Pelagianos,  Lib.  111.  Tom.  iv.  p.  533.  ed. 
Martianay.  When  therefore  the  fame  Father,  in  his  Note  to  Matth. 
xii.  13.  fays.  In  Evangelic  quo  utuntur  Nazareni  et  Ebionitae  quod 
nuper  in  Graecum  de  Hebr^eo  fermone  tranftulimus,  et  quod  vocatur 
a  plerifque  Matthaei  authenticum,  &c.  it  is  evident  that  he  ufed  the 
word  Hebrew  in  its  moft  extenfive  fenfe,  fo  as  to  include  alfo  the 
Chaldee. 

=  Simon  Hift.  crit.  da  texte  du  N.  T.  Ch.  VI F,  p.  74.  Fabricii 
Codex  aprocryphus  Nov.  Teft.  Tom.  I.  p.  379.  Beaufobre  Hiftoire 
du  Manicheifme,  Tom.  I.  p.  303,  304. 

-*  Afferaani  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom.  III.  P.  i.  p.  379. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthew's  GofpeL  165 

it  on  the  authority  of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel.  This  how- 
ever is  only  conjefture.  It  is  more  certain  that  Origen 
was  acquainted  with  this  Gofpelj  for  he  has  fometimes 
quoted  it  in  his  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew'':  but 
he  did  not  receive  it  as  the  genuine  work  of  an 
Apoftle. 

Jerom  found  a  copy  of  this  Gofpel,  which  in  his 
time  appears  even  in  Paleftine  to  have  become  fcarce, 
in  the  library  of  Ctefarea,  which  had  been  formed  by 
the  martyr  Pamphilus.  Another  copy  was  lent  him  by 
the  Nazarenes  at  Beroea  in  Syria,  the  city  which  is  now 
called  Aleppo*".  This  copy  Jerom  tranfcribed*",  and 
tranflated  into  Latin  ' :  his  tranflation  however,  as  well 
as  the  original,  is  unfortunately  loft.  After  the  time 
of  Jerom  no  ecclefiaftical  writer  appears  to  have  ufed 
or  even  to  have  feen  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes :  the 
it&i  itfelf  dwindled  gradually  away,  and  confequently 
their  Gofpel,  which  few  perfons  could  read,  fell  by 
degrees  into  oblivion.  Single  copies  were  probably 
preferved  for  fome  time  in  different  libraries ;  but  few 
public  libraries  in  the  Eaft  efcaped  the  ravages  of  the 
flames  on  the  invafion  of  the  Saracens,  and  the  copies, 
which  remained  in  private  families,  were  probably 
thrown  afide  as  unintelligible  and  ufelefs,  as  foon  as 
their  value  was  forgotten.  It  is  probable  therefore  that 
no  other  traveller  into  Afu  will  have  the  fame  fuccefs  at 
Aleppo,  as  Jerom. 

In  examining  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes,  one  of 
the  firft  queftions  which  occur  is,  whether  it  had  the 
two  chapters,  with  which  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St. 
Matthew  commences.  Epiphanius,  who  was  born  in 
Paleftine,  and  therefore  had  the  beft  means  of  infor- 
mation, 

^  That  Aleppo  and  Beroea  are  one  and  the  fame  city,  appears 
fr6m  the  accounts  of  the  Syrian  writers  of  the  fixth  century,  who 
relate  of  Aleppo  what  contemporary  Greek  hiftorians  relate  of  Beroea. 
See  the  geographical  Index  to  the  fecond  volume  of  AfTemani  Bibl. 
Orientalis,  and  confult  the  paflages  to  which  reference  is  there  made. 

^  Hiejonym.  de  Vir.  illuftr.  Tom.  IV.  p.  102.  ed.  Martianay. 

1-3 


J  66  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gojf  el.  chap.  iv. 

mation,  did  not  take  the  pains  to  procure  it :  for  in  his 
defcription  of  the  Nazarenes,  he  fays,  '  I  know  not 
whether  they  alfo  namely  (as  well  as  the  Ebionites) 
omit  the  genealogy  from  Abraham  to  Chrift^'  Epi- 
phanius  then  had  neither  feen  the  original,  nor  Jerom's 
tranflation  of  it,  (provided  th?  tranflation  was  then  ' 
made) :  for  if  he  had,  he  could  not  have  remained  in 
doubt.  Jerom  who  had  the  greateft  knowledge  of  this 
fubjefl,  has  no  where  pofitively  declared  whether  the 
Nazarene  Gofpel  had  thefe  two  chapters  or  not:  which 
is  not  extraordinary,  becaufe  he  had  given  a  tranflation 
of  it,  and  therefore  none  of  his  contemporaries  could 
want  any  further  information.  But  as  this  tranflation 
has  not  defcended  to  the  prefent  time,  the  only  method 
which  wc  have  of  coming  at  the  truth,  is  to  colle6l  the 
fingle  paflages,  in  which  Jerom  has  occafionally  men- 
tioned this  Gofpel,  and  to  draw  inferences  from  them. 

In  his  Note  to  Matth.  ii.  15.  he  exprefltfs  a  doubt, 
whether  the  words,  *  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my 
fon,*  were  taken  from  Hofea  xi.  i.  or  from  Numb, 
xxiii.  11.  Now  if  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the  Naza- 
renes contained  the  chapter,  in  which  this  quotation  is 
made,  Jerom  could  hardly  have  doubted  whether  the 
quoted  paflilige  was  taken  from  Hofea  xi.  i.  or  not. 
This  inftance  however  is  not  decifive,  becaufe  Jerom 
adds  that  he  writes  in  this  place  '  propter  contentiofos:' 
he  himfclf  dierefore  did  not  believe,  that  the  quotation 
was  taken  from  Numb,  xxiii.  22,  but  advanced  it 
merely  to  filence  his  adverfaries. — On  the  other  hand, 
from  his  Note  to  Matth.  ii.  5.  we  might  conclude  that 
he  really  found  this  chapter  in  the  Hebrew  Gofpel : 
for  on  Bethlehem  JudiCLt,  he  f^.ys,  *  Librariorum  hie 
error  efl:,  putamus  enim  ab  Evangelifl:a  primo  editum, 
ficut  in  ipfo  Hebraico  legimus,  Jud.e  non  Judce<£.' 
Now  the  words  *  in  ipfo  Hebraico '  can  have  no  other 
meaning  than  *  in  the  Hebrevv  Gofpel : '  for  they  cannot 
refer  to  the  Hebrew  of  the  prophet  Micah,  whence  the 
quotation  was  borrowed,  becaufe  in  that  place  there  is 
neither  Bethlehem  Juda^j  nor  Bethlehem  Judsje,  but 

Bethlehem 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  iSy 

Bethlehem  Ephratha.  Yet  it  is  difficult  to  comprehend 
how  Jerom  could  diftinguifh  in  the  Hebrew  Jut^^g  from 
Jucfcc^,  for  both  are  exprefied  by  nTn^"*.  I  fufped 
therefore  that  Hebraico  is  a  miftake  for  Gr^eco^  fince  the 
Greek  has  really  latJ'a  "". — There  is  a  ftill  more  important 
paflage  in  Jerom's  treatife  of  illuftrious  men,  to  which 
I  referred  in  the  preceding  note,  and  which  I  will  here 
quote  at  full  length,  becaufc  we  can  judge  only  from 
the  connexion,  whether  he  meant  to  fay  that  the 
Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes,  or  only  the  Greek 
Gofpel  contained  the  fecond  chapter.  <  Matthasus, 
qui  et  Levi,  ex  publicano  Apoflolus,  primus  in  Judaea, 
propter  eos  qui  ex  circumcifione  crediderant,  Evange- 
lium  Chrifti  Hebraicis  literls  verblfque  compofuit. 
Quod  qui  poftea  in  Gr.i^cum  tranftulerit,  non  fatis 
certum  eft.  Porro  ipfum  Hebraicum  habetur  ufque 
hodie  in  Cjefarienfi  bibliotheca,  quam  Pamphilus 
Martyr  ftudiofilTime  confecit.  Mihi  quoque  a  Nazar^is, 
qui  in  Beroea  urbe  Syria  hoc  volumine  utuntur,  de- 
fcribendi  facultas  fuit.  In  quo  animadvertendum, 
quod  ubique  Evangelifta  five  ex  perfona  fua,  five  ex 
perfona  Domini  falvatoris,  veteris  fcuriptur^e  teftimoniis 
abutitur,  non  fequatur  feptuaginta  tranQatorum  auc- 
toritatem,  fed  Hebraicam  ;  e  quibus  ilia  duo  funt,  *  Ex 
iEgypto  vocavi  filium  meum,'  et  ^  Quoniam  Nazarajus 
vorabitur.'  Here  it  is  evident  that,  if  the  words  /;/  quo 
animadvertendum  refer  to  hoc  volumine  in  the  fentence 
immediately  preceding,  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by 
the  Nazarenes  muft  have  contained  at  leaft  the  fecond 
chapter,  for  the  two  quotations,  *  Ex  i^gypto  vocavi 
filium  meum,'  and  ^  Quoniam  Nazarseus  vocabitur,* 
are  in  Matth.  ii.  15.  23.  On  the  other  hand,  fince 
Jerom  at  the  beginning  of  this  paflage  had  fpoken  of 
St.  Matthew  in  general  terms,  it  is  poffible  that  he 
meant  to  refer  to  the  Evangelift,  without  having  in 
view  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes  in  particular.  At 
different  times  therefore  I  have  entertained  different 
opinions  on  this  fubjeft,  but  it  appears  to  me  at  pre- 
fcnt,  that  Jerom  really  meant  the  Goipel  of  the  Naza-t 

L  4  renesj, 


1 68  Of  St.  Matthew's  GoJpeL  chap.  iv. 

renes,    and  confequently  that  it  contained   the  fecond 
chapter". 

The  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes  had,  on  the  other  hand, 
,many  paffages,  which  are  not  in  our  Greek  Gofpel  of 
St.  Matthew.  For  inftance,  ch.  iii.  Ecce  mater  domini 
et  fratres  ejus  dicebant  ip(i  Joannes  Baptifta  baptizat 
in  rcmiflionem  peccatorum:  eamus  et  baptizemur  ab 
eo.  Dixit  autem  eisj  quid  peccavi,  ut  vadam  et  bap- 
tizer  ab  eo,  nifi  forte  hoc  ipfum  quod  dixi  ignorantia 
eft^.  After  the  account  of  Chrift's  baptifm  follows, 
Facflum  eft  autem,  cum  afcendiflet  dominus  de  aqua, 
defcendit  fons  omnis  Spiritus  fanfti,  et  requievit  fuper 
eum.  Et  dixit  ille,  fili  mi,  in  omnibus  prophetis  ex- 
pe6labam  te,  ut  venires,  et  requiefcerem  in  te :  tu  enim 
es  requies  mea,  tu  es  fiiius  mens  primogenitus,  qui 
regnas  in  fempiternum^  At  ch.  xii.  lo.  the  man  with 
a  withered  hand  fays,  Coementarius  eram,  manibus 
vidum  quasritans :  precor  te,  Jefu,  ut  mihi  reftituas 
fanitatem,  ne  turpiter  mendicem  cibos*.  At  ch.  xviii, 
21.  12.  the  text  was  worded  thus.  Si  peccaverit  frater 
tuus  in  verbo,  et  fatis  tibi  fecerit,  fepties  in  die  fufcipe 
ilium.  Dixit  iili  Simon  difcipuius  ejus:  fepties  in  die  ? 
Refpondit  Dominus  et  dixit  ei :  etiam  ego  dico  tibi, 
ufque  feptuagefies.  Etenim  in  prophetis  quoque,  poft- 
quam  unfti  funt  Spiritu  fanfto,  inventus  eft  fermo  pec- 
cati.  In  ch.  xxviii.  is  the  following  relation :  Dominus 
autem,  cum  dediflet  findonem  fervo  facerdotis,  ivit  ad 
Jacobum,  et  apparuit  ei.  Juraverat  enim  Jacobus  fe 
non  comefturum  panem  ab  ilia  hora,  qua  biberat  calicem 
Domini,  donee  viderat  eum  refurgentem  a  dormien- 
tibus'*.  And  foon  after  this  palTage  is,  Adferte,  ait 
Dominus  menfam  et  panem. — Tulit  panem  et  bene- 
dixit  ac  fregit,  et  poft  dedit  Jacobo  Jufto,  et  dixit  ei, 
frater  mi  comede  panem  tuum,  quia  refurrexit  fihus 

hominis^ 

*  Heronym.  adv.  Pelagianos,  Lib.  III. 

'■  Hieronym.  Lib.  IV.  Comment,  in  Jefaiam,  cap.  il. 

'  Hieronym.  Comment,  in  Matthsum. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  169 

hominis  a  dormientibus ''.  In  the  28th  chapter  was 
likewife  a  pafTage  relative  to  Chrift's  appearance  to 
Peter,  which  Ignatius '  has  in  Greek  as  follows.     K«» 

fji.iy  yicti  iSili  o|»  »>t  iifji.1  §ot,i^oviov  oca-uiAoilov.  Ignatius  in- 
deed does  not  fay  whence  he  derived  this  quotation : 
but  Jerom,  under  the  article  Ignatius,  in  his  catalogue 
of  ecclefiaftical  writers,  ch.  16.  fays  that  it  flood  in  the. 
Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes.  Further,  Jerom  fays 
in  another  place "",  Cum  enim  Apolloli  eum  putarent 
fpiritum,  vel  (fecundum  evangelium,  quod  Hebraeorum 
leftitant  Nazarseei)  incorporale  djemonium. 

Thefe  and  other  paflages  in  the  Gofpel  of  the  Naza- 
renes, which  are  not  contained  in  the  Greek,  the 
Chriftian  Church  has  not  received  as  Scripture  autho- 
rity. Yet  the  paflages  which  Jerom  has  quoted,  he  has 
produced,  as  refpeflable  though  not  Scripture  authority: 
and  the  paflTage,  which  Ignatius  quoted,  is  produced  by 
this  apoftolical  Father  as  a  part  of  the  facred  writings. 
It  is  however  improbable  that  they  proceeded  from  the 
pen  of  St.  Matthew":  for  if  they  had,  it  is  hardly 
credible  that  fuch  long  and  remarkable  pafl^ages  would 
have  been  omitted  in  the  Greek.  The  ancient  tran- 
fcribers  of  the  Gofpels  were  always  more  inclined  to 
infert  new  pafl^ages,  than  to  erafe  what  already  exilted : 
we  muft  conclude  therefore  that,  if  the  Hebrew  Gofpel 
ufed  by  the  Nazarenes  was  St.  Matthew's  original,  it 
received  various  additions,  after  the  Greek  tranflation 
had  been  made,  and  that  hence  arofe  the  difference 
between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  texts.  In  addition 
to  the  hiftory  recorded  by  St.  Matthew,  many  other 

accounts 

^  Hieronym.  Catal.  Scriptorum  Ecclefiaft.  f.  v.  Jacobus. 

^  Epill.  ad.  Smyrnenfes,  cap.  3. 

"'  Hieronym.  Opera,  Tom.  III.  p.  478.  ed.  Martianay. 

»  Perhaps  the  paflage  quoted  by  Ignatius  may  be  excepted  :  for 
though  it  is  in  no  Greek  MS.  at  prefent.  It  might  have  been  in  the 
Greek  text,  when  Ignatius  wrote. 


170  Of  St.  Matthew's  GofpeJ.  chap.  iv. 

accounts  relative  to  Jcfus  Chrift  mud  have  circulated 
aniong  the  Chriftians  of  Palefline  in  the  firft  century : 
and  as  every  thing,  which  related  to  fo  remarkable  a 
perfon,  was  undoubtedly  confidered  as  highly  impor- 
tant, it  is  not  extraordinary  that  they  who  had  copies 
of  St.  Matthew's  Hebrew  Gofpcl,  fhould  add  in  the 
margin  whatever  information  they  could  procure,  with 
an  intention  of  making  the  hiftory  of  Chrift  as  complete 
as  poffible.  In  fubfequent  tranfcripts  thefe  marginal 
additions  were  taken  into  the  text :  and  thus  the  Gofpel 
of  the  Nazarenes  received  an  accefTion,  from  which  the 
Greek  Gofpel  remained  free.  It  is  true  that  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  ceaied  in  this  manner  to  be  the  unadulterated 
work  of  St.  Matthew  :  yet  the  Nazarenes  might  ftill 
confider  it  upon  the  whole  as  a  facred  and  divine  book, 
more  efpecially  if  the  additional  accounts  had  been 
derived  from  the  Apoftles  themfelves,  as  one  of  the 
names,  by  which  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes  is  dif- 
tingulflied,  appears  to  imply.  For  it  was  called,  not 
only  the  Gofpel  according  to  St.  Matthew,  but  fome- 
times  aifo  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Apoftles  ". 

Befide  the  interpolations  in  the  Gofpel  of  the  Naza- 
renes, it  is  probable  that  the  Hebrew  text  differed  in 
many  pafiages  from  the  Greek:  and  therefore,  if  it 
were  now  extant,  we  might  be  able  to  collect  from  it 
various  readings.  Origen,  who  had  accefs  to  it,  made 
no  critical  ufc  of  it;  either  becaufe  he  thought  the  text 
too  corrupted  to  be  applied  in  emendation  of  the  Greek, 
or  becaufe  he  was  unv/illing  to  undertake  the  fame 
crincal  taflc  in  refpeft  to  the  New  Teflament,  as  he  had 
done  in  refped  to  the  Old.  Jerom,  though  he  tran- 
flated  it,  made  little  or  no  ufe  of  it  in  his  Commentary 
on  St.  Matthew,  either  for  or  againfl  the  readings  of 
the  Greek  text.     Hence  Mill  concludes  •*,  that  Jerom 

himfelf 

°  Evangelium  fecui-him  Apoflolos.  See  the  paflage  quoted  from 
Jeiom,  in  the  preccdins^  Note  b. 

P  Piol.  §.  42,  43. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  Sl  Mattheiv's  Go/pel.  171 

himfelf  did  not  believe  that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the 
Nazarenes,  which  he  tranflated,  was  the  Gofpel  of  St. 
Matthew.  But  Jerom,  as  well  as  Origen,  may  have 
believed  it  to  have  been  originally  the  fame,  and  yet  in 
confequence  of  the  alterations  which  had  been  made  in 
it,  have  thought  it  an  unfatisfa6tory  criterion  in  deter- 
mining doubtful  paiTages  of  the  Greek.  Or,  what  I 
think  (till  more  probable,  his  negleft  of  the  Gofpel  of 
the  Nazarenes  may  have  proceeded  from  the  great  hafte 
in  which  he  di61:ated  his  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew''. 
Further,  this  Commentary,  as  appears  from  what  he 
fays  in  the  Prologue  %  was  only  a  prelude  to  a  more 
complete  work  on  this  fubjeft,  for  which  he  probably 
referved  all  his  critical  difquifitions '.  Moreover,  in 
refpedl  to  the  reading  ejxti,  Matth.  v.  22.  on  which 
Mill  exprefies  his  furprize,  that  Jerom  did  not  quote 
the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes,  if  he  believed  it  to  be 
St.  Matthew's  original,  a  particular  reafon  may  be 
affigned  for  his  negleft  on  this  occafion.  Jerom  re- 
je6ted  the  word  juri,  Matth.  v.  22.  not  for  critical 
reafons,  or  becaufe  there  was  authority  againft  it,  but 
becaufe  it  did  not  fuit  his  fevere  fyftem  of  morality, 
according  to  which  it  was  a  fin,  not  only  *  to  be  angry 
without  a  caufe,'  but  to  be  angry  on  any  occafion  what- 
foever.  Suppole  then  Jerom  had  found  in  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes  a  word  exprefilve  of  n)tn,  he 
was  too  much  the  dogmatifl:,  and  too  little  the  critic, 
at  that  pafl^age,  to  have  quoted  it.     Mill's  objeftion ' 

therefore, 

<i  He  fays  in  his  Prologue  to  this  Commentary,  An  tu  in  duabus 
hebdomadibus ,  imminente  jam  pafcha,  et  fpirantibus  veatis,  didare 
cogis  ? 

"■  Si  autem  mihi  vita  longior  fnerir,  aut  tu  in  redeundo  tua  pro- 

mifla  compleveris,  tunc  nitar  implere  quod  rcliquum  eft  : ut  fcias, 

quid  interfit  inter  fubitam  didandi  audaciam,  et  elucubratam  fcribendi 
diligentiam. 

'  This  more  complete  commentary,  if  Jerom  ever  put  his  defign  in 
execution,  is  not  extant, 

»  Prol.,§  4^. 


J 72  Of  St.  Matthe'M's  Gofpd.  chap.  iv. 

therefore,  that  Jerom  would  hardly  have  had  recourle 
to  conjecture,  to  determine  the  true  reading  of  this 
pafTage,  if  he  had  been  really  in  poiTeflion  of  St.  Mat- 
thew's original,  is  of  no  weight.  Befides,  cafes  may 
occur,  and  the  prefent  appears  to  be  one  of  them,  in 
■which  an  original  is  of  lefs  authority  than  a  tra-nflation. 
Jerom  fuppofed  that  jhcti  was  an  interpolation  :  he  knew 
likewife  that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  abounded  with  inter- 
polations, and  confequently,  if  he  had  found  this  word 
in  the  Hebrew  Gofpel,  he  would  not  have  confidered 
it  as  a  proof,  that  the  reading  was  genuine.  This 
anfwer  applies  with  ftill  greater  force  to  another  example 
quoted  by  Mill  from  Matth.  xxiv.  2^-  *  But  of  that 
day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no  not  the  angels  of 
heaven,  but  my  Father  only.'  On  this  pafTage  Jerom 
obferves,  that  in  fome  copies  the  words,  *  nor  the  Son,' 
were  added :  but  he  does  not  appeal  to  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  to  determine  whether  they  were  genuine.  Now 
fuppofe  he  had  found  thefe  words  in  the  Hebrew  Gofpel, 
the  queflion  to  be  afked  is :  Ought  he,  as  a  cridc,  to 
have  ufed  this  as  an  argument  in  favour  of  their  authen- 
ticity r  Certainly  not.  For  fmce  many  of  the  Nazarenes 
denied  the  divinity  of  Chrift,  and  this  very  reading  has 
been  ufed  as  an  argument' againft  the  divinity,  Jerom 
muft  neceffarily  have  fufpefted  that  it  was  one  of  the 
many  addidons,  which  had  been  made  to  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel. 

But  at  Matth.  xxiii,  35.  where  the  inquiry  related, 
not  to  an  addition  of  one  or  more  words,  but  merely  to 
the  fubflitution  of  one  word  for  another,  Jerom  really 
has  quoted  the  I^ebrew  Gofpel,  and  moreover  for  a 
reading  of  great  importance.  Matth.  xxiii.  ^S-  '"^^"^ 
thus:  'That  upon  you  may  come  all  the  righteous 
blood  flied  upon  the  earth,  from  the  blood  of  righteous 
Abel,  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias  fon  of  Barachias, 
whom  ye  flew  between  the  temple  and  the  altar.'  Now 
it  appears  from  1  Chron.  xxiv.  20 — 22.  that  Zacharias, 
who  was  flain  between  the  tem.ple  and  the  altar,  was 
the  fon,  not  of  Barachias,  but  of  Jehoiada :  confe- 
quently 


STLCT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  173 

quently  if  the  account  in  the  Chronicles  be  accurate", 
the  reading  Barachias  at  Matth.  xxiii.  35.  cannot  be 
the  true  reading.  Some  commentators  have  had  re- 
courfe  to  the  fuppofition  that  Jehoiada  and  Barachias 
were  different  names  of  the  fame  pcrfon  :  but  this  af- 
fertion  is  wholly  incapable  of  proof,  and  is  in  itfelf 
highly  improbable.  Wetftein  conjeftures  that  St,  Mat- 
thew purpofely  avoided  the  uie  of  the  word  Jehoiada^ 
becaufe  it  contained  in  it  the  abbreviated  name  of  Je- 
hova,  and  therefore  fubftituted  Barachia.  But  this 
caution  in  refpedt  to  the  abbreviation  TV  was  confined 
only  to  the  number  15,  which  it  is  true  the  Jews  never 
noted  by  n%  though  Jod  is  10,  and  He  is  5.  And 
even  if  this  reverence  for  TV  extended  to  proper  names, 
Wetftein's  folution  would  be  unfatisfaftory,  for  in  the 
Hebrew  thefe  two  letters  occur  together  in  Barachia,  as 
well  as  in  Jehoiada.     That  Zacharias   the  eleventh   of 

the 

^  I  purpofely  ufe  this  reftrlclion,  becaufe  I  have  forr.e  doubts  in 
refpetEl  to  the  whole  narrative,  2  Chron.  xxiv.  15 — 22.  as  1  have 
already  obferved  in  my  note  to  2  Kings  xii.  20.  No  mention  is 
made  of  it  in  the  Books  of  the  Kings,  and  yet  we  might  fuppofe 
that  fo  remarkable  an  event  would  hardly  have  been  omitted.  The 
narrative  was  probably  taken  from  a  Medrafh  or  commentary  on  the 
Kings,  agreeably  to  what  we  iind  ver.  27.  of  this  very  chapter  of  the 
Chronicles'^.  Befides,  the  narrative  itfelf  begins  with  an  account, 
which  is  contradiflory  to  chronology,  as  I  have  ftiewn  in  the  Note  to 
z  Chi  on.  xxiv.  15.  It  is  poflible  therefore  that  Zacharias  fon  of 
Barachias,  and  the  eleventh  of  the  minor  prophets,  was  the  perfon. 
who  was  murdered,  and  that  the  commentator  on  the  Kings,  from 
whom  the  account  in  the  Chronicles  was  derived,  mifunderilood  the 
fad,  and  introduced  it  in  an  improper  place.  This  fuppofition  is  as 
credible,  as  that  the  hiftory  of  Zacharias,  fon  of  Jehoiada,  if  it  be 
true,  fnould  have  been  omitted  in  the  Book  of  Kings.  It  is  no  ob- 
jeiTijon,  that  the  murder  of  Zacharias,  fon  of  Barachias,  is  no  where 
recorded  in  the  Old  Tellament:  for  between  the  Books  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  there  is  an  interval  of  more  than  thirty  years,  in  which 
we  are  totally  ignorant  of  the  tranfadions  of  the  Jews.  The  diffi- 
culty therefore  may  be  fulved  on  the  fuppofition  that  the  account 
given  2  Chron,  xxiv.  15 — 22.  is  inaccurate,  as  eafily  as  on  the  fup- 
pofition that  the  reading  Barachias,  Matth.  xxiii.  35.  is  fpurious. 
In  that  cafe  we  may  confider  the  Ilory  recorded  2  Chron.  xxiv.  15-22. 
as  tacitly  coxreded  by  Chrift. 


174  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap,  ir, 

the  minor  prophets,  who  was  fon  of  Barachias,  was 
murdered,  we  read  no  where  '* :  and  it  is  not  probable 
that  two  different  perfons  named  Zacharias,  Ihouki  both 
of  them  have  been  murdered  under  the  very  fame  cir- 
cumftances.  But  if  we  admit  that  the  eleventh  of  the 
minor  prophets  fell  a  facrifice  to  the  Jews,  as  well  as 
the  fon  of  Jehoiada,  yet  Chrift  would  rather  have  in- 
llanced  the  fon  of  Jehoiada,  becaufe  the  murder  of  this 
perfon  was  not  only  particularly  known,  but  was  fup- 
pofed  to  call  aloud  for  vengeance  ".  The  blood  there- 
fore of  this  Zacharias  was  more  properly  mentioned 
with  the  blood  of  Abel,  than  the  blood  of  another 
Zacharias,  whofe  murder,  even  if  he  did  fall  a  vi6lim, 
•was  unknown  ^^.— Now  at  this  pafTage  Jerom  relates, 
that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes  read  *  Za- 
charia  the  fon  of  Jehoiada.' 

I  have  already  obferved  that  though  the  Ebionites, 
as  well  as  the  Nazarenes,  had  a  Hebrew  Gofpel,  which 
was  called  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  we  muft  not 
therefore  conclude  that  it  contained  the  fame  text  as 
that  which  the  Nazarenes  ufed.  Of  the  Gofpel  ufed 
by  the  Ebionites  we  have  hardly  any  other  information, 
than  that  which  has  been  given  by  Epiphanius,  who, 
as  an  ecclefiaftical  writer,  was  far  from  being  of  the  firft 
clafo,  and  as  a  critic,  mud  be  referred  to  the  very  loweft 
clafs.  But  on  the  other  hand,  he  had  this  advantage, 
that  he  was  a  native  of  Paleftine,  and  undcrftood 
Hebrew.  Though  he  appears  not  to  have  feen  the 
Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes,  and  to  have  derived  his 
knowledge  of  it  merely  from  the  report  of  others'',  yet 

it 

■^  The  Rabhins  relate,  that  when  Jerufalem  was  talcen  by  the 
Chaldeans,  the  blood  of  the  murdered  Zacharias  ifiued  like  a  fountain, 
and  that  it  was  not  appeafed  till  Nebufaradan  had  made  atonement  by 
the  facrifice  of  a  thoufand  Jews.  See  the  quotations  made  by  Wet- 
ftein  in  his  note  to  this  paffage. 

y  If  he  had  himfelf  examined  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes, 
he  could  not  have  been  iii  doubt,  whether  it  contained  the  gctiealogy 
of  Chrift. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  J/.  Matihew's  Gofpel.  175 

it  is  highly  probable  that  he  himfelf  was  in  pofTelTion 
of  a  copy  or  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Ebionites,  as  he  \ 
has  made  from  it  feveral  cxtrafts,  which  I  (liall  prefently 
quote. 

According  to  Epiphanius  the  Gofpel  of  the  Ebionites 
was  different  from  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes :  for  he 
defcribes  the  former  as  having  an  uncorrupted,  the 
latter  a  very  corrupted  text "".  Of  the  Nazarenes  he 
fays%  *  They  likewife  have  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew 
perfe6lly  entire,  and  in  the  Hebrew  language.  For 
this  Gofpel  is  ftill  preferved  by  them,  as  it  was  originally- 
written  in  Hebrew.  But  I  am  not  certain  whethef 
they  alfo  have  omitted  the  genealogy  from  Abraham  to 
Chrift.' ''  Of  the  Ebionites,  on  the  contrary,  he  fays  % 
*  In  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  them,  which  bears  the  name 
of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  is  however  not  entire  and 
perfe6l,  but  is  partly  corrupted,  partly  mutilated  (they 
themfclves  call  it  the  Hebrew  Gofpel),  is  related,  &c.' 
It  is  evident  therefore  that  Epiphanius  confidered  the 
two  Gofpels  as  having  a  very  different  text.  The  latter 
had  been  fo  corrupted,  that  he  defcribes  it  as  being  the 
Gofpel  of  St.   Matthew  in  name  only :  and   from  his 


fay  in 


^  Jerom  on  the  contrary  fpeaks  of  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Ebionites, 
as  if  it  were  the  fame,  as  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazatenes :  for  in 
his  Note  to  Matth.  xii.  13.  he  fays,  '  In  Evangelio  quo  utuntur 
Nazareni  et  Ebionita?,  quod/  &c.  Perhaps  Jeron^  liad  never  feen  a 
copy  of  the  Hebrew  Gufpel  in  the  hands  of  the  Lbionices,  and  there- 
fore fpolce  of  them  as  being  the  fame  Gofpel,  on  the  report  of 
others,  as  Epiphanius  on  the  fame  ground  delcribed  them  as  dif- 
ferent. 

«  Ha:ref  XXIX.  §  9. 

••  As  Dr.  Mafch  objefts  to  this  trandation,  I  -^vill  priE'.t  the  Greek 
©f  Epiphanius  unpointed,  that  the  reader  may  examine  \vithout  any 
bias   in    my    favour.      Ep^ap-j    ^i   to  kocto,  MarQatoi'  iva-yyiKioa  vy'Kr^eTarcw 

y^a'l/.fjicccriv  £T»  auj^iTon  an  oj^«  ^£  n  xxt  Ta?  yBViacMyica;  tag  avo  rn 
A^^otujA.  oby^^i  Xg>ij-a  •ts-ffifiAo*.  Before  -sTTv^i^fj-aToi-  Cafaubon  thought 
that  a  fliould  be  fupplied  ;  but  this  is  not  only  an  .-rrbirary  and 
unwarrantable  alteration,  but  is  likewife  uniuiLabie  to  the  context. 

«  Hsref.XXX.  §  13. 


i-jG  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel,  chap.  iV. 

faying  that  the  Ebionites  called  it  the  Hebrew  Gofpel, 
one  might  doubt  whether  the  Ebionites  themfelves 
afcribed  to  it  the  name  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  ^  On 
the  other  hand,  though  Epiphanius  fays  that  the  Na- 
zarene  Gofpel  contained  St.  Matthew's  text  perfe6lly 
entire  (in-Aji^jralov),  we  muft  not  therefore  conclude  that 
it  was  wholly  unadulterated.  The  word  iij-Ari^sralov 
Epiphanius  probably  ufed  in  the  fame  fenfe  as  modern 
critics  ufe  the  phrafe  le5fio  plemor^  which  may,  or  may 
not  be,  more  than  the  original  text  "•  and  meant  only  to 
fay  that  the  Nazarene  Gofpel  contained  the  whole  of 
St.  Matthew's  text%  which  the  Ebionite  Gofpel  did 
not,  without  affirming  either  direftly  or  indireilly,  that 
the  Nazarene  Gofpel  had  not  been  interpolated.  But 
the  interpolations  in  the  Nazarene  Gofpel  appear  to 
have  been  of  a  very  different  kind  from  thofe  in  the 
Ebionite  Gofpel.  In  the  former,  they  feem  to  have 
been  fimply  additions  in  detached  places,  which  left  the 
original  text  as  it  was,  but  only  augmented :  whereas 
the  Ebionite  Gofpel,  according  to  Epiphanius,  con- 
tained alfo  a  text,  which  was  itfelf  corrupted.  Having 
premifed  thefe  accounts  I  will  now  produce  two  paf- 
fages,  which  Epiphanius  has  quoted  *^  from  the  Gofpel 
of  the  Ebionites,  in  the  words  of  his  Greek  tranf- 
lation  '^ 

The   firft  paffage   appears  to  have  been  a  kind  of 
preface   to   the   Ebionite   Gofpel^,   and   is   as  follows. 


^  Perhaps  It  had  received  fo  many  additions,  as  to  be  no  longer 
the  work  of  one  writer. 

*  On  the  genealogy  alone  he  exprefles  a  doubt. 

^  Hsref.  XXX.  §  13. 

s  II  is  evident  that  the  paflage  which  follows  can  never  have  been 
a  part  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  St.  Matthew,  when  he  fpeaks  of 
himfelf,  fpeaks  in  the  third  perfon  (ch.  ix.  9.),  but  this  paflage  is 
written  in  the  name  of  feveral  in  the  iirft  perfon  plural.  It  was 
perhaps  defigned  as  a  general  preface  in  the  name  of  the  twelve 
Apoftles  :  for  the  Ebionite  Gofpel  had  among  oiher  names,  that  of 
the  Goljpel  of  the  Apoftles,  being  a  compofuion  probably,  which 

contained 


sicT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  177 

F.-yEi/flo  TK    avrp  oy9(j.ct\i  lno"sj,   >tai   aulo?    w?   £7wv  rptajtoi/'Ja'', 

6iKiO!.v  SjjUOjvoj  t8  £7r»HA»l0£^^of  Ilfl^s*,  Jtaj  aj/oj^a?  to  ro/wa 
aura  jitte,  zrx^EP^o^ivoq  zrapa  mv  ^^ifAj/rtv  Ti^s^ix^og  i^iKs^xy-nv 

xai  Qx^^xiovj  x«i  SijM.wt'a  to;*  Zi^Awtjiv,  Jtat  laJ'^i'  rou  Itrjta- 
^itJlr):/,  xai  (TE  Tov  MalOaiov  xx9itoy.siOv  im  th  TiXuvis  ly.xXKTX^ 
XXI  y)KoXii^rj(yxq  [/.Oi.  Tfxxg  ai^  jSaAOjaat  £H/a:»  SiKX-Svo  AttocoXs^ 
£»?  fj^xplvpiov  x^  l(rpxriK  .  Kat  syEvsJo  o  Iwavm?  (^XTrlii^coVf 
■X.&1  s^nA^ov  ZTpog  xvjov  €>a^t!ra«oi,  xai  fSaTTTicrfijicrav",  >tat  ■srao'* 


contained  various  accounts,  fuppofcd  to  be  derived  from  the  Apoflles" 
If  we  confider  the  pafTage  in  any  other  light  than  that  of  a  preface, 
and  regard  it  as  a  part  of  the  narrative,  it  is  manifeftly  abfurd:  for  it 
Inakes  Chrift  addrefs  his  Apoftles,  before  the  baptifm  of  John  is 
related, 

^  Thefe  are  nearly  the   words  of  St.  Luke.,  ch.   iii.  23.  xai  avloj 

*  This  hiftory  is  not  the  fame  as  that  which  is  given  Matth.  vili.  14. 
V'here  it  is  r-"lated  that  Jefas  went  into  the  houfe  of  Peter,  but  no 
mention  is  made  of  any  fpeech  to  the  Apollle^.  It  is  one  of-  the 
additions  to  this  Gofpel,  and  might  poflibly  be  true,  if  St.  Matthew's 
name  had  not  been  mentioned,  who  was  not  called  to  be  an  Apoftle, 
till  after  this  vifit  in  the  houfe  of  Peter, 

^  But  only  eight  Apoflles  are  here  mentioned  byname:  for  no 
notice  is  taken  of  Philip,  Bartholomew,  Thomas,  and  James  the  fon 
of  Alphjeus. 

'  After  this  place  we  begin  to  find  traces  of  St.  Matthew's  text, 
though  confiderably  abbreviated,  as  every  one  will  fee  who  compares 
this  paiTage  with  Matth.  iii.  Perhaps  however  this  concife  text  may 
be  afctibed  to  Epiphanius  himfelf,  who  inflead  of  giving  a  literal 
tranllation  from  the  Gofpel  of  the  Kbionites,  may  have  inferted  only 
fo  much  of  its  matter,  as  was  necelTary  for  the  purpofe  of  his  quo- 
tation. 

■"  Thefe  words  agree  exaftly  with  Mark  i.  4. 

"  Here  the  Pharifees  are  mentioned  firft,  and  then  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerufalem  in  general,  as  if  the  Pharifees  had  fet  the  example: 
whereas  in  our  Gofpels  the  Pharifees  are  mentioned  laft,  which  fhews 
that  they  only  followed  the  multitude.  If  Epiphanius  has  adhered 
clofely  to  his  original,  this  inverfion  in  the  Gofpel  of"  the  Ebionites, 

Vol.  ill.  M  may 


178  Of  St.  Matthezv's  Go/pel         chap.  iV. 

K«i  ^comv  J'spji/.alivrii/  ttj^i  'vv\v  o(r(pvi/  avla'  y.cn  to  ^^wfxx 
avis    ((pv/Ci)     jueXi    a<y^iot°,     a    r     •y^yfrtj    rt    t8    /u,an/a,     w? 

f-yx^jf  fv  fXat^p. — On  thefe  laft  words  Epiphanius 
immediately  obferves,  n/x  onhv  /AETar^E^^wcj  rov  tji?  aAn- 
S'fja?  Xoyov  in;  iJ.'EuJ'of,  xat    avl*  WApiioov  TS^'oiwooinv  tyy.PiS'oc;  ev 

The 

jnay  have  been  owing  to  their  refpedl  for  the  Pharifees.  Perhaps  the 
fame  motive  induced  them  to  omit  St.  John's  fevere  cenfure  of  that 
fed. — Further,  in  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  John's  drefs  and. 
manner  of  life  are  defcribed  before  mention  is  made  of  baptifm  :  but 
in  the  Ebionite  Gofpel  the  latter  is  mentioned  firii:,  as  in  the  Gofpel 
of  St.  Mark. 

°  This  account  of  John's  drcfs  and  manner  of  life  agrees  with 
Matth.  iii.  4.  except  that  in  the  Gofpel  of  the  Ebionites  no  mention 
is  made  of  locufts  as  a  part  of  John's  diet,  for  which  I  can  affign  no 
other  reafon,  than  that  animal  food  was  thought  unfuitable  to  the 
fevere  life  of  the  Baptift.  That  (S^aifAah  ufed,  and  not  rfocpri  as  at 
Matth.  iii.  4.  makes  no  difference;  for  both  /3pwp.a  and  Tp(p»)  can  be 
expreffed  by  the  fame  Hebrew  word.     ' 

P  This  is  fimilar  to  Exod.  xvi.  31.  ro  as  yivyt.x  olvth  w?  £7%fK 
IV  peAsT* :  and  Numb.  xi.   8.    y.xi    r*    55   vioovn  uan  yivf^a,   ^yx^^i   «l 

^  This  obfervation  of  Epiphanius  is  not  confiftent  with  his  quo- 
tation, in  which  John's  food  is  defcribed  as  being  wild  honey  alone, 
which  is  compared,  in  refpeft  to  its  tafte,  with  manna,  or  with  a  cake 
baked  in  oil,  (w;  £7%?"^  ev  s^aiy).  But  the  obfervation  of  Epiphanius 
implies  that  in  the  Gofpel  of  the  Ebionites  John's  food  was  defcribed 
as  being  *  wild  honey  and  cakes,'  inftead  o£  '  wild  honey  and  lo- 
cufts,' as  in  St.  Matthew  :  for  he  fays  that  the  Ebionites  had  converted 
«xfft^£?  into  fyx^i^E?  a>  f*EAiT>.  Whecher  the  obfervation  of  Epipha- 
nius be  jull,  and  confequently  his  quotation  inaccurate,  or  the  re- 
verfe,  I  will  not  pretend  to  determine.  We  mull  recoiled  however 
that,  as  the  Ebionite  Gofpel  was  not  written  in  Greek,  an  accidental 
exchange  of  iy/.^ioi<;  for  aj-.^iss;  could  not  have  taken  place  in  the 
Gofpel  itfelf:  for  the  Hebrew  name  of  iyv.f.<;  and  ax^K  are  too 
unlike  lo  admit  of  an  accidental  exchange.  Unlefs  therefore  Epi- 
phanius has  made  a  very  uncritical  conjedure,  the  confufion  can  be 
explained  on  no  other  hypothefis,  than  that  the  Ebionite  Gofpel  was 
a  compofition  or  harmony  formed  out  of  feveral  Gofpels,  of  which 
one  or  more  were  written  in  Greek,  and  that  the  fabricator,  miilaking 
uxpi^ii  for  syK^i'Js?,  tranflatcd  it  into  Chaldee  by  *  cakes'  inftead  of 
'  locufts.'  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  impoffible  that  theconjedwe 
is  totally  engrounded. 


SrcT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthezv's  Gojpel.  i-j^ 

The  Gofpel  icfelf,  according  to  Epiphanius',  began 

thus.      E-yf^tlo  £1/  Tai?  rifxi^ocii;  Hpcorh  rs  (^x<nXi(ai  tjij  laj'aia?, 

•sro7a^w%  Of  e^iyno  nvon  sjt  ys^aj  Aocouv  t8  ie^ew?,  ■n-aij 
Zap(^a^j8    x«»    EAKraSsr',    }ta»    i^riP^O'flo    ztpo(;    avloi/    Ts-an/h;, 

Here  Epiphanius  obferves,  that  after  an  interval,  in 
which  feveral  things  were  mentioned,  the  Gofpel  pro- 
ceeded as  follows.  Ts  Aaa  (^oinlKr^iulog  tiAOe  nxi  Ijitraf, 
yion  ihaTriKT^Ti  a,7ro  m  Iwai/v«,  xat  ug  oivnXhi/  octto  ts  v^txlog 
fivoiyvicrccv  oi  s^izvoi,  koh  ii§i  ro  vrviv^.-.x  ts  0£8  to  aylo^"  £v 
£*<?£!  ts-i^i^i^ixg  y.ocjih^ii(Tng  xat  £Kr£A08Ttif  £»?  a.\jlou^'  y.x.1  qiuvn 
tyivtio  tK  T8  a^avHj   Kiyufxa'  <yv  /as  £;  o  i/io;  o  ayaTT'/iloc,   £v  <roi 

ruJ'o)c»]<r«. 


*  Haeref.  XXX.  §  13.  The  paflage  here  quoted,  which  Epipha- 
nius introduces  with  the  words  H  h  a^%»l  m  'mctf'  avirnn;  evccyyiAm 
exiij  immediately  follows  in  Epiphanius  that  which  I  have  juft  given, 
from  which  one  might  fuppofe  that  the  firft  was  a  kind  of  preface. 
Yet  it  contains  a  part  of  the  hiftory  recorded  in  the  third  chapter  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  which  was  not  wanting  in  the  Ebionite 
Gofpel.  Epiphanius  is  fo  very  concife  on  this  fubjcft,  that  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  determine  the  real  ftate  of  the  cafe. 

^  This  ftrange  hiftorical  blunder,  which  makes  John  the  Baptifl 
preach  in  the  time  of  Herod  king  of  Judaea,  who  had  been  dead  nearly 
thirty  years,  when  John  began  to  preach,  is  a  very  fufficient  proof 
that  St.  Matthew  was  not  the  author  of  this  pafTage :  for  no  man 
who  was  a  contemporary  with  John  could  have  imagined  that  Herod 
was  then  king  of  Judasa.  The  paffage  appears  to  have  been  fabricated 
by  an  abfurd  compofition  of  two  different  paflages  in  St.  Luke's 
Gofpel'^,  namely  ch.  i.  5.  and  iii.  i,  2,  3.  In  like  manner  the 
words  (SxTrn^UD  Qctinia-fjiH  /Airxi/Oiccq  ev  tw  lopi^an  •monx.f/.'j  appear 
to  have  been  put  together  from  Mark  i.  4.  and  Matth.  iii.  6. 

'  From  the  expreilion  if^iyno  inxi  one  might  conclude  that  the 
author  of  this  pafTage  doubted,  whether  John  was  really  the  fon  of 
Zacharias  and  Elizabeth,  and  whether  he  had  not  a  divine  origin. 

"  At  Matth.  iii.  15.  is  to  'mmvud  in  ©m,  Luke  iii.  22.  ro '^^mv/A.x 
TO  aytov.  The  author  of  this  pafTage  in  the  Ebionite  Gofpel  has  put 
them  both  together  and  written  to  'cjnvf/.a,  t»  ©sa  to  ayiot.  This 
inftance  again  betrays  a  compofition  from  feveral  Gofpels'^. 

^  Here  we  difcover  fome  traces  of  St.  Matthew's  text,  ch.  iii.  16. 

x£»Tatoauo»    mail    'zapiTifxv,     y.at     ipyojj.tv.v    ett'    uwov  '.     though    in    thc 

Ebionite  Gofptl  more  is  laid  than  St.  Matthew  n".eaac. 

M    2 


i8o  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gcfpel.  chap.  iv. 

%\jSov.ri<J'«,.  xaj  TsocXi]/^  lyui  (mfxi^ou  yiyivvv\v.(x.  (r£^.  Kat  tuOff 
•isio\iku,y.^i  xov  TQTTOu  (pccg  fAiyoc.      0\>  i^uv^  (^>1C^J^)    o    luxvpvig 

avlov'  slof  fr'i'  0  iJ'o?  /^«  0  ayaTryHi?,  £ip  o^  wtjJ'oxecra*.  Ka» 
Tole  (<p»jO"<v)  0  Iwa^^'n?  woo(nri(ruv  aJlw  £A£<y£*  $iofji.a,i  cu,  Kup»f, 
(TV  ^£  PaTTTtcrov.  O  (^s  exwAusi/  au]w  Afycoi/'  ai^£?j  on  stw? 
£f»  ■crcETTOk  ts-ArPwt'rvai  sTxi/Ttx. 

It  appears  from  the  preceding  extrafts  from  the 
Ebionite  Gofpel,  that  it  was  not  the  original  Gofpel 
of  St.  Matthew,  but  on  the  contrary  that  it  was  a  com- 
pofition,  put  together  partly  from  St.  Matthew's,  and 
partly  from  the  other  Gofpels.  The  Nazarene  Gofpel 
therefore,  which,  according  to  Jerom,  was  St.  IMatthew's 
original",  muft  have    been    very    different    from    the 

Ebionice 


y  By  none  ofthe  Evangelifts  are  the  words  syw  c-rf/,e^ov  yByewvxx 
ci,  faid  to  have  been  uttered  at  the  baptifm  of  Chrill".  They  are 
an  interpolation  in  the  Ebionite  Gofpel,  and  are  derived  from  the 
falfe  notion,  which  prevailed  in  the  firft  century,  that  Chrift  was  a 
mere  man  till  the  time  of  his  baptifm,  and  that  he  then  became  the 
Son  of  God,  and  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

^  Here  the  pronoun  relative,  which  refers  to  fiwc,  and  therefore 
ought  to  be  neuter,  is  of  the  mafculine  gender,  perhaps  becaufe  the 
Jight  is  fuppofed  to  reprefent  the  Deity.  This  however  muft  be 
afcrlbed  to  Epiphanius  the  tranflator,  for  in  the  Ebionite  Gofpei  no 
fuch  dilHnftion  could  have  been  made,  as  neither  Hebrew  nor  Syriac 
has  a  neuter  gender^". 

"  The  Evangelifts  mention  only  one  utterance  from  Heaven,  at  the 
baptifm  of  Chrift:  which  St.  Matthew  has  in  the  third  perfon,  Ovto,- 
Er'"  0  fio?  ^a  0  ayaTTJjTo.-,  ec  u  fjScy.r,ca.,  but  St.  Luke  in  the  fccond 
perlbn,  "Ev  n  o  uio?  (/.a  o  ocya-Tr'.Toc,  iv  o-oi  r,vooy.r,aa.  'I  he  Ebionite 
Gofpel  has  both  of  thefe  expreffions,  and  betrays  therefore  a  compo- 
fiiion  from  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke^'. 

''  Here  exwA^ev  uvru  is  faid  ofChrift,  which  is  the  very  reverfe  of 
Matth.  iii.  14.     where  we  find  O  h  Juann^  i^ay.uj^'.viv  uvtov. 

^  Jerom  fpeaks  indeed  on  this  fubjeifl;  fometimes  only  in  the  name 
of  others,  and  fays  of  the  Nazarene  Gofpel,  '  Quod  vocatur  a  ple- 
rifque  Matthsei  authenticum.'  But  in  his  Catalogue  of  lUuftrious 
Men  (Tom.  TV.  p.  102.  ed.  Martianay),  he  fpeaks  in  his  own  name, 
and  fays  in  pofitive  terms  that  the  Go^'pel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes  was 
St.  Matthew's  original.     *  Mattha;us  tjui  et  Levi  ex  publicano  Apof- 

tolu?» 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Mattheiv's  Co/pel.  i8i 

Ebionite  Gofpel.      For   it   is    hardly   credible,    if  the 
Nazarene  Gofpel  had  differed  from  the  Greek  text  of 
St.  Matthew,   as   much  as   the  Ebionite   Gofpel,  that 
Jerom,  who   tranfcribed  and   tranflated   it,  could   have 
taken  it,  even  after  deducing  the  interpolations,  for  the 
original  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.     It  is  true  that  Jerom 
makes  no  dillinclion    between    the   Nazarene   and    the 
Ebionite  Gofpel :  for  he  fays  in  his  note  to  Matth.  xii. 
13.    In  Evangelio  quo  utuntur  Nazars^ni  et  Ebionita?— . 
quod  vocatur  a  plerifque  Matthsei  authenricum.      But 
we  muft  recolle6i  that  Jerom  never  fiw  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  which  was  ufed  by  the  Ebionites  :  he  was  ac- 
quainted only  with  that  which  was  ufed  by  the  Naza- 
renes,  and  therefore  had  no  opportunity  of  comparino- 
the  one  with  the  other.     Through  want  of  knowledge 
then  he  might  fuppofe  that  they  were  the  fame,  though 
they  were  really  different.     But  he  was  not  expofed  to 
the  danger  of  any  fuch  mifVake  in  regard  to  the  Naza- 
rene Gofpel  and  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  :  for 
he   had   both  ot  them  in  his  own  pofTefTion,  was  fully 
-acquainted  with  the  contents  of  both,  and  therefore,  if 
they  had  been  materially  different,  he  could  not  have 
even  doubted  on  the  lubjeft.     However,  I  am  far  from 
fuppofing  that  Jerom  took  the  Nazarene  Gofpel  for  the 
unadulterated  original,  as  it  is  evident  from  the  quota- 
tions, which    he  has   made    from  it,  that   it   abounded 
with  interpolations.     For  that  reafon  he  has  not  quoted 
the    Nazarene   Gofpel  as  canonical   authority ;    but  on 
the  other  hand  he  quotes  it  in  his  Commentary  on  St. 
Matthe'"   without  any  exprefTions  of  difrefpccl,  and  at 
the  beginning  of  his  third  book  againft  the  Pelagians  ^, 

he 

tolus  primus  in  Judsa,  propter  eos  qui  ex  circumcifione  crediderant, 
Evangelium  Chrifti  Hebraicis  Uteris  verbii'que  compofuit :  quod  qui 
pollea  in  Grscum  tranftulerit  non  fatis  certum  eft.  Porro  ipfum  //<?• 
braicum  habetur  ufque  hodie  in  Ca;farienfi  bibliotheca,  quam  Pam- 
philus  Martyr  ftudiofiflime  confecit.  Mihi  quoque  a  Nazarjci's,  qui 
in  Beroea  urbe  Syriae,  hoc  'volumine  utuntur,  delcribendi  facultas  fuit. 

<*  Tom.  IV.  p.  533.  ed.  iVIartianay. 


i82  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gcfpel.  chap,  iv, 

he  fays,  Quibus  teftimoniis  fi  non  uteris  ad  auftoritatem, 
utere  faltem  ad  antiquicatem,  quid  omnes  viri  ecckfiai- 
tici  fenferint. 

On  the  other  hsnd  I  admit  that  Jerom  is  far  from 
being   confident  and  uniform   in   his   accounts   of  the 
Nazarene  Gofpel  -.    for   though  he  declares  in  pofitive 
terms,  as  appears  from  the  preceding  quotation,  that  it 
was    St.    Matthew's   original ",   yet  at  other  times  he 
writes  as  if  he  had  not  a  thorough  convi6lion  of  the 
trurh  of  this  aflertion.     For  inftance  in  his  Commentary 
on  St.  Matthew,  ch.   vi.   ii.  where  he   had  tranflated 
rov  afov  rt^-m  rov  t7m(7iov  by  panem  noftrum  Juperfubjian" 
tialemy  he  fays,  *  Quod  nos  fuper/uiifiantiakm  expreflimus, 
in  Grccco  habetur  ETn^o-tov,  quod  verbum  LXX.  zn^minov 
frequentiffime  transferunt,    Confideravimus  ergo  in  He- 
brtuo,  et  ubicunque  illi  zn^minov  exprefftrunt,  nos  inveni- 
mus  Sgolla^i  quod  Symmachus  I'^a-i^ilov,  id  eft,  praci- 
^iium-)  vel  egregium  tranftulit,  licet  in  quodam  loco  peculi- 
cre  interpretatus  fit.  Quando  ergo  petimus,  ut  pecuHarem 
vel  prajcipuum  nobis  deus  tribuat  panem,  ilium  petimus 
qui  dicit,  Ego  fum  panis  vivus,  qui  de  ccelo  defcendi. 
In  Evangelio,  quod  appellatur  fecundum  Hebraeos,  pro 
Jiiperjuhftantiali  pane  reperi  Mahar^.,  quod  dicitur  crajii- 
niim ;  id  eft,  futurum  da  nobis   hodie,'     Here  Jerom 
acknowledges  that  where  £7rsiJir;oi/  is  ufed  in  the  Greek 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  "lllD  was  ufed  in  the  Hebrew*^: 
yet  inftead  of  altering  the  old  Latin  tranflation  panem 
Tiojlrum  quotidianum  to  panem  noftrum  in  diem  craftinwm, 
he    alters    it   to  panem   noftrum  Juperjubftantialem.     As 
Jerom  then  rejected  here  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel,  one  might  conclude  that  he  at  leaft  doubted, 
whether  it  was  St.  Matthew's  original.     However  the 
inference  is  not  fo  certain,  as  it  appears  to  be:     For 
Jerom  manifeftly  facrifices  the  rules  of  criticifms  to  his 
pafTion  for  fpiritualizing  the  fourth  petition  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer.     Jerom   tliought  it  not  fufficient  to  pray  for 
Ct^rthly  bicaJj  and  confequently  worked  out  of  f7r»«<riop 

the 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthe'uj's  GofpeL  183 

the  fcnfe  of  Juperfubjlantialis.  That  he  abandoned 
therefore  in  this  inftance  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  will  not  decide  againft  it. 

In  the  Prologue  to  Jerom's  Commentary  on  St.  Mat- 
thew, there  is  another  pafTage,  which,  at  firft  fight, 
appears  to  be  ftill  more  formidable  than  the  preceding. 
*  Plures  fuiffe,  qui  Evangelia  fcripftrunt,  et  Lucas 
Evange'iifla  teftatur, — et  perfeverantia  ufque  ad  prasfens 
tempus  monimenta  declarant;  qucea  a  diverfis  aucloribus 
cdita  diverfarum  hosrefeon  fuere  principia ;  ut  eft  illud 
juxta  iEgyptios,  et  Thomam,  et  M-tthiam,  et  Bartho- 
lom£euni,  diiodedm  quoque  Apcjlolorum.  Here  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  J^'-^m  refers  the  Gofpel  which  bore  the 
title  of  Evangelium  fecundum  Apoftolos,  to  the  clafs 
of  apocryphal  Gofpels.  Further,  he  himfelf  relates  s, 
that  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes  had  among  other 
names  that  of  Evangelium  fecundum  Apoftolos.  He 
condemns  therefore  in  the  pafiTage  juft  quoted  the 
Gofpel  uled  by  the  Nazarenes  as  apocryphal:  which 
appears  to  be  a  dire6t  contradi6lion  to  his  other  alTer- 
tion,  that  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  rhe  Nazarenes  was  St, 
Matthew's  Hebrew  original''.  We  muft  either  fuppofe 
therefore  that  Jerom  was  fo  forgetful  and  inconfiftent 
as  no  man  in  his  fenfes  can  well  be,  or  there  muft  be 
fome  method  of  reconciling  thefe  contradi6lory  ac- 
counts. Now  I  can  fee  no  other  method  of  reconciling 
them  than  the  following ;  that  Jerom  really  believed, 
that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes  was,  in 
its  primitive  and  unadulterated  ftate,  the  work  of  St. 
Matthew,  but  that  in  a  courfe  of  years  it  had  received 
fo  many  additions,  containing  accounts  pretended  to 
have  been  derived  from  the  Apoftles,  (whence  the 
name  of  Evangelium  fecundum  Apoftolos  was  given  it) 

as 

s  Adv.  Pelagianos,   Lib.  III.      The  words  have  been  already 
quoted. 

*»  See  the  pafTage  quoted  in  the  preceding  note  (c)^ 

M  4 


184  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

as  to  Induce  Jerom  to  rank  it  among  the  apocryphal 
Gofpels. 

Origen,  as  appears  from  a  pafTage  akeady  quoted*, 
makes  likewifr  a  diftinftion  between  the  Gofpel,  which 
was  called  Evangelium  fecundum  Apodolos,  and  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew :  faying,  that  the  latter  was 
written  by  infpiration,  but  not  the  former.  Now  whe- 
ther Origen  believed  that  this  Hebrew  Gofpel  which 
was  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes,  was  originally  the  work  of 
St.  Matthew,  but  that  it  had  ccafed  to  deferve  the  title 
of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  in  confequence  of  its  nume- 
rous interpolations,  or  whether  he  believed  that  the 
Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Nazarenes  was  from  the 
very  firfl,  a  diftincc  compofition  from  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  I  will  not  undertake  to  deter- 
mine. But  this  I  may  venture  to  aifert,  that  Origen's 
reje6lion  of  the  TIazarene  Gofpel  as  a  work  drfritute  of 
canonical  authority,  will  not  prove  that  he  adopted  the 
latter  opinion  :  for  Origen  may  have  been  influenced 
by  the  very  fame  motive,  as  that  which  induced  Jerom 
to  rejcft  at  one  time,  as  apocryphal,  a  work,  which  at 
another  time  he  had  called  St.  Matthew's  original. 

The  celebrated  chapter  in  the  ecclefiaftical  hiftory  of 
Eufcbius  ^  where  a  catalogue  is  given  of  the  canonical 
and  uncanonical  books  of  the  New  Teftament,  has  been 
fo  differently  interpreted,  as  to  give  fometimes  a  favour- 
able, at  other  times  an  unfavourable  refult  for  the 
Hebrew  Gofpel  uled  by  the  Nazarenes,  or  as  it  is  fre- 
quently called,  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 
The  exprelTions  ufed  by  Eufebius  are  certainly  ambi- 
guous :  yet  after  an  attentive  perufal  of  the  pafTage,  it 
appears  to  me  that  what  Eufebius  has  faid  of  this  GofpeK^ 
is  much  more  in  its  favour  than  the  contrary.  Eufebius 
divides  the  real  and  pretended  books  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  into  three  feparate  clalTcs,  which  he  calls  o/xoAoy»- 
H*£>a,    avT»A£yo/x£i/a,  and    ko6«,  and   arranges  the  hooks, 

which 

•  In  the  fifth  fedlion  of  this  chapter. 
^  Lib.  III.  cap,  25. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Mattheivs  Gofpel.  185 

which  belong  to  thefe  refpedlive  clafTes,  in  the  following 

manner^'''.  EuAoyoi/  J^'  i^xv^x  yi\/0[AiiiHg  a.i/(x,Ki(pix'Acciucroc(7^on 
rxq  J'j^AwSficra?  rrig  Kocivvg  ^la^nKVig  y^xipxg'  kxi  ^y\  ruxlsoi/  iv 
Trpooloig  rr\v  aytocv  twv  EvxyyiXiuu  rtlpx>ilvv'  oig  tiriloci  ri  tuv 
vpx^iuy  TW^  ATTOroAwv  ypx<pn'  [xuoe,  <?£  rau/Jif,  rag  flauAa 
xalxXcariov  iTrifoT^ag'  ocig  E^ri?  rriv  (pipoy,si/riv  locxi/m  TrpojipxUj 
XXI  oy.oiug  -rnv  ITtl^a  nvpocjeov  ettitoAjiv*  stti  r^loig  rxxltoVy 
nyt  (pxynri,  tvu  AttcuxXv^iv  luxi^va,  ■n-ioi  ng  tx  $o^xv\x  y.ol]x 
xxipov  sa^rTOfXi^x'  axi  tx\j\x  {J.i]t  ev  ofMoXoyHixEnotg.  Tuv 
^'  cci/1iXiyoy.ivuVy  yvupifACcv  §  nv  o^w?  Totg  ttoAAoj?,  v  \iyofjt.iyn 
IxKu^a  tpepijxiy  xai  r,  Is(?a,  »i7f  Tlil^ii  ^lujipx  stti^oXyi,  kxi 
n  0]/o^xC^o^im  Sivlipx  KXi  t^j7»j  luxwHy  ule  T8  EvxyysAifH 
rvy/jx.vH'jXy  iC[i.  xaj  slf^a  ofAOUvixs  £)i£»K>;.  Ev  roig  vo^oig  ynxjx- 
IfJap^Oo)  Kxi  Tuv  riauAs  Trpa^ewv  15  ypx<pny  0  n  Xiyofji.Ei/ot 
TIoilJ.7jVy  x«*  r)  ATTOJcaAuvJ/i?  ITfTxix,  xat  ttco?  Tsroig  v  (pipo^i]/v[ 
Bap^a^*  e7rjroA*ij  rat  tcoi/  A7rofoAu;v  aj  Xiyo^j^ivxi'  tji  riy  ug 
t(pY\Vy  v  Icjxvva  ATroKxXv\^igy  a  <pai/£»j],  r\v  riuig  ug  i<pr)v  x^ijairiUj 
tjipoi  J's  i'yx^ivacTi  toj?  o[j.oXoy^[j.iitoig'  viyi  i^'  fJ'  riiloig  riueg  kxi 
TO  Ku^'  E^^aiH?  ivxyyiXiov  xxIsXi^xVy  w  i^xXifx  EQ^xiuv  o* 
TOi/  X^Jfov  7r«p«^£^ajU5i'0t  ^xp-d<ri.  Txv\x  y.iv  irxClx  toou 
a^I»A£'yOjW,f^a)^'  xu  itv. 

Here  it  is  difficult  to  determinp  precifely  what  Eu- 
febiiis  intended  to  affirm  of  the  Gofpel  according  to 
the  Hebrews,  becaufe  it  is  uncertain  to  what  antecedent 
he  meant  to  refer  the  relative  Tsloig.     He  fays,  ip  T«7oif 

Tiiisg  xxi  TO  xa6'   E^^amg  EvxyyeXiou  aocliXi^xpy  to  which   the 

immediate  antecedent  is  o^oXty^ixiuoigy  but  the  remote 
antecedent  vo^oig.  He  has  therefore  not  clearly  ex- 
plained, whether  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
was  ranked  by  fome  {nvig)  among  the  oixoXoy^ixD/Xy  or 
among  the  to0«..  If  they  ranked  it  among  the  vo9a,  they 
may  have  rejedled  it  merely  on  account  of  its  interpo- 
lations, and  therefore  this  rejection  will  not  prove  that 
the  Golpel  According  to  the  Hebrews  was  originally  a 
different  work  from  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  they  ranked  it  among  the  o/xoAo- 
ystAivxy  they  muft  have  confidered  this  Hebrew  Gofpel 
with  exception  perhaps  to  its  interpolations,  as  the 
original  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.     Which  of  the  two 

inter- 


i86  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel  chap,  iv, 

interpretations  is  the  right  one,  I  will  not  pretend  to 
determine,  though  Dr.  Mafch  is  decidedly  of  opinion 
that  the  former  alone  is  admiffible'.  Equally  uncertain 
is  the  opinion  of  thofe  who  differed  from  the  few  (nve?) 
whofe  lentiments  Eufebius  has  delivered  on  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel.  If  thefe  {nviq)  referred  it  to  the  oixoXoyafj^ivxy 
the  majority  refufcd  it  this  honour,  and  probably  on 
account  of  its  interpolations.  If  the  few  (tivs?)  referred 
it  to  the  KsGa,  as  Dr.  Mafch  afTerts,  the  queftion  then 
to  be  afked  is,  to  what  clafs  did  the  others,  who  con- 
ftituted  the  majority,  refer  it?  Now  it  appears  tome, 
that  if  the  few  referred  it  to  the  voSa,  the  majority  mufb 
have  referred  it  to  the  o/^oAoyajUEi/a,  and  confequently 
have  confidered  as  St.  Matthew's  original,  agreeably 
to  what  Jerom  fays,  Vocatur  a  plerifque  Matthsei  au- 
thenticum"".  But  Dr.  Mafch,  who  alTcrts  the  premifes, 
denies  the  inference,  and  afferts  that  the  few  placed  it 
among  the  voOa,  but  that  the  maicrity  placed  it,  not  in 
a  higher,  but  in  a  ftill  lower  clafs  than  the  voO«.  To 
make  this  inference  at  leaft  plaufible,  he  fays,  (what  I 
ihall  certainly  not  difpute)  that  Eufebius,  after  having 

enumerated     the     OjUoAo-ySiUfi/a,      a^]^X£•yO|W,^^a,     and     vo6a, 

mentions  a  fourth  clafs  of  books,  which  calls  aloTra 
TTUil'/i  H«i  h<T<TiQr,y  and  defcribes  as  undcfcrving  of  a 
place  even  among  the  i/oOa.  To  this  fourth  clafs  of 
totally  worthlefs,  and  impious  books,  fays  Dr.  Mafch, 
did  the  majority,  according  to  Eufebius,  refer  the 
Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews.     But  this  inference 

is 


'  He  ar8;ues,  p.  200,  from  the  arrangement  obferved  by  Eufebius 
in  the  diftribution  of  the  feveral  books  into  ofAoXcyayLivx,  ot.iri7^syoi>i.iiix, 
and  >c.G«:  and  contends,  that,  as  Eufebius  has  mentioned  the  Gofpel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  clafs  of  the  vo9x,  it  would  be  a  total 
violation  of  order,  if  we  referred  tstok  to  the  word  o/y-oXoya^Evoi?* 
which  he  had  introduced  as  a  mere  remark  in  treating  of  the  *o9a. 
Now  I  admit,  that  this  argument  would  be  valid,  if  it  were  applied 
to  a  writer,  whofe  accuracy  in  the  arrangement  of  his  materials  ad- 
mitted of  no  doubt  :  but  the  defcription,  which  Eufebiu§  has  given 
in  this  chapter,  is  really  fo  confufed,  that  we  cannot  argue  merely 
from  the  arrangement  of  its  feveral  parts. 

■n  See  his  Note  to  Matth.  xii.  13. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Maithezv's  Go/pel.  1S7 

is  contrary  to  the  teftimony  of  every  ecclefiaftical  writer 
on  this  Gofpel^  for  not  one  has  defcnbcd  it  as  a  totally 
worthlefs  and  impious  book,  but  on  the  contrary  they 
fpeak  of  it  in  general  with  great  refpeft.     Origen,  it  is 
true,  did  not  admit  its  infpiration  :   yet  he  frequently 
quoted  it,   though  not  as   fcripture   authority,   yet   by 
way   of  illuftration  and   in  fupport   of  his  arguments". 
Epiphanius  is  very  far  from  fpeaking  of  the  Gofpel  ufed 
by  the  Nazarenes  in  difrefpeftful  terms,    and  Jerom 
thought  it  of  fufficient  importance  to  merit  a  tranflation. 
Both  of  thefe  writers  indeed  lived  fomewhat  later  than 
Eufebius,  but   if  a  favourable  opinion  was  entertained 
of  this  Gofpel  in  the  time  of  Jerom  and  Epiphanius, 
we  can  hardly  fuppofe  that  it  was  treated  half  a  century 
before,  as  worthlefs  and  impious.     Even  the  interpola- 
tions in  this  Gofpel,  as    far  as  we  are  acquainted  with 
them,  by  no  means  deferve  thefe  epithets :  and  there- 
fore I  am  perfuaded  that  it  was  not  the    intention  of 
Eufebius  to  fay,  that  the  majority  referred  the  Gofpel 
in  queftion  to  the  olo-ra  Tra^Iri  jiaj  j'uo-o-fgji*^     Dr.  Mafch 
obje6ls%    that    the    majority    could   not    poffibly   have 
placed  this  Gofpel  among  the  o/AoAo-yg/Aji/a,   becaufe  the 
majority  of  the  Chriftians  in  the  time  of  Eufebius  were 
not  acquainted  with  it.     But  this  argument  proves  no- 
thing :     for  the  majority  of  Chriftians   in  the   time  of 
Eufebius  were   no  more  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew 
Bible,   than   with   the   Hebrew  Gofpel,    their  want  of 
knowledge  of  it  proceeding  from  their  ignorance  of  the 
language   in  which  it  was  written.     That  the  majority 
therefore  did  not  make  ufe  of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel,  will 
not  prove  that  they  abfolutely  rejected  it. — But  what- 
ever was  the  opinion  of  the  few  or  of  the  many  in  refpedt 
to  the  Gofpel  in  queftion,  the  opinion,  which  Eufebius 

himfelf 


"  Origen  fays,  (Traft.  VIII.  in  Matth.  Tom.  I.  p.  73.)  Scriptum 
eft  in  Evangelio  quodam,  quod  dicitur  fecundum  Hebrieos  ;  fi  tameii 
placef  alicqi  recipere  illud  non  ad  auctoritatem,  fed  ad  manifeflationem 
propofite  qusftionis,  &c. 


Page  194. 


iSS  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  chap.  iv. 

hirnfelf  entertained  of  it  was  certainly  in  its  favour. 
For  immediately  after  the   account  which  he  has  given 

of  this  Gofpel,    he    adds,    toc^jIcx.  fj.iv  irct'^a.  ru)/ 0(.]^TiAiyo^iV(itv 

av  ii-n.  He  places  therefore  the  Gofpel  according  to 
the  Hebrews,  that  is,  the  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Naza- 
renes,  in  the  fame  rank,  not  only  with  the  Apocalypfe, 
but  with  the  Epiftle  of  St.  James,  the  fecond  Epiftle 
of  St.  Peter,  the  fecond  and  third  of  St.  John,  and  the 
Epiftle  of  St.  Jude. 

Before  I  conclude  my  account  of  the  authors,  who 
have  either  defcribed  or  quoted  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of 
the  Nazarenes,  I  muft:  take  notice  of  a  paflage,  which 
I  have  already  quoted  from  Ignatius.  This  father,  in 
the  third  chapter  of  his  Epiftle  to  the  Chriftians  of 
Smyrna,  where  he  defends  the  manhood  of  Chrifl: 
againft  the  Doceta;,  has  the  following  paffage :  Ey^  ya.^ 

fjuijce.  Tnv  avaratrji/  ii/  <ra,pKi  a.\}\ov  oiSot.,  xcci  TTiTivta  oifix.  Kat 
Jiljyavio,    noti    iirifiv<ro!,Vy  x^aGfi/lf?   toj    araoni  avjn    KXi  tu>  ttiiiv- 

fjioji..  This  paftage  was  according  to  Jerom''  in  the 
Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes,  and  he  confiders  it  as  a  cer- 
tain faft  that  Ignatius  quoted  it  from  this  Gofpel.  But 
Ignatius  does  not  fay  that  it  was  a  quotation  from  this 
or  from  any  other  Gofpel.  And  therefore  it  is  at  leaft 
poflible  that  this  paftage,  inftead  of  having  been  quored 
by  Ignatius  from  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes,  was  in- 
terpolated in  this  Golpel  from  the  Epiftle  of  Ignatius, 
who  probably  derived  his  information  from  converfation 
with  the  Apoftles.  I  am  furprifed  that  this  has  never 
occurred  to  any  critic,  as  the  fa6t  is  not  only  poflible, 
but  in  ray  opinion  highly  probable,  if  not  abfolutely 
certain*^.  In  this  opinion  I  am  confirmed  by  the  cir- 
cumftance,  that  this  paflage  as  worded  in  the  Gofpel  ot 
the  Nazarenes,  betrays  atranflation  from  the  Greek.  Ig- 
natius v>'ntes  TT^of  ra?  TTE^j  Ylijpo]/  r,AOf,  which  literally  trans- 
lated figniPies  *  he  came  to  thofe  who  were  with  Peter,' 
but  according  to  the  ufage  of  the  Greek  language  denotes 

fimply, 
f  Catalog,  fcriptor.  ecclefiallic.  f.  v.  Ignatius. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  i8o 

fimply,  '  he  came  to  Peter.'  Now  according  to  Jerom 
this  paflage  was  worded  thus  in  the  Gofpel  of  the 
Nazarenes :  *  he  came  to  Peter,  and  to  thofe  who  were 
with  Peter/  which  betrays  a  twofold  tranflation  from 
the  Greek  ut^o?  t8?  tc-j^j  nsl^oi/  jiA0£-,  a  correft  one,  *  he 
came  to  Peter,'  and  an  incorreft  one  '  he  came  to  thofe 
who  were  with  Peter  ^^.'  Ignatius  therefore  cannot  be 
produced  as  evidence  for  the  antiquity  and  authority  ' 
of  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes,  though  he  may  be 
confidered  as  a  voucher  for  the  truth  of  this  narration 
which  is  contained  in  it.  And  from  this  very  example 
we  may  perceive  in  what  manner  the  interpolations  in 
the  Nazarene  Gofpel  took  their  rife,  namely  by  adding 
to  the  original  text  of  St.  Matthew,  whatever  accounts 
could  be  procured  from  good  authority  relating  to 
Chrift. 

The  hiflory  of  the  Nazarene  Gofpel  may  be  briefly 
fummed  up  under  the  following  heads 

1.  Very  few  ecclefiaftical  writers  have  taken  notice 
of  this  Gofpel  ^^ :  at  which  we  have  no  reafon  to  be 
ilirprifed  as  few  of  them  underftood  Hebrew,  and  no 
tranflation  of  it  had  been  made  before  that  of  Jerom.* 
Befides,  the  copies  of  it  were  very  fcarce  even  in  Palcl- 
tine,  for  Jerom  mentions  it  as  an  unufual  book,  which 
he  found  in  the  library  of  Casfarea*'. 

2.  However  its  name  and  chararadter  were  not  un- 
known; though  it  is  difficult  to  determine,  what  the 
majority  of  Chridians  in  the  three  firft  centuries  thought 
of  it,  becaufe  Eufebius  has  exprefled  himfeif  in  am- 
biguous terms.  In  the  fifth  century  mod  perfons 
believed  it  to  be  the  original  of  St.  Matthew's  Gof- 
pel:  but  whether  tliey  knew  that  it  was  interpolated, 
and  diftinguiflied  the  genuine  text  from  its  additions, 
we  are  not  informed. 

3.  Ignatius  does  not  mention  the  name  of  this  Gof- 
pel:  he  has  a  paflage  indeed,  which  exifl:ed  in  this 
Gofpel,  but  that  paflTage,  as  I  have  alreaciy  fliewn,  was 
inferted,  in  the  Nazarene   Gofpel  from  the  Epillle  of 

Ignatius, 


190  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap,  ivi 

Ignatius,  and  not  quoted  by  Ignatius  from  this  Gof- 
pel  ^°. 

4.  It  is  quoted  more  than  once  by  Origen,  as  ancient 
though  not  as  fcripture  authority ;  for  he  confidered  itj 
probably  on  account  of  its  interpolations,  as  a  mere 
human  compofition,  but  he  is  far  from  fpeaking  of  it 
in  terms  of  difrefpeft.  What  he  thought  of  its  genuine 
text,  when  feparated  from  the  interpolations,  he  has  no 
where  mentioned. 

5.  Eufebius  refers  it  to  the  otv\iXiyo{j.ivo(,y  and  places 
it  in  the  fame  rank  with  the  Epiftle  of  St.  James,  the 
fecond  Epiftle  of  St.  Peter,  the  fecond  and  »"hird  of  Sto 
John,  the  Epiftle  of  St.  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypfe. 

6.  Epiphanius  defcribes  the  Nazarene  Gofpel,  as  St, 
Matthew's  original :  but  he  does  not  appear  to  have 
feen  it  himfelf,  and  therefore  he  probably  followed  the 
common  opinion. 

7.  Jerom  was  well  acquainted  with  it,  and  defcribes 
it  as  St.  Matthew's  original.  It  is  true  that  in  one 
paflage,  in  his  curfory  Preface  to  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel, 
he  fpeaks  of  it  under  the  name  of  the  Gofpel  of  the 
twelve  Apoftles,  in  difrefpeftful  terms.  But  he  had 
probably  the  interpolations  only  in  view,  when  he  caft 
this  cenfure  upon  it,  and  did  not  mean  to  refleft  on 
the  genuine  text.  Nay  the  interpolations  themfelves 
he  has  at  other  tim.es  quoted  without  the  fmalleft  dif- 
approbation,  and  in  his  controverfy  with  the  Pelagians 
he  has  produced  them  even  as  authority. 

After  all  then,  that  has  been  faid  on  this  fubjeft,  wc 
fee  that  Jerom  is  the  only  ecclefiaftical  writer,  who  had 
fufficient  knowledge  of  the  Nazarene  Gofpel,  to  fur- 
nifh  us  with  certain  information.  By  his  report  there- 
fore I  fhall  abide,  and  ftiall  confider  the  Nazarene 
Gofpel  as  St.  Matthew's  original,  augmented  indeed 
with  many  additions,  which,  though  they  are  fo  far 
fpurious,  that  they  did  not  proceed  from  the  pen  of 
St.  Matthew,  who  wrote  the  Gofpel  itfelf,  were  de- 
rived probably  from  good  authority,  and  therefore  may 

be 


SECT.  IX,  Of  St.  Matthew'' s  Go/pel.  191 

be  hiftorically,  though  not  critically,  true.  Abfolute 
certainty  on  this  fubjed  is  not  to  be  expedled,  fince 
Jerom's  tranflation,  as  well  as  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  itfelf 
is  unfortunately  loft :  we  muft  therefore  content  our- 
felves  with  probabilities,  and,  though  we  are  in  danger 
of  falling  into  error,  muft  argue  from  the  few  docu- 
ments, which  are  now  extant''. 

If  the  original  had  defcended  to  the  prefent  age,  it 
would  have  been  of  great  ufe  both  to  critics  and  com- 
mentators, as  appears  from  one  of  its  readings,  which 
Jerom  has  quoted  at  Matth.  vi.  11.     In  this  pafTage  the 

Greek  text  is,   Tov  a^ov  7iy.uv    rov    tTrma-iou  ^os  Ji//,n/  (TrjixiooVy 

which  in  our  verfion  is  rendered,  *  Give  us  this  day  our 
daily  bread.'  Now  the  word  timtrioq  is  a  very  unufual 
word,  and  hence  various  commentators  have  given 
various  explanations  of  it.  Among  other  interpreta- 
tions, 0  £7ri8o-jo?  has  been  explained  as  denoting  0  mg 
sTTiao-/]?  7jiM.Ef a? :  and  confequently  the  fourth  petition  of 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  as  fignifying,  *  Give  us  this  day 
our  bread  for  the  morrow.'  This  interpretation,  which 
is  in  itfelf  highly  probable,  is  confirmed  as  the  true 
one,  by  the  word  ufed  in  the  Nazarene  Gofpel,  if  this 
Gofpel  is  St.  Matthew's  original :  for  Jerom  relates  that 
for  ETTjao-ioi/  in  the  Greek  Gofpel,  the  Nazarene  Gofpel 
had  inDi  which  denotes  dies  crajiinus  ^.     To  petition 

the 

^  Dr.  Mafch  (p.  207 — 211.)  conjeflures  that  the  word  ufed  in 
the  Nazarene  Gofpel  was  not  "ina,  but  nno  with  an  He  and  not 
Heth,  and  that  Jerom  in  the  hurry  of  copying  miltook  n  for  rr. 
He  is  of  opinion  that  if  "no  had  flood  in  the  original,  no  Greek 
tranflator  of  the  two  firft  centuries  would  have  rendered  it  by  sTriyno,-, 
becaufe  this  word  does  not  occur  in  that  fenfe  in  any  writer  of  th^ 
two  firfi;  centuries.  But  according  to  Origen  the  word  ittiso-io?  did 
not  occur  in  this  or  any  other  fenfe,  except  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  for 
he  fays  the  word  was  peculiar  to  the  Evangelifts.  See  Wetftein's 
Note  to  Matt.  vi.  n.  This  argument  therefore  would  prove  too 
much.  On  the  contrary,  it  appears  to  rne,  that,  if  nnn  was  the 
word  ufed  by  Chrift,  £9nao-»ov  is  a  tranflation  which  we  might  not  un- 
reafonably  expeft  from  the  Evangelifts,  becaufe  n  iiriBs-a,  is  ufed  in 
the  New  Teftament  to  denote  the  '  day  following.'  That  the  Syriac 
tranflat-or  has  ufed  a  different  word  for  EWitfj-toi/  v/ill  not  prove  that 
iriD  was  not  ufed  in  the  original  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  for  the 
Syriac  tranflator  may  have  mifunderfcood  the  Greek  in  this  pafliige, 
as  he  has  done  in  many  others. 


1^2  Of  Si.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  iV.. 

the  Deity  to  give  us  each  day  what  is  neceflary  for  the 
morrow  is  furely  more  fuitable  to  our  wants,  than  to 
requefc  him  to  give  us  what  is  neceflary  for  the  day,^ 
on  which  we  make  the  petition,  fmce  it  generally  hap- ' 
pens  that  the  wants  of  that  day  are  already  fupplied. 
Chrifl  therefore,  who  has  taught  us  not  to  be  anxious 
for  the  morrow,  has  commanded  us  to  rely  on  our 
heavenly  Father,  and  to  petition  him  that  he  would 
grant  to  day  what  is  neceffiiry  for  the  morrow,  that  v/e 
may  await  the  approach  of  each  fubfequent  day  with- 
out fear  or  anxiety. 

The  preceding  example  may  ferve  as  a  fpecimen  of 
the  exegetical  ufe,  which  might  be  made  of  the  Naza- 
rene  Gofpel,  were  it  now  extant.  To  illuflrate  its 
critical  ufe,  in  determining  the  authenticity  or  fpuri- 
oufnefs  of  doubtful  paffages,  we  may  apply  it  to  the 
two  firfl  chapters  of  St.  Matdiew's  Gofpel,  on  which 
doubts  are  entertained,  whether  they  really  proceeded 
from  the  pen  of  the  Evangelift.  It  appears  from  the 
accounts  of  Epiphanius,  which  have  been  already 
quoted,  that  in  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ufed  by  the  Ebio- 
nites,  the  genealogy  was  certainly  wanting;  and  per- 
haps the  whole  of  the  two  firft  chapters  ^\  Tatian 
likewife,  who  is  faid  to  have  ufed  the  Hebrew  Gofpel 
omitted  the  genealogy :  in  two  Capitulations  and  a  Bre- 
viary publifhed  by  Martianay  it  is  wholly  unnoticed  : 
and  the  Codex  Ebnerianus,  which  1  have  defcribed  in 
the  Catalogue  of  the  Greek  Manufcripts',  begins  St. 
Matthew's  Gofpel  with  the  eighteenth  verfe  of  the  firft 
chapter".  There  are  likewife  internal  marks,  which 
render  it  at  Icaft  doubtful,  whether  the  genealogy  was 
written  by  the  fame  perlbn,  who  wrote  the  reft  of  the 
Gofpel.  For  inftance  ver.  6.  Iso-o-ai  tyin'r^a-i  Aa^jJ"  tov 
|3a(r»A£a  is  copied  (contrary  to  the  common  cuftom  in 
St.  Matthew's  Gofpel)  not  from  the  Hebrew,  but  from 
the  Greek,  book  of  Ruth  ch.  iv.  22.  where  we  find 
Ifo-crat  iyivvr\<Ti  AaSiJ  rov  (3a(rtA£a,  whereas  the  Hebrew  has 
fimply  "n"T  7\^  Tb^T\  ''\D''>  without  any  word  exprcffive 

of 

'  Vol.  II.  Ch.  viii.  Scft.  6.  N'.  1 16. 


SECT.  jx.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  loj 

of  tov  iSzo-jAEa''^.  Doubts  of  this  kind  might  be  either 
removed  or  confirmed  by  the  Nazarene  Gofpel,  were 
it  now  extant,  and  were  we  abfolutely  certain  that  it 
contained  the  original  text  of  St.  Matthew.  But  our 
imperfe<5l  accounts  of  this  Gofpel  make  it  difficult  to 
determine  whether  it  began  in  the  fame  manner  as  our 
Greek  Gofpel,  or  whether  it  began  at  the  eighteenth 
verfe  of  the  firft  chapter,  or  whether  it  commenced  with 
what  is  now  our  third  chapter'*. 

On  the  other  hand,  though  it  were  true  that  the  two 
firfb  chapters  did  not  exift  in  St.  Matthew's  Hebrew 
original,  they  would  not  therefore  deferve  to  be  rc- 
je6led  as  a  falfe  and  fpurious  produflion.  If  St.  Mat- 
thew gave  no  account  of  the  birth  of  Chrift  in  his 
Gofpel,  he  may  have  written  a  feparate  work  on  that 
fubjcil:,  with  the  title  BiSao?  yiviauiq  Itio-a  X^ira,  which 
when  tranflated  into  Greek  may  have  been  prefixed  to 
his  Gofpel,  left  fo  fmall  a  work,  if  written  feparately, 
fhould  be  loft.  The  canonical  authority  therefore  of 
thefe  tv;o  chapters  is  not  neceftarily  afteded,  even  if 
the  Hebrew  Gofpel  did  not  contain  them :  though  I 
admit  that  the  proof  of  their  canonicity  vvould  be  more 
complete,  if  we  could  fhew,  that  they  exifted  in  the 
original  Gofpel.  No  two  chapters  in  the  whole  New 
Teftament  are  prefled  with  fo  many  difficulties,  as  the 
two  in  queftion:  not  fo  much  on  account  of  the  ap- 
parent contradictions  to  the  genealogy  given  by  St. 
Luke,  which  may  be  very  fatisfadlorily  reconciled,  as 
on  account  of  the  quotations  contained  in  them  from 
the  Old  Teftament,  which  I  am  v.'holly  unable  to  ex- 
plain. The  account  likevvife  given  ch.  i.  5.  that  Rahab 
was  the  mother  of  Boaz,  and  confequently  that  David 
was  defcended  from  her,  appears  to  be  very  uncertain, 
becaufe  in  the  genealogical  table  of  David's  anceftors, 
which  is  given  in  the  .book  of  Ruth%  and  in  the  firft 
book  of  the  Chronicles*,  no  mention  is  made  of 
any  fuch  perfon  as  Rahab  :  nor  is  it  laid  in  the  book  of 

Joftiua, 
'  Ch.  iv.  21.  t  Ch.ii.  11, 

Vol.  III.  N 


194  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

Jolhua",  where  the  hiftory  of  Rahab  is  related,  that 
fhe  married  the  father  of  Boaz  ^*.      Since  therefore  the 
Old  Teftament  is  filent  on  this  fubjeft,  the  writer  of 
the  genealogy  could  have  derived  his  information  from 
no  other  fource  than  Jewifli  tradition.     But  we  find  no 
fuch  report  among  the  Jewifh  writers.     On  the  con- 
trary, it  appears  from  the  quotations  made  by  Wetftein, 
that    among  the    defcendants  of    Rahab  were    feveral 
priefts:    whence  we  might  fuppofe   that    fhe  married 
rather   into  the  tribe  of  Levi,    than   into  the   tribe  of 
Judah ".     Should  any  critic  therefore,  in  confequence 
of  thefc  difficulties  be  difpofed  to  feparate  the  two  firft 
chapters    from   the   reft  of  St.   Matthew's   Gofpel,    in 
order  to  prevent  the  objeflions  which  may  be  made  to 
them   from   affefting  the   credibility  and  infpiration  of 
the  whole  Gofpel,    I   fhould  not  cenfure  him  for  his 
condudt,  though  for  my  own  part  I  am  unable  to  come 
to  a  pofitive  decifion,  whether  they  ought  to  be  fepa- 
rated  or  not.     At  any  rate,  if  they  were  not  written  by 
St.  Matthew,  they  were  certainly  written  before  the  de- 
ftrudion  of  Jerufalem  :  for  after  that  period,  the  Gofpel 
of  St.  Luke  nuift   have  been  fo  generally  known  as  to 
have   fuperfeded    the    necefiity   of  another    genealogy. 
Befides,  if  this  genealogy  had  been  fabricated  in  a  later 
age,  the  author  of  it  would  have  taken  care  to  have 
avoided  even  the   appearance  oi  a  contradidion  to  the 
genealogy  of  St.  Luke.     Nor  muft  we  forget,  that  tlic 
two  firft  chapters,  as  well  as  the  remaining  part  of  the 
Gofpel,  have  been  uniformly  handed  down  by  the  an- 
cient church,  as  the  work  of  St.  Matthew  '*. 

"  Ch.  vi.  25. 


SECT. 


SECT.  X,  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  195 

SECT.    X. 

Of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  which  was  pub- 
lijhed  by  Sebajlian  Miinjier:  and  of  the  edition  piiblifhed 
by  John  Tilet. 

WE  have  two  editions  of  a  Hebrew  Gofpel  in 
print :  but  it  is  certain  that  neither  of  them  is 
St.  Matthew's  original,  and  that  neither  of  them  was 
iifcd  either  by  the  Nazarenes  or  by  the  Ebionites.  Of 
Miinfter's  edition  I  can  make  this  afiertion  from  adlual 
examination,  for  1  have  found  that  it  has  none  of  the 
diilinguifhing  pafTages  of  the  Nazarene  Gofpel:  and 
they  who  have  examined  Tilet's  edition,  fay  the  fame. 
Befides,  in  both  thefe  editions  the  language  is  not 
Chaldee,  but  Hebrew  as  written  by  the  Rabbins,  or  as 
we  call  it.  Rabbinic :  which  alone  affords  fufficient 
proof  that  this  is  not  the  Gofpel,  which  was  ufed  by 
the  Nazarenes. 

The  title  of  Miinfter's  edition  of  1557,  is  nilH 
J  rrti'l^n  Evangelium  fccundum  Matthseum  in  lingua 
Hebraica,  cum  verfiune  Latina,  atque  annotationibus 
Sebaitiani  MUnfberi. — Una  cum  epiftola  D.  Pauli  ad 
HebrjEoSj  Hebraice  et  Latine.  Bafiiese  apud  Henricum 
Petri*.  The  firfl  edition,  which  was  printed  in  1537, 
I  have  never  feen,  and  therefore  I  know  not  whether  it 
differs  from  that  of  1557  :  but  there  is  another  edition, 
printed  in  1582,  v/hich  I  have  compared  with  that  of 
1557,  and  have  found  them  fo  fimilar  to  each  other, 
that  one  might  fuppofe  the  edition  of  1582  was  nothing 
more  than  the  edition  of  1557,  with  a  new  title  page 
and  a  new  preface.  In  both  editions  the  types  are  the 
very  fame,  and  refemble  each  other  in  the  irrregularity 
of  their  pofition,  and  the  weaknefs  and  illegibility  of 
the   impreffion.     Further,    the   firft  and  laft  words  of 

each 

*  The  fubfcriptlon,  at  the  end,  is  dated,  Bafilese,  per  Henricum 
Petri,  anno  m.d.lvii.  menfe  Augufto. 

N  2 


196  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

each  page,  are  the  fame  in  both  editions,  except  that 
p.  206,  207,  there  is  a  trifling  difference  in  refpeft  to 
the  words,  which  follow  n^K  ^?^^"l•  However,  whe- 
ther they  are  the  fame  or  not,  fs  of  no  great  importance 
in  the  prefent  inquiry,  and  therefore  1  fhall  leave  the 
queftion  to  be  determined  by  thofe,  who  are  bibHogra- 
phers  by  profeffion.  Mr.  Nahmmacher,  who  has  pub- 
lifhed  three  diflertations,  entitled,  <^  Animadverfiones  in 
Evangelium  Hebraicum  Sebaftiani  Miinfteri,"  in  which 
he  endeavours  by  the  help  of  this  Gofpel  to  explain 
difficult  paflages  of  the  Greek,  has  mentioned  another 
edition  publilhed  by  Cinquarbres,  or  Quinquarboreus, 
as  he  ftyled  himfelf  in  Latin,  at  Paris  in  1551. 

Sebaftian  Miiniler  in  his  dedication  to  the  King  of 
England,  Henry  VIII.  fays  that  he  did  not  print  this 
Hebrew  verfion  exa6tly  as  it  was  in  his  manufcript,  but 
that  he  fupplied  the  deficiences,  wherever  it  was  im- 
perfeft''.  His  publication  therefore  is  of  no  value  to 
a  critic :  for  no  man  can  quote  a  reading  of  this  Gof- 
pel, cither  for  or  againft  a  reading  of  the  Greek  text, 
fmce  he  muft  always  remain  in  doubt,  whether  it  ftood 
in  the  manufcript,  or  whether  it  was  one  of  Miinfter's 
additions. 

One  of  the  motives  to  this  publication  was  the  hope 
of  converting  the  Jews;  for  Miiniler  relates  in  his  Pre- 
face %  that  he  was  requcfted  by  thofe,  who  had  {ttn 
the  extrafts  which  he  had  given  from  it  in  fome  of  his 
former  works,  to  print  it  for  that  purpofe.  But  Miin- 
iler himfelf,  who  doubted  whether  it  would  produce 

this 


y  Matthaei  Evangelium — in  nativa  fua,  hoc  eft,  Hebraica  lingua, 
non.  qualiter  apnd  Hebracorum  valgus  lacernm  inveni,  fed  a  me  re- 
dintegratum  et  in  unun  corpus  redadum  emittimus. 

*  P.  II.  Quum  illud  ante  multos  annos  in  librls  meis  Hebraicis 
citaffem,  effentque  qui  me  follicitareat  tantum  thefaurum  in  publicum 
ut  emitterem,  futuruni  fperantes  ut — qui  alicni  fuut  a  Chrillo  hac 
occafione  traherentur  ad  Chriftum,  tam  hunertam  et  fani^am  petitio- 
nem  repellere  indignum  ratus,  &c.  N.  B.  Though  I  quote  the 
number  of  the  page,  in  order  to  direi^l  the  reader,  the  pages  in  the 
preface  itfelf  are  aot  numbered. 


SECT.  X.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  197 

this  effect*,  had  another  motive.  He  fuppofed  that 
St.  Matthew's  original  was  in  the  very  fame  language, 
as  the  Gofpel  which  he  piiblidied  **,  and  concluded 
therefore  that  his  work  would  be  of  ufe  in  afcertaining 
the  meaning  of  the  Greek  text,  becaufe  the  Hebrew 
has  many  peculiarities,  which  it  is  difficult  to  exprefs  in 
a  tranflation  '^.  On  this  occafion  he  calls  a  very  unfca- 
fonable  cenfiire  on  thofe,  who  truft  to  verfions,  as  if 
the  Gofpel,  which  he  prublilhed,  were  not  itfelf  a  ver- 
fion.  But  fince  it  is  not  a  verfion  into  the  fame  dialect, 
in  which  the  Gofpel  was  originally  written,  it  will  not 
always  affift  us  in  attempting  to  difcover  the  words  of 
the  original.  It  is  true  that  the  Chaldee  dialect,  which 
was  fpoken  by  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles,  is  in  its  ftruc- 
ture  very  clofely  allied  to  the  Rabbinic :  but  in  their 
modes  of  expreffion  there  is  a  material  difference,  efpe- 
cially  fince  the  European  Jews  have  adopted  fo  many 
terms  from  other  languages,  and  the  dialeft  of  Miinfter's 
Gofpel  is  that  of  modern  Rabbinic.  Further,  the 
tranflator  does  not  appear  to  have  been  fortunate  in 
the  choice  of  his  phrafes :  and  like  the  Syriac  tranflator 
he  has  not  always  availed  himfelf  of  the  advantages, 
which  the  language,  in  which  he  wrote,  afforded  him. 
The  Sermon  on  the  mount  for  inftance,  if  it  were  re- 
tranflated  into  the  language  fpoken  by  Chrift  in  fuch 
a  manner  that  the   forms   of  expreffion  ufed  by  the 

ancient 

*  In  the  Preface  to  the  edition  of  1557,  p.  8,  he  fays,  Non  quia 
mihi  populum  cervicofum  ilium  hujus  in  fua  lingua  publicatione 
Chrillum  agnitnrum  fpes  fit,  cum  illud  femper  habuerint  quidem, 
impugnarint  autem  femper. 

^  See  the  quotation  in  the  preceding  Note  (y),  where  Miinfter 
ufes  the  expreffion  in  nativa  fua,  hoc  eft,  Hebraica  lingua. 

"=  Deinde,  quod  quaedam  ob  fermonum  idiomata,  fic  in  alienam 
linguam,  transfundl  non  poflunt,  ut  vel  eandem  et  nativam,  paremve 
nativae  gratiam  claritatemque  praeferant.  Quod  huic  linguae  peculiare 
maxime  eft.  It  is  true  that  thefe  words  may  be  referred  to  the 
Hebrew  Bible  only  :  but  they  may  relate  alfo  to  the  Hebrew  Gofpel, 
and  Miinfter  is  not  the  only  perfon,  who  has  expefted  to  derive  from 
it  fo  much  critical  affiftance. 

N3 


1^8  Of  St,  Matthew's  Gofpel         chap.  iv. 

ancient  Rabbins  were  preferved,    would    receive   very 
confiderable  light :  but  from  the  tranflation  of  this  dif- 
courfe  in  Munfter's  edition,  we  can  derive  little  or  no 
information.     In    many  places  we   find   a   very   good 
tranflation,    but  there  are    others   again   in  which  the 
tranflator  might  certainly  have  chofen  better  expreflions. 
At   Matt,   xxvii.  62.    (^u^vlx,6vla■a^   ought   to  have    been 
rendered  by  1D3Di  ^y  inflead  of  which  we  find  the  iil- 
chofen  expreffioincjDX: '.     Ver.  65,  66.  x«ra)(^«a  ought 
probably  in  Rabbinic  to  be  written  ^{^2^DD1p  agreeably 
to  what  we  find  in  the  Syriac  verfion  %  becaufe  the  fub- 
jedl  related  to  a  Roman  guard  :  but  in  Munfter's  edition 
xarw^j*   is    given   by   nni^tTO-     The    difficult   paflage, 
ch.   xxviii.    i.    might  have   been   rendered    intelligible 
merely  by  the  ufe  of  the  word  "^ni  *" :  but  the  tranflator, 
inftead  of  adopting  this  word  has  rendered  the  pafTage 

thus,  nnj:^n  ■^^^?n  'v^'^  nat^^n  nnynv    in  ihort  the 

tranflation  is  of  no  value. 

I  have  already  obferved  that  the  language  of  this 
tranflation  is  Rabbinic :  and  it  appears  to  be  the  fame 
kind  of  Rabbinic  as  was  ufed  by  Jewifli  writers  of  the 
twelfth  and  following  centuries.  It  is  therefore  not 
improbable  that  this  tranflation  was  made  by  a  Jewifli 
convert,  in  the  interval  between  the  twelfth  and  fix- 
teenth  century,  in  order  to  furnifli  his  brediren  with 
a  true  hiftory  of  Chrift,  and  to  confute  the  fabulous 
and  abfurd  accounts,  which  were  current  among  tlie 
Jews.  If  this  be  true,  as  it  really  appears  to  be,  we 
may  conclude  that  the  tranflation  was  made,  not  from 
the  Greek,  but  from  the  Vulgate,  for  we  cannot  expedl: 
a  knowledge  of  the  Greek  language  in  a  Jewifli  convert 
of  the  middle  ages,  That  it  was  made  from  the  Vul- 
gate 

^  See  the  explanation  of  this  paffage  in  my  Hiftory  of  the  Refur-. 
rcftion. 

«  See  what  is  faid  on  this  fubjed.  Vol.  I.  Ch.  iv.  Se£k.  5.  of  this 
Introduftion '. 


SECT.  X,  Of  St.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  199 

gate  is  confirmed  alfo  by  an  obfervation  ofWetftein^ 
that  wherever  the  fame  Greek  word  is  differently  ren- 
dered in  the  Ladn,  different  Hebrew  words  occur  in 
this  Gofpel,  and  on  the  contrary,  where  different  Greek 
words  are  rendered  by  the  fame  Latin  word,  in  each 
place  of  this  Gofpel  likewife  is  ufed  the  fame  Hebrew 
word :  moreover  that  there  are  many  phrafes,  which 
betray  a  literal  tranflation  from  the  Latin.  For  inftance 
at  Matt.  iii.  1.  one  of  Wctflein's  examples,  which  I 
have  quoted  in  the  note,  every  man,  who  tranflated 
from  the  Greek,  would  probably  render  fAiTotvoun  by 
^y\^ :  but  inflead  of  this  fingle  word  we  find  in  Miin- 
fler's  edition  T\1Wr\  'WVi  which  literally  correfponds 
to  the  phrafe  ufed  in  the  Vulgate,  pamtentiam  agite. 
Further,  the  tranflator  has  added  CD^'ni  in  vivisy  which 
is  not  in  the  Vulgate,  but  on  which  Mr.  Nahmmacher 
has  a  very  happy  conjedlure.  I  have  never  compared 
this  Hebrew  Gofpel,  line  for  Une,  with  the  Greek  and 
Latin  texts ;  but  even  a  curfory  examination  of  it  has 
furnifhed  me  with  feveral  examples,  which  confirm 
Wetftein's  opinion,  efpecially  ch.  v.  23.  where  no  tranf^ 
lation  is  given  of  f«Kv;,  a  word  which  had  been  banifhed 
from  the  Vulgate,  but  is  retained  in  almoft  all  the 
Greek  manufcripts.  A  more  complete  examination  of 
this  Gofpel  would  probably  fupply  a  great  variety  of 
inftances,  which  might  completely  elucidate  this  fub- 
je<5l. 

But  if  it  be  true  that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  publifhed 
by  Miinfter  was  tranflated  from  the  Vulgate  at  a  period 
later  than  the  twelfth  century,  it  follows,  that,  even  if 

Miinfler 

^  Prol.  p.  T05.  Quoties  eadem  vox  Grsca  aliter  In  Latino  red- 
ditur,  etiam  in  Hebraico  diverfa  occurrunt  vocabula:  contra  ubi 
diverfas  voces  Graecae  eodem  modo  in  Latino  vertintur,  in  Hebraico 
eadem  vox  recurrit :  ut  Matth.  ii.  7,  8.  diligenter  didicit.  iii.  2.  pceni' 
tentiam  agite.  xv.  32.  triduo.  xvii.  \^.  fape  et  crebro.  xviii.  12.  earn 
qu^e  erra'vit,  24.  qui  debebaf  ei,  xx.  i"^.  facto  tibi  injuriam,  xxii.  26. 
ufque  ad  feptimum,  xxiv.  24.  ut  in  errorem  inducantur,  Jl  fieri  potcjl, 
xxvii.  5.  laqueo  fe  fufpendit ,  xxviii.  i.  prifno  manet  ad  verbum,  Lati- 
num  fequens  codicem,  convertit. 

N  4 


200  Of  Si.  Matthew's  Go/pel.  chap.  iv. 

Miinfter  had  printed  accurately  from  his  manufcript 
without  any  alterations,  it  could  be  of  no  value  to  a 
critic  in  determining  the  authenticity  of  the  Greek  rea- 
dings, becaufe  the  text  of  this  Hebrew  Gofpel  fhews 
only  what  were  the  readings  of  that  copy  of  the  Vulgare, 
from  which  the  trandation  was  made.  It  might  be  ufed 
indeed  by  a  colleftor  of  various  readings  to  the  Vulgate: 
but  as  the  manufcripts  of  the  Vulgate  written  in  the 
twelfth  and  following  centuries  are  fo  very  numerous,  it 
would  be  a  ufelefs  labour  to  colled  readings  from  a 
Hebrew  tranflation  of  it. 

Mr.  Knoch  is  of  opinion,  that  the  tranflation  was 
not  made  by  a  Jew,  becaufe  it  co.ncains  many  expref- 
fions,  which  militate  againft  the  rules  of  grammar^. 
But  violations  of  this  kind  will  not  prove  that  the  au- 
thor was  not  a  Jew,  for  the  mod  learned  Rabbins  of 
the  middle  ages  are  frequently  inatten  ive  to  the  rules 
of  grammar,  and  couple  fomedmes  mafculines  with  fe- 
minines.  Rabbinic  is  of  itfelf  a  corrupt  dialed,  and 
bears  the  fame  relation  to  pure  Hebrew,  as  the  Latin 
of  the  middle  ages  to  the  Latin  of  tne  Auguftan  age. 
Nay,  thefe  very  folecifms  would  rather  induce  me  to 
believe  that  a  Jew  was  the  author,  becaufe  a  Chriftian, 
who  had  been  taught  Hebrew  by  the  rules  of  grammar, 
and  was  become  lufficiently  matter  of  the  language  to 
be  able  to  v/rite  it,  would  probably  have  writ  en  more 
corre6lly.  Some  have  fuppoled  that  Miinfter  himfelf 
was  the  author  o^  this  verfion  :  but  this  fufpicion  is 
certainly  ungrounded,  becaufe  Tilet's  edition  agrees  in 
the  main  with  that  of  Miinfter,  and  therefore  neither 
of  them  can  have  been  forged  by  the  editors.  Befidts, 
if  Miinfter's  objeft  had  been  to  impofe  on  the  world, 
he  would  probably  have  exhibited  a  very  different  text, 

and 

8  In  his  Critical  and  Hiftorlcal  Accounts  of  the  Briinfwick  col- 
leftion  of  Bibles ^  page  555.  he  gives  j^he  following  example, 
yVl)'  nn^inn  ISD,  where  He  demonftrativum  is  ufed  before  the 
flatus  conftruAus.  I  admit  that  this  is  contrary  to  a  grammar  rule  ; 
but  even  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  we  fometimes  find  exceptions  to  the 
rule. 


SECT,  X.  Of  St.  Matthew's  Gojpel.  <ioi 

and  would  have  inferted  a  Hebrew  tranflatlon  of  all 
thofe  paiTages,  which  Jcrom  had  quoted  from  the  Gof- 
pel  of  the  Nazarenes.  -  This  would  have  been  a  more 
efFcftual  method  of  making  his  Gofpel  pafs  for  St. 
Matthew's  original :  but  fince  he  has  not  a6ted  in  this 
manner,  it  is  difficult  to  compreliend  what  advantage  he 
could  propofe  to  himfclf  in  afcribing  the  work  to  ano- 
ther, if  it  was  really  his  own. 

The  other  edition  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  in  Hebrew 
was  publifhed  by  Jean  de  Tilet*",  Bifhop  of  Brieux, 
who  brought  it  in  manufcript  from  Rome,  and  Jean 
Mercier',  at  Paris  in  1555.  Its  Latin''  title  is  Evange- 
lium  hebraicum  Mattha.^,  recens  e  Judreorum  penetra- 
libus  erutum,  cum  interpretatione  Latina  ad  Vulgatam, 
quoad  fieri  potuit,  accommodata.  Cum  privilegio, 
Parifiis  apud  Mart.  Juvenem,  m.d.l.v.  It  appears  to 
contain  the  fame  verfion,  as  that  which  was  publifhed 
by  Miinfter,  with  this  difference  that  the  two  manu- 
fcripts  varied  in  many  places  from  each  other'.  In 
fome  pafTages  there  is  certainly  a  material  difference  be- 
tween the  editions  :  but  this  arofe  probably  from  the 
circumftance  that  Miinfler's  manufcripts  had  chafms, 
which  were  fupplied  by  the  editor,  whereas  Tilet  printed 
thofe  paffages  from  his  manufcript,  which  was  not  fo 
defective.  Of  Tilet's  edition,  which  is  not  only  very 
Icarce,  but  more  valuable  than  that  of  Miinfter,  Mr. 
Spam.er  has  been  fometime  engaged  in  writing  a  critical 
defcription,  v/hich  I  hope  he  will  communicate  to  the 
public  ^ 

*•  In  Latin,  Tilius.  '  Johannes  Mercerus. 

•^  I  do  not  quote  the  Hebrew  title,  becaufe  T  am  not  in  pofleflion 
of  the  book  Itfelf,  and  I  am  not  certain,  whether  the  tranfcript,  which 
has  been  given  of  the  Hebrew  title,  be  accurate. 

'  They  fometlmes  vary  in  the  mode  of  writing  proper  names, 
for  inftance  the  word  Jefus,  is  in  Miinfler's  edition  vw,  but  in 
Toilet's  iiy». 


CHAP. 


202  Of  St.  Mark's  Go/pel.  chap.  v. 

CHAP.     V. 

OF  ST.   MARK^S  GOSPtL. 

SECT.    I. 

Of  the  perfon  of  St.  Mark,  and  the  circumj}ances  of 
bis  life, 

DOUBTS  have  been  entertained  both  in  ancient 
and  modern  times,  in  refpecft  to  the  perfon  of 
that  Mark,  who  wrote  the  fecond  of  our  four  Gofpels. 
The  Fathers  are  unanimous  in  calling  him  the  com- 
panion of  St.  Peter,  who  in  his  firft  Epiftle,  ch  v.  13. 
mentions  a  peribn  of  the  name  of  Mark,  whom  he 
calls  his  fbn,  that  is,  his  favourite  difciple  °.  And  it  Is 
probable  that  this  Mark  is  the  fame  perfon  as  the  Mark, 
who  is  mentioned  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  efpecially  A6ts  xii.  12.  where  it  appears  that  St. 
Peter  was  intimate  in  the  houfe  of  his  mother.  More- 
over the  Mark  who  is  mentioned  A6ls  xii.  12.  accom- 
panied St.  Paul  on  his  travels  '.  Hence  we  may  con- 
clude with  great  probability,  that  St.  Mark  the  Evan- 
gcl'ift,  Mark  the  fon  of  Mary,  who  fometime  attended 
St.  Paul,  and  Mark  who  is  mentioned  by  St.  Peter  in 
his  firft  Epiftle,  are  one  and  the  fame  perfon.  The 
objedions,  which  have  been  made  to  their  identity, 
are  anfwered  by  Lardner  in  his  Supplement  to  the 
Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory.  Vol.  I.  Ch.  7. 
Sed.  I. 

It 

•"  Dr.  Heiimann  takes  the  word  *  Ton'  In  this  paflage  in  the  literal 
fenfe.  But  if  St.  Peter  had  been  the  Father  of  St.  Mark  in  the 
proper  fenfe  of  the  word,  St.  Luke  would  hardly  have  written  Adls 
xii.  12.  'He  (namely  Peter)  came  to  the  houfe  of  Mary,  the  mo- 
ther of  John,  whofe  furname  was  Mark:'  nor  would  St.  Paul  in  his 
epiftle  to  the  Coloffians  ch.  iv.  to.  have  diftinguifhed  Mark  by  the 
title  of  '  coufm  of  Barnabas,'  but  would  have  ufed  the  more  diilin- 
guilhed  appellation  of  •  fon  of  Peter.' 


SECT.  I.  Of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel.  203 

It  appears  from  A<5ts  xii.  12.  that  St.  Mark's  original 
name  was  John,  the  fur  name  of  Mark  having  probably 
been  adopted  by  him,  when  he  left  Judiiia  to  go  into 
foreign  countries,    a   pradice   not  unufual   among  the 
Jews   of  that   age,    who   frequently   afTumed  a  name 
more  familiar  to  the  nations  which  they  vifited,  than 
that  by  which  they  had  been   diftinguifhed  in  their  own 
country.     It  appears  alfo  from  the  fame  paflage,  that 
his  mother's  name  was  Mary,  that  fhe  lived  in  Jeru- 
falem,  and  that  the   Chriftians   of  that  city  frequently 
afTembled  in  her  houfe.     From  Col.  iv.  10.   we  learn 
that  he  was  a  coufin  of  St.  Barnabas  ;  from  A6ts  xii.  25, 
that  he  accompanied  St.  Paul  and  St,  Barnabas  on  their 
vifit  to  the  Gentiles:  from   ch.  xiii.    13.  that  he  de- 
parted from  them  and  returned  to  Jerufalem :  and  from 
ch.  XV.  36 — 40.   that  in  confequence  of  his  departure, 
St.  Paul  having  refufed  to  take  him  on  his  next  journey, 
he   accompanied  St.   Barnabas  alone,  who  then  quitted 
St.  Paul.     However  he  was  afterwards  reconciled  to  St. 
Paul,    and   became   again    his   fellow-labourer   in   the 
Gofpel:  for  he  was  with  St.   Paul  during  his  imprifon- 
ment  in  Rome,  as  appears  from   CololT.   iv.   10.  and 
Philem.  24.     In  the  latter  pafTage  St.  Paul  ranks  him 
among  his  fellow-labourers,  and   in  the  former  pafifagc 
he  mentions  his  defign  of  fending  him  to  Coloffe.     St. 
Mark  accompanied  alfo  St.   Peter,  as  we  have  already 
feen  from   i   Pet.  v.   13.;  and  was  fo  highly  efteemed 
by  him,  as  to  'oe   called  his  fon,  in  the   fame  manner 
as  Timothy  is  thus  called  by  St.   Paul*.      That  St. 
Mark  was  a  native  Jew  is  evident  from  what  has  been 
already  faid :   but  that  he  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  as 
Cave  aflerts",  is  not  certain.     It  is  true  that  St.  Bar- 
nabas his  coufin  was  a  Levite '  j  but  this  will  not  prove 
that  St.  Mark  was  likewjfe  a  Levite,  for  it  is  a  miflake 
that  the  Jews  never  married  out  of  their  own  tribe. 
We  have  a  remarkable  inftance  in  the   cafe  of  Chrifl 
^nd  St.  John  the  Baptift :  for,  though  Mary  and  Eliza- 
beth 

»  See  Lardner's  Supplement,  Vol,  I.  Ch.  7.  Seft.  5. 


204  Of  St.  Mark's  Gcfpel.  chap.  v. 

be th  were  relations*,  yet  Chrift  was  of  the  family  of 
David  and  the  tribe  of  Judah  :  but  St.  John  was  the 
fon  of  a  pricft  and  confequently  of  the  tribe  of  Levi. 


SECT.    II. 

Hijioricaf  accounts  relative  to  St.  Mark's  Go/pel. 

PAPIAS,  bifhop  of  Hierapolis  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fecond  century,  has  given  the  following  account 
of  St.  Mark's  Gofpei,  for  which  he  appeals  to  the  au- 
thority of  John  the  prefbyter^.     Ma^Jto?  fx.iv  i^(j.vi\>ih\y\g 

TOi^w  rx  VTTO  Ta  Xpira  V  Xiy^^ivloc  y\  ZJ-^oc^hi/la,^  z\i  yap 
VKna-i    T8   Kt'pix,    alf  7rapyi>toX86»(r£i*    aulw*    \jfi^ou    ^iy    ug    f(pvtVf 

tua-nna  du^liz^ii/  tw^  xupjaxwi/  woisy.iuo(;  Xoywv.  lire  n^iv  vifxapls 
Mxp^oq  alw?  fHix  ypa4>a?  wj  aTnu.i/Yiy.otxiva'iu'  ivog  yap  iTroiria-acjo 
■sroovotav,    ra  y-nSm    uv   »ix3(r£    Tir»pciXi7riiVy    r    iJ/fUfraffSai  tj   fi> 

«u1otf.  From  the  preceding  account  we  learn  that  St. 
Mark  committed  to  writing  what  he  had  heard  delivered 
by  St.  Peter;  and  in  this  point,  all  other  ancient  tefti- 
monies,  however  different  they  may  be  in  other  refpeds, 
agree  with  Papias  and  John  the  prefbyter.  But  the 
latter  part  of  the  account,  namely  that  St.  Mark's 
objeft  was  to  omit  nothing  which   had  beeh  delivered 

by 

K  The  following  paflage  *  from  the  writings  of  Papias  is  quoted  in 
Eufeb.  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  III.  cap.  39. 

P  When  the  Greek  Fathers  call  St.  Mark  F.^^-iVEUTr?  Oet^s,  or 
the  Latin  Fathers  Interpres  Petri,  we  mull  not  underftand  •  an  inter- 
preter' in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word,  of  which  St.  Peter 
flood  lefs  in  need  than  St.  Mark  himfelf.  It  is  fimilar  to  the  phrafe 
Interpres  Di-vum,  when  applied  to  Mercury,  which  fignifies  *  Mef- 
fenger  of  the  Gods.'  Interpres  Petri  therefore,  when  applied  to 
St.  Mark,  fignifies  nothing  more  than,  *  a  perfon  commiflioned  by 
St.  Peter  to  execute  his  commands,' 


SECT.  II.  Of  St.  Mark's  Go/pel ,  '    205 

by  St.  Peter  appears  to  be  fomewhat  exaggerated :  for 
it  is  very  improbable  that  St.  Peter  knew  nothing  more 
of  the  hiftory  of  Chrift,  than  is  contained  in  St.  Mark's 

Gofpel.       The    cJailie    «  ^tv  to»  Ta^«    ra   uro    Ta    Xflirou   y\ 

M-x^^ivIx  ■n  zj^ax^ivlx,  is  well  worthy  of  notice  :  for  it 
lliews  that  John  the  prefbyter  and  Papias  were  of  opi- 
nion that  St.  Mark  did  not  write  according  to  the 
order  of  time,  as  many  modern  harmonifts  have  ima- 
gined. 

Clement  of  Alexandria    in   his   TTroIurrwo-ei?    relates', 

Ta  VL{\pis  ^ny.(i(rnx  iv  Pwjw,^  wfipv^xvloq  rov  Xoyovj  xai  z^uiVfji.otli 
TO   ivxyyeXiOii  i^mro^oqy  th^  zya^oi^oi?  ■ayoX?^8g  ovTCig  ■arccpa.xX' 

^£jw,i/»)jM,£K3i/  Twv  Afp^Os^Iwi/  oivocypcc^ixi  TOi,  HPYifxivoi'  vyoir\(Tot,v\x 
J*£  TO  Eua-yyEAiov  fji.il a. ^av on  roig  SiO[ji.ivoi^  avja'  ottbo  sviyi^oi^x 
rov    Uilpov     wool^£7r1i>£wf    fjt.i^e    mokva-xi    f^t^i    7jr^o]^Ei]^a(r6aj  *"• 

Clement  therefore  agrees  with  Papias  in  faying,  that 
St.  Mark  committed  to  writing  what  he  had  learnt  from 
St.  Peter. 

The  fame  account  is  given  by  Orlgen,  who,  fpeaking 
of  the  four  Gofpels,  fays,  AemIe^ov  Si  to  xajTa  Ma^i^ovy  m 
IIjIp©^  v(priy7)<rcilo  aJ7u,  woino-avTa '.  Here  we  muft  take 
notice,  that  the  two  Alexandrine  Fathers,  Clement  and 
Origen,  who  were  the  moft  learned  men  of  their  age, 
fay  nothing  of  St.  Mark's  having  publifhed  his  Gofpel 
J.Z  Alexandria,  as  later  writers  alTert. 

Irenffius, 

^  The  following  pafTage  is  quoted  from  the  fTroluwcoa-Bii;  of  Cle- 
ment, by  Eufebius,  Hiit.  Kcclef.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  14.  In  this  place, 
Eufebius  lias  not  mentioned  in  what  book  of  the  Y'n-olvTrua-ui  the 
paflage  ftood  :  but  it  appears  from  what  he  fays.  Lib.  11.  cap.  15. 
that  it  was  the  ^xi^  book  ;  for  he  there  likewife  refers  to  Clement  ou 
this  fubjeci,  and  fays,  e»  ix%  rm  xnroivrrwcriuv. 

*■  It  may  be  obferved  both  of  this  quotation  and  of  that  in  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph,  that  neither  Papias  nor  Clement  of  Alexandria 
confidered  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  as  written  by  immediate  infpiration. 
But  this  queftion  has  been  already  examined.  Vol.  I.  ch.  iii. 
fea.  3> 

»  Thefe  words  are  likewife  quoted  by  Eufebius,  Hift,  Ecclef. 
Lib.  VI.  cap.  25. 


20$  Of  St.  Mark's  GofpeL  chap,  v, 

Ire.naeus,  in  his  treatife  againft  Herefies,  Lib.  IIL 
cap.   I.  fays:    M{\x   tyiv   (fcil.    Uil^is  koci   n«ux«)    i^oSov, 

Mocpx.og  0  /xaOnl*)?  tat  f^p.>iv£v1n?  Tlil^s  xoci  a.vl<^  ra  WE^t 
JliTPa  y.y\D\)tT(ro^i\J!x.  zyy^oKpu?  *ijun/  Tsa,^oi.Si$u-/.i.  This  ac- 
count of  Irena^us  agrees  with  that  of  Papias,  Clement 
and  Origen,  in  the  aflertion  that  St.  Mark  derived  his 
information  from  St.  Peter.  But  Irensus  appears  to 
differ  from  Clement  in  faying,  that  St,  Mark  did  not 
publifh  his  Gofpel  till  after  the  death  of  St.  Peter', 
whereas  Clement  relates  that  he  wrote  it  during  the  life 
of  St.  Peter.  -  Their  accounts  however  may  be  recon- 
ciled on  the  fuppofition  that,  though  St.  Mark  wrote 
his  Gofpel  during  the  life  of  St.  Peter,  he  did  not 
make  it  publickly  known  till  after  St.  Peter's  death  \ 

Tertullian,  who  diftinguiflied  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke 
from  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John,  calling  the  latter 
Apoftles,  the  former  only  apoitolic  men",  fays  in  his 
treatife  againft  Marcion,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  5.  Licet  et 
Marcus  quod  edidit  Petri  affirmetur,  cujus  interpres 
Marcus. 

Eufebius,  in  his  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,  Lib.  11. 
cap.  15.  has  given  the  following  account  of  St.  Mark's 

Gofpel.  Tcffajo  £7rfAajW.vJ/£  Ta»?  t«i/  «xpo«]wi/  ra  TliT^a  J'*a- 
K>ta»f  £U{r£?£i«j  (piyy^i  w?  H*1  t>5  utrmro;.^  ty.uvui;  t^itv 
UfneKT^ui  axojj,  [avi  Ss  rtj  xyox(pu!  th  S'fta  xn^yyi^xTf^  ^t^ixcr- 
>caX»a*  ZLroc,pa)iKrt(Ti(Ti  ^i  ■uavtoiixk;  Maflxok,  a  to  ivoi.yyiXiov 
(piPiTXi,  «xoA«9ov  ovTfX  n£T^«  >A7r o(.^y\<Tcny  wf  av  xa»  §ia,  y^a.fY]g 
UTTOjwm/Aa  Trig  Sitx,  Xoys  ■uya^xMiia-ng  avTOig  xaTaA£n|/0» 
Sii»(TX(x,XKX,i'  fA.r)  T^poTSPou  Ti  aviivoiij  Yi  KXTS^yx(yoc(r^oi,i  tov  xv^pxy 
xa»   TauT?7    aiTiaf    yii/itr^xi    rng    t's    Xeyoixfva    kxtx    Ma^xoi* 

ivuyysXis  y^x^ng.  Thus  far  Eufebius  relates  in  pofitive 
terms,  and  appeals,  a  few  lines  afterwards,  to  Clement 
of  Alexandria  and  Papias,  as  vouchers  for  its  truth. 
But  immediately  after  the  words  juft  quoted,  he  adds 

an 

'  MiT«  T>!*  THTwk  float*  is  literally  *  after  their  exit,'  that  is,  after 
their  deceafe  :  not  '  after  their  departure  from  Rome,'  as  fome  critics 
have  fuppofed  *. 

°  Adv.  Marcion,  Lib.  IV,  cap.  5. 


SECT.  H.  Of  St.  Mark's  Gojpet.  107 

an  account  relative  to  St.  Peter's  condud  on  this  oc- 
cafion,  which  he  introduces  with  the  word  ^a<r.  (they 
fay),  thereby  implying  that  he  reported  only  what 
others  had  faid,  without  taking  upon  himielf  to  war- 
rant its  authenticity.     His  words  are,  yvovTo.  h  ro  zs-^a^ 

■S"£v  ^atrt  Tov  A-Kog-aXoVy  a.'rroy.a.Xxf^a.VT^  «vt«  ra  ■ssviMfji.ocl^^y 

i\^Tiv^iv  rotig  iKKXYi<noiii;,     This  is  an  addition  to  the  pre- 
ceding account,  and  is  a  contradi<5t:ion  to   that,  which 
I  have  quoted  in  a  preceding  paragraph  from  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  according  to  which  St.  Peter  neither 
prohibited  nor  promoted  St.  Mark's  Gofpel.     Now  it  is 
true  that  an  account   introduced  by  Eufebius,  merely 
with  the  exprefiion  <paa-t  (they  fay),  is  hardly  of  fuffi- 
cient  authority  to  overturn  the  dire6l  aflertion  of  Cle- 
ment*.    Yet  on  the  other  hand,   it  contains   nothing 
incredible,  whereas  that  of  Clement  is  certainly  a  very 
extraordinary  one,  fmce  it  is  difficult  to  comprehend 
how  St.  Peter  could  remain  fo  very  indifferent  as  Cle- 
ment reprefents  him.     In  his  fecond  Epiflle,  ch.  i.  15. 
St.  Peter  fays,  *  I  will  endeavour  that  ye  may  be  able 
after  my  deceale  to  have  thefe  things  always  in  remem- 
brance:' and  in  the  three  following  verfes  he  gives  an 
account,  which  he  produces  as  a  proof  of  Chrift's  di- 
vine  miifion.     Inilead  therefore  of  St.   Peter's  being 
indifferent  as  to  the  corapofition  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel, 
we  may  infer  from  the  preceding  paffage,  that  he  aflually 
promoted  it  ^ 

Among  all   the   quotations,  which   I   have   hitherto 
made   from  the  v/ri tings  of  the  moft  ancient  Fathers, 

wc 

*  AttokxTw^cl^'^  ctvTii)  TH  'CjnvfA.cH©'  is  commonly  referred  to  the 
preceding  words,  by  which  conftruftion  St.  Peter  is  made  to  derive 
his  information  from  the  Holy  Ghoft  that  St.  Mark  had  written  a 
Gofpel,  a  fadl  which  St.  Peter  might  certainly  have  learnt  without 
any  fupematural  interference.  I  will  not  affert  that  the  claufe  in 
qiieftion  does  not  admit  of  this  conftrudlion :  but  I  think  it  is  capable 
of  being  applied  to  the  words  which  follow,  and  then  the  meaning 
of  the  paffage  will  be  that  of  St.  Peter's  command  to  read  St.  Mark's 
Gofpel  in  the  churches  was  at  the  inftigation  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 


2o8  Of  Si.  Mark's  Go/pel.  chap.  v. 

we  find  no  mention  made  of  St.  Mark's  having  pub- 
lifhcd  his  Gofpel  at  Alexandria.  This  report  however 
prevailed  in  the  fourth  century,  as  appears  from  what 
is  related  by  Eufebius,  Epiphanius,  and  Jerom.  It  is 
firft  mentioned  by  Eufebius,  who,  in  his  Ecclefiaftical 
Hiftory,  Lib.  II.  cap.  i6.  fays,  Thto?  ^  Moc^xov  u^mtou^ 

<pu(Ti)^  iiri  Tn<;  Ai'yuTTTK  fiiKo',[/.ivou  to  svayysXiovj  o  Sri  xas-i 
rvviypoi^XTOj   ycnpn'^ociy  ix.)iXn(riixg  71  sr^urav  btt'  avrrig  KXt^ctv- 

Sptixq  (rvfYiTy.a^xi.  It  appears  from  the  word  (pxa-tv  that 
Eufebius  mentions  this  only  as  a  report:  and  what  is 
immediately  added  in  the  fame  place,  that  the  perfons, 
whofe  feverity  of  life  and  manners  is  defcribed  by  Philo, 
were  the  converts  which  St.  Mark  made  at  Alexandria, 
is  evidently  falfe.  Epiphanius,  in  his  fifty- firft  Hercfy,. 
ch.  vi.  gives  the  following  account :  EuS-j?  «?£  f^iTx  to» 

MarQaiov,  axoAaO©^  ysi/ojw,£u(^  0  Ma^y.(^.Ta3  ayiui  IlgT^'j  E^  Pw,un 
tTrnpiTTiTOH  TO  (vuyycXiov  iK^ic^ai'  koh  y^apa?  UTrofeXXsTUi 
VTTO  T8  acyi>!  UBrpa  fij  rr>v  roov  AiyvTrrmt/  j^w^av.      According 

to  Epiphanius  then  St.  Mark  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Rome, 
while  St.  Peter  was  teaching  the  Chriftian  religion  in 
that  city ;  and  after  he  had  written  it,  he  was  fent  by 
St.  Peter  into  Egypt.  A  fimilar  account  is  given  by 
Jerom  in  his  Treatife  on  Illuftrious  Men,  ch.  viii. 
Marcus  dilcipulus  et  interpres  Petri,  juxta  quod  Petrum 
referentcm  audierat,  rogatus  Roma3  a  fratribus,  breve 
fcripfit  Evangelium.  Quod  quum  Petrus  audifTct, 
probavit,  et  ecclefiis  legendum  fua  auifloritate  ^  edidit, 
ficut  Clemens  in  fexto  vn-orvrroodiccv  fcribit. — Afiiimto 
itaqueEvangclio,quod  ipfe  confecerat,  perrexitadiEgyp- 
tum,  et  primus  Alcxandriic  Chriftum  annuntians  con- 

ftituic 


y  The  word  ■nr^Jioi'  is  here  fomewhat  ambiguous.  If  we  tranflate 
it  by  *  firft,'  and  underlland  the  p:iflago  as  implying  that  St.  Mark  firft 
preached  the  Gofpel  at  Alrxaiidria,  it  will  be  diihcult  to  reconcile  this 
account  with  what  Eufcbiui  layi  elfewhere  relative  to  the  compofition 
of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  in  Rome. 

^  In  the  paflage  quoted  above  from  Eufebius  was  ufed  the  expref- 
fion,  aTToaccXv^uvio;  u-fiu)  ra  'mav^xliJi :  but  jerom  fays  limply,  /ua 
autoiltace. 


5ECT.  II.  Of  St.  Mark's  Gdfpgl,  ■  209 

ftituit  ecclefiam  tanta  do6lrinjE  et  vit^  continentia,  ut 
Dmnes  fcftatores  Chrifti  ad  exemplum  fui  cogeret. — - 
Mortiius  eft  autem  odlavo  Neronis  anno,  et  fepultus 
Alexandrise,  fiiccedentc  fibi  Aniano.  Laftly,  the  Coptic 
Chriftians  of  the  prefent  age  confider  St.  Mark  as  the 
founder  and  firft  bifhop  of  their  church*;  and  their 
Patriarch  ftyles  himfelf,  *  Unworthy  fervant  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  called  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  by  his  gracious 
will  appointed  to  his  fcrvice,  and  to  the  fee  of  the  holy 
Evangelift  Mark".' 

Thefe  accounts,  though  they  agree  in  the  main  point 
that  St.  Mark  went  to  Alexandria  and  preached  there, 
are  not  perfe6lly  confiftent  in  refpeft  to  the  time  when 
he  vifited  that  city.  There  is  likewife  fome  ambiguity 
in  refpecl  to  the  word  *  preaching,'  which  may  denote 
either  preaching  the  Gofpel,  that  is,  teaching  the  Chrif- 
tian  religion,  or  preaching  a  written  Gofpel,  that  is, 
openly  reading  and  publifhing  it.  In  the  latter  fenfe, 
the  word  *  preaching'  is  ufed  in  the  fubfcription  to  the 
Syriac  verfion  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel :  and  in  this  fenfe 
we  ought  probably  to  underftand  the  word  as  ufed  in 
thefe  quotations.  If  the  preceding  ftatement  be  accu- 
rate, it  follows,  that  St.  Mark  publiflied  his  Gofpel 
both  at  Rome,  and  at  Alexandria '^ :  and  therefore  the 
account  above-quoted  from  Iren^eus,  if  it  be  not  true 
of  the  publication  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  at  Rome,  may 
be  true  of  the  publication  of  it  at  Alexandria.     In  this 

manner 

*  Vanfleb  (Wanfleb)  Relation  d'lln  Voyage  fait  en  Egypte,  p.  132. 
The  Copts  pretend  likewife  that  St.  Mark  was  murdered  by  a  band 
of  robbers  near  the  lake  Menzale  :  but  if  this  account  be  true,  he 
•was  hardly  buried  at  Alexandria,  and  his  tomb  in  that  city  mufl  be 
one  of  the  forgeries  of  early  fuperllition. 

•»  This  title  I  have  copied  from  p.  90,  gi,  of  Wandeb's  Travels 
Into  Egypt,  preferved  in  manufcript  in  the  univerfity  library  of  Got- 
tingen. 

«  Chryfollom  likewife,  and  other  writers  quoted  by  Lardner  In  the 
Supplement  to  the  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hillory,  Vol.  f.  p.  175, 
176,  fay,  that  St.  Mark  publilhed  his  Gofpel  at  Alexandria*. 

Vol.  III.  O 


210  Of  St  Mark's  Go/pel,  chap.  v. 

manner  the  relation  of  Irenasus  may  be  reconciled  with 
that  of  other  writers,  and  an  ancient  controverfy  relative 
to  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  decided.  However,  I  propofc 
this  mode  of  folution  as  a  mere  hypothefis :  and  I  am 
far  from  confidering  it  as  an  indifputablc  facft  that  St. 
Mark  publiflied  his  Gofpel  at  Alexandria,  becaufe  the 
two  Alexandrine  Fathers,  Clement  and  Origen,  have 
not  mentioned  it '. 

If  the  hypothefis  of  a  two-fold  publication  of  St. 
Mark's  Gofpel,  firft  at  Rome  and  afterwards  at  Alex- 
andria, were  a  true  one,  it  might  very  conveniently  be 
applied  to  explain  a  difficulty  relative  to  the  twelve  lafl 
verfes  of  this  Gofpel,  namely  chap.  xvi.  9 — 20.  Much 
may  be  faid  againft  the  authenticity  of  this  pafTage,  as 
I  have  already  fhewn  in  my  Hiflory  of  the  Refurredion^: 
and  fince  I  wrote  this  treatife  ftill  more  evidence  has 
been  produced  againft  the  pafifage.  It  is  wanting  in  the 
celebrated  Codex  Vaticanus,  which  is  perhaps  the  moft 
important  Greek  manufcript  now  extant,  and  it  is  pro- 
bable that  it  was  not  acknowledged  by  Eufebius*': 
further,  a  Greek  manuC-i-ript  in  the  Wolfenbiitcel  library 
has  a  Prologue  to  St.  Mark's  Gofpel,  in  which  no  no- 
tice is  taken  of  it^  On  the  other  hand,  fo  much  may 
be  faid  in  favour  of  this  paflage,  that  it  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  rejefl  it :  for  it  is  contained  in  almoft  all  the 
Greek  manufcripts  now  extant,  there  is  nothing  in  its 
ftyle  which  particularly  diftinguifhcs  it  from  the  reft  of 
the  Gofpel,  and  we  can  hardly  fuppofe  that  St.  Mark 
ended  at  yer.  8.  with  t^o^afio  ya,^^  in  the  middle  of  the 
narration.  St.  Mark  had  related,  ch.  xvi.  i — 8.  that 
the  women,  who  went  to  vifit  the  fepulchre,  faw  an 
angel  who  informed  them  that  Jefus  was  rifen,  and 
commanded  them  to  tell  it  to  Peter  and  the  other  dif- 

ciples, 

*  Pag.  179— iS  8. 

«  See  Birch's  account  in  the  Orient.  BIbl.»  Vol.  XXIII.  p.  146-^ 
149. 

f  Sec  the  New  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  II.  p.  141, 


SECT.  II.  Of  St.  Mark^s  Gofpel  an 

ciples,  but  that  they  faid  nothing  to  any  man  becaufe 
they  were   afraid.     Now  if  St.    Mark   ended   here,  it 
may  be  an<:ed  by  what  means  did  he  learn  that  which 
he  had  already  related  in  refped  to  the  fepulchre  and 
the  angel,  fince  the  women  at  that  time  did  not  report 
either  to  Peter,  or  to  any  one  what  they  had  feen  and 
heard '.     But  this  difficulty  may  be  removed  if  we  fup- 
pofe  chat  St.  Mark  wrote   the  twelve  lad  verfes  as  well 
as  the  reft  of  the  Gofpel :  and  the  doubts  which  even 
in  ancient  times  were  entertained  of  their  authenticity, 
may   be  explained  on  the   fuppofition  that  St.  Mark, 
when  he  compofed  his  Gofpel  at  Rome  with  the  affift- 
ance  of  St.  Peter,  wrote  as  far  as  i(poQis]^1o  ya^,  that  his 
progrefs  was  then  ftopped  either  by.  the  death  or  the 
imprifonment  of  St.  Peter,  but  that  he  re-affiimed  and 
finifhed  his  narration  on  his  arrival  at  Alexandria.     It  is 
true,    that  this  explanation,    though   it   afcribes   thefc 
verfes  to  St.  Mark  as  their  author,  deprives  them  of 
that   hiftorical  certainty,  which   they  would  have  pof- 
fefled,  if  written  under  the  immediate  infpedion  of  St. 
Peter :  and  therefore,  as  I  have  already  faid,  I  propofe  it 
as  a  mere  hypothefis.     At  any  rate  however,  the  twelve 
laft  verfes  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  have  the  appearance  of 
an  addition,  which  does   not  tally  with  the  preceding 
part  of  the  difcourfe.     According  to  ch.  xiv.  28.  Chrift 
himfelf  had  faid,  ^  After  that  I  am  rifen  I  will  go  before 
you  into  Galilee,'  and  according  to  ch.  xv.  7.   the  very 
fame  account  was  given  by  the  angel  at  the   lepulchre. 
From  an  author  Vv'ho  had  thus  prepared  his  readers  to 
expe6l  a  narrative  of  Chrift's  interview  with  his  difci- 
ples  in  Galilee,  it  might  be  reafonably  expeded  that  he 
would  not  negleft  to  relate  it :  but  in  the  conclufion  of 
St.  Mark's  Gofpel,  no  mention  is  made  of  an  interview 
in  Galilee,  though  it  had  been  twice  declared  that  Chrift 
would  appear  there  '°. 


02  SECT. 


212  Of  St.  Mark's  Goj pel,  chap.  v. 


SECT.    III. 

Agreement  of  the  accounts  given  in  the  precedingjetlion  with 
the  contents  of  St.  Mark's  Go/pel. 

THAT  St.  Mark  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Rome,  with 
the  affiflance  and  under  the  direftion  of  St.  Peter, 
agrees  extremely  well  with  the  contents  of  the  Gofpel 
itfelf,  and  may  ferve  likewife  to  explain  feveral  parti- 
culars, which  at  firft  fight  appear  extraordinary.  For 
inftance,  where  St.  Peter  is  concerned  in  the  narration, 
mention  is  fometimes  made  of  circumftances,  which 
are  not  related  by  the  other  Evangelifts,  as  at  ch.  i. 
2^ — 22.  ix.  34.  xi.  2  1.  xiv.  30.  And  on  the  con- 
trary, the  high  commendations,  which  Chrilt  bellowed 
on  St.  Peter,  as  appears  from  Matth.  xvi.  17 — 19.  but 
which  the  Apoftle,  through  modefly,  would  hardly  have 
repeated,  are  wanting  in  St.  Mark's  Gofpel^.  At 
ch.  xiv.  47.  St.  Mark  mentions  neither  the  name  of 
the  Apoftle,  who  cut  off  the  ear  of  the  High  JVieft's 
fervant,  nor  the  circumftance  of  Chrift's  healing  it. 
We  know  that  this  Apoftle  was  St.  Peter,  for  his  name 
is  exprefsly  mentioned  by  St.  John :  but  an  Evangel ift, 
v/ho  wrote  his  Gofpel  at  Rome  during  the  life  of  St. 
Peter,  would  have  expofed  him  to  the  danger  of  being 
accufed  by  his  adverfaries,  if  he  had  openly  related  the 
fa6l.  Had  St.  Mark  written  after  the  death  of  St. 
Peter,  there  would  have  been  no  neccftity  for  this  cau- 
tion '. 

Further,  as  St.  Mark  wrote  for  the  immediate  ufe  of 
the  Romans,  he  fometimes  gives  explanations  which 
were  neceftary  for  foreigners,  thougli  not  for  the  inha- 
bitants of  Paleftine.  For  inftance,  ch.  vii.  2.  he  ex- 
plains the  meaning  of  xol^aK  x^^'^^'-  ^^^  ^^'"-    ^^-   ^^ 

t  Thus  obfervation  was  made  by  Eufebius :  but  )erom  and  Lardner 
h^vc  overrated  ir. 


SECT.  II r.  Of  St.  Mark's  Go/pel.  aij 

xo^^xv.  In  the  fame  chapter,  ver.  3,  4.  he  gives  a  de- 
fcripcion  of  Ibme  Jewilh  culloms  :  and  ch.  xv.  42.  he 
explains  the  meaning  of  sroi^xa-xivv.  At  ch.  xv.  21.  he 
mentions  that  Simon  was  the  father  of  Alexander  and 
Rufus,  a  circumftance  not  mentioned  by  the  other 
Evangelifts :  but  to  St.  Mark's  readers  the  circumftance 
was  interefting,  becaufe  Rufus  was  at  that  time  in  Rome, 
as  appears  from  Rom.  xvi.  13.  See  alfo  Wetftein's 
Notes  to  ch.  vii.  26.  xi.  22. 

That  St.  Mark  wrote  his  Gofpel   in  Rome,  and  for 
the  ufe  of  the  Romans,  is  likewife  the  reafon  why  he 
has  omitted  many  particulars  in  the  life  of  Chrift,  which 
are  related  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.      The  genea- 
logy, for  inftance,  though  interefting  to  the  Jews,  was 
not  fo  to  the  Romans;  and  the  fame  may  be  faid  of 
Chrift's  nativity  at  Bethlehem,  a  name  well  known  to 
the    Jews,    but    probably    unknown    to    the    Romans. 
His  total  omiffion  of  Chrift's  admirable  fermon  on  the 
mount,  which   St.  Matthev/  has  given    at  full    length, 
and  St.  Luke  in  ftiort  extracts,  appears  at  firft  fight, 
to  be  rather  extraordinary.     But  wc  muft  recolleft  that 
this   fermon   was    in    fad   polemical,    and   immediately 
dire6led  againft  the  falfe  morality  of  the  Pharifees.     To 
underftand  this  fermon  therefore,   it  is  abfolutely  ne- 
ceffary  to  have  a  previous  knowledge  of  the  Pharifaic 
do6lrines :    but  thefe   doftrines  were    unknown  to    the 
Romans.      The   unlearned   are   not   only  incapable  of 
comprehending  this  difcourfe,  but  are  in  danger,  with- 
out  the   afTiftance  of  a  learned  interpreter,  of  totally 
perverting  its  meaning.     It  is  a  known  fa6l,  that  very 
erroneous  moral  do6lrines  have  been  deduced  from  it, 
and  that  thefc  doftrines  have  been  applied  as  objeflions 
to   the  Chriftian  religion,      h  has  been   afTerted,  that 
Chrift  totally  prohibited  the  adminiftration  of  an  oath, 
the  repulfe  of  violence,  an  appeal  to  a  magiftrate,  or 
felf-defence.     For  thefe  reafons,  St.  Peter  himfelf  would 
hardly  have  delivered  this   difcourfe  to  the  Romans: 
and  for  thefe  reafons,  St.  Mark  pafled  it  over  in  filence. 
o  3  The 


ii4  Of  St.  Mark's  Go/pel.  chap.  v. 

The  fame  motive  induced  him  to  give  in  only  a  few 
words,  ch.  xii.  38 — 40.  another  difcourfe,  which  Chrift 
direded  to  the  Pharifees,  and  which  St.  Matthew  has 
delivered  at  full  length*. 


SECT.     IV. 

St.  Mark  derived  his  information,  not  only  from  St.  Teter^ 
but  likewije  from  written  documents ^  which  he  ufed  in  ihs 
compofition  of  his  Gofpel. 

FROM  the  accounts  of  the  eccefiaflical  writers, 
which  have  been  quoted  in  the  fecond  feftion  of 
this  chapter,  it  appears  that  St.  Mark  derived  his  know- 
ledge of  Chrift's  life  and  chara6ler  from  St.  Peter :  and 
if  we  judged  from  thefe  accounts  alone,  we  fhould 
conclude  that  he  had  no  other  fource  of  information. 
But,  notwithftanding  the  filence  cf  the  Fathers  in  refpeft 
to  any  written  documents,  Vv'hich  were  ufcd  by  St.  Mark  *, 
it  is  certain  that  he  made  ufe  of  other  Gofpels  in  the 
compofition  of  his  own.  I  have  already  fhewn  in  tha 
third  chapter,  that  St.  Mark  agrees  in  his  exprelTions 
both  with  St.  Matthew  and  with  St.  Luke,  in  fuch  a 
manner  as  he  would  hardly  have  done,  unlefs  the  three 
firfl:  Gofpels  had  been  connected,  either  mediately  or 
immediately,  with  each  other.  In  the  choice  of  his 
matcriils  he  agrees  partly  with  St.  Matthew,  partly  with 
St.  Luke,  and  omits  many  material  tranfaftions  recorded 
by  St.  John,  but  which  are  not  mentioned  either  by 
St,  Matthew  or  by  St.  Luke.  And  in  the  arrangement 
of  his  fads  he  fometimes  agrees  with  St.  Luke,  where 
the  order  of  time  is  not  obferved,  and  in  oppofition  to 
St.  Matthew,  which  can  hardly  be  explained  by  mere 
accident*.  Of  the  truth  of  this  aflertion  the  reader 
will  be  convinced  by  turning  to  the  Table,  which  I  have 

given> 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Mark's  Go/pel  0.\^ 

given,  ch.  ii.  feft.  7.  and  comparing  the  accounts  of 
the  three  Evangelifts. 

Thefe  phenomena  may  be  explained,  either  on  the 
hypothefis  that  there  was  an  immediate  connexion  be- 
tween the  three  firft  Gofpels,  or  on  the  hypothefis,  that 
there  was  only  a  mediate  one.  I  have  already  obferved 
in  the  third  chapter,  that  the  three  firft  Evangelifts  do 
not  appear  to  have  feen  each  other's  writings.  If  this 
be  true,  we  can  afllime  only  a  mediate  connexion,  that 
is,  we  can  afifiime  only  the  hypothefis  of  a  common 
fource,  from  which  they  feverally  drew.  St.  Luke,  in 
the  preface  to  his  Gofpel,  mentions  that  feveral  written 
accounts  were  then  in  circulation ;  and  I  think  it  pro- 
bable, not  only  that  St.  Luke,  but  likewife  that  St. 
Mark  made  ufe  of  thefe  written  accounts,  correfting  at 
the  fame  time  whatever  was  erroneous  by  the  afliftance 
of  St.  Peter. 

On  the  contrary,  they  who  aflfume  an  immediate  con- 
nefbion  between  the  three  firft  Gofpels,  muft  adopt  one 
of  the  four  following  fuppofitions :  1"  that  St.  Mark 
made  ufe  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  or  i"^^^  of  St.  Luke's 
Gofpel,  or  3"^'^  of  both  Gofpels,  or  V'*'''  that  St.  Mark's 
Gofpel  was  ufed  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  All 
thefe  four  fuppofitions  have  had  their  advocates.  In 
fome  of  thsm  I  find  infurmountable  difficulties,  in 
others  not :  I  will  examine  therefore  each  of  them  in 
order. 


04  SECT. 


2: 1 6  Of  St,  Mark's  GofpeL  ch  a  p.  v. 


SECT.     V. 

Examination  of  the  quejlion^  whether  St.  Mark  made  uje  of 
St.  Matthezv's  G  off  el  \ 

THAT  St.  Mark  made  ufe  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel 
has  been  hitherto  a  very  common  opinion,  and  in 
the  former  editions  of  this  Introduction  I  adopted  it  as 
highly  probable :  but  a  recent  and  more  minute  exa- 
mination of  this  fubjedl  has  convinced  me  that  the 
opinion  is  ungrounded.  Dr.  Lardner,  in  the  Supple- 
ment to  the  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiflory,  Vol.  I. 
ch.  lo.  had  fhewn  by  feveral  arguments,  the  principal 
of  which  was  drawn  from  the  apparent  contradidions 
between  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  that  the  common 
opinion  was  at  lead  doubtful:  and  in  the  year  1782, 
a  fmall  tradl  was  publifhed  by  Dr.  Koppe,  entitled 
Marcus  non  Epitomator  Matthai^  in  which  the  author  has 
fhewn  that  it  is  no  longer  tenable. 

Though  the  notion  that  St.  Mark  epitomized  St. 
Matthew  has  in  modern  times  been  very  general,  wc 
find  no  mention  made  of  it  by  any  ecclefiaftical  writer 
before  Auguftin,  who,  in  his  treatife  De  confenfu  Evan- 
geliftarum,  Lib,  I,  cap.  1.  fays,  Marcus  Matthafum 
fubfecutus  tanquam  pedilTequus  ejus  et  breviator  videtur. 
From  thefe  words  it  appears  that  Auguftin  advanced  it 
only  as  a  probable  opinion :  but  the  reputation  of  Au- 
guftin was  fo  great  that  his  opinion  was  very  generally 
adopted,  and  thus  a  mere  conjedure  was  converted  into 
an  indifputable  fadt.  On  the  other  hand,  the  circum- 
ftance  that  no  ecclefiaftical  writer  before  Auguftin  has 
advanced  this  opinion,  is  no  argument  againft  it :  for 
they  are  equally  filent  in  refpedt  to  other  written  docu- 
ments, and  yet  fome  written  document  was  certainly 
ufed   by  St,   Mark,     That  this   however  was  not  St. 

Matthew's 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  Mark's  Gojf  el.  217 

Matthew's  Gofpel  will  appear  from  the  following  argu- 
ments \ 

I.  St.  Mark  agrees  with  St.  Luke,  in  an  equal  if 
not  greater  degree  than  with  St,  Matthew  :  and  therefore 
we  may  as  well  fay  that  he  copied  from  St.  Luke,  as 
that  he  copied  from  St.  Matthew.  Whoever  then  does 
not  admit  that  he  copied  from  the  former,  muft  not 
conclude  that  he  copied  from  the  latter,  for  the  infer- 
ence in  the  one  cafe  would  be  as  valid  as  in  the  other. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  St.  Mark's  agreement  with  St. 
Matchew  really  proves  that  he  copied  from  him,  his 
agreement  with  St.  Luke  will  prove  that  he  copied  like- 
wife  from  this  Evanglift,  and  then  St.  Mark's  Gofpel 
muft  be  confidered  as  an  extrad,  not  from  St.  Mat- 
thew's only,  but  from  St.  Matthew's  and  St.  Luke's 
jointly. 

2. '  But  that  St.  Mark  did  not  ufe  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel  is  probable  from  this  circumftance,  that  he  fre- 
quently deviates  from  St.  Matthew  in  the  order  of  time, 
or  in  the  arrangement  of  his  fa6ls.  As  St.  Matthew  was 
an  Apoftle  and  eye-witnefs  to  the  fafts  which  he  related, 
St.  Mark  could  not  have  wilhed  for  better  authority; 
and  therefore  if  he  had  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  before 
him,  when  he  wrote  his  own,  he  would  hardly  have 
adopted  a  different  arrangement.  It  might  be  faid  in- 
deed that  he  made  alterations  on  the  authority  of  St. 
Peter:   but  this  fuppofition  is  very  improbable. 

3.  Though  there  are  feveral  parts  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel,  fuch  as  the  genealogy,  the  fermon  on  the 
mount,  fome  prophecies  from  the  Old  Teftament,  the 
account  of  the  death  of  Judas  Ifcariot,  and  fome  few 
more  pafTages,  which  an  Evangelift,  who  wrote  chiefly 
for  txhe  ufe  of  the  Romans,  might  not  improperly  omit, 
yet  on  the  other  hand,    there   are  feveral  accounts  in 

St. 

^  They  who  contend  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Gofpel  after  St. 
Peter's  arrival  in  Rome,  may  deduce  another  argument  againft  the 
opinion  that  St.  Mark  copied  from  it.  But  on  this  argument  I  ihall 
not  infill. 


21 S  Of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel.  chap.  v. 

St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  of  the  omiffion  of  which  in  St. 
Mark's  Gofpel  it  is  really  difficult  to  afllgn  a  reafon, 
and  which  therefore  lead  to  the  conclufion  that  St.  Mat- 
thew's GofpeJ  was  not  ufed  by  St.  Mark.  Examples 
of  this  kind  i;he  reader  will  find  by  turning  to  the  Table 
of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory,  ch.  ii.  fed.  7.  and  confuldng 
N°.  46,  100,  108,  109.  A  ftill  more  remarkable  in- 
ftance  is  the  omiflion  of  what  is  related  by  St.  Matthew, 
ch.  xiv.  28 — 32.  (N°.  S3-)i  ^  relation  in  which  St. 
Peter  was  particularly  concerned,  and  which  St.  Mark 
would  hardly  have  omitted,  if  he  had  read  it  in  St. 
Matthew'.  Again,  the  hiftory  recorded  by  St.  Mat- 
thew, ch.  xix.  16. — XX.  16.  is  delivered  by  St.  Mark, 
ch.  X.  17 — 31.  (fee  N°.  86),  where  fome  of  the  material 
parts  of  the  narration  are  omitted  :  for  inftance,  Peter's 
reply  to  Chrift,  *  What  fhall  we  have  therefore  ?'  Fur- 
ther, he  has  omitted  the  long  parable  related  by  St. 
Matthew,  ch.  xx.  i — 16.  which  Chrift  delivered  as  a 
reproof  of  St.  Peter :  and  what  is  ftill  more  extraordi- 
nary, he  has-  (ch.  x.  31.)  the  conclufion  of  the  parable, 
*  Many,  who  are  firft,  fliall  be  laft,  and  the  laft  fhall 
be  firfi,'  though  he  has  not  the  parable  itfclf.  Surely 
then  St.  Mark  had  not  accefs  to  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel ; 
for  he  would  then  have  known  the  whole  of  the  narra- 
tion, and  confequently  would  not  have  negleded  to 
relate  the  moft  material  parts  of  it.  If  it  be  objected 
that  St.  Mark,  even  though  he  knew  the  whole  of  what 
had  been  related  by  St.  Matthew,  ch.  xix.  16 — xx.  16. 
might  purpofely  have  omitted  through  motives  of  de- 
licacy what  appeared  to  be  unfavourable  to  St.  Peter, 
I  anfwer,  that  this  was  not  the  ufual  praftice  of  St. 
Mark,  who  has  written  as  freely  of  St.  Peter  as  of  the 
other  Apoftles ;  and  even  if  the  contrary  were  true, 
there  was  no  necefllty  for  fuppreffing  the  narrative  itfelf, 

for 

'  It  might  be  obje(5led  indeed  that  the  whole  paffage  Matth.  xlv. 
28 — 32,  of  which  there  are  no  traces  in  the  other  Evangelifts,  has 
the  appearnnce  of  an  interpolation,  and  therefore  that  this  example 
is  not  decifivei 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel.  11  g 

for  his  objeft  might  have  been  equally  well  attained  by 
fupprefiing  only  the  name,  and  faying  in  general  terms, 
*  one  of  the  difciples.'  Befides,  it  is  evident  from  what 
St.  Mark  has  adually  related,  ch.  x.  28 — 31.  that  he 
had  no  fuch  objeil  in  view :  for,  if  he  had,  he  would 
have  related  ftill  lefs,  and  would  not  have  recorded 
Chrift's  anfwer,  ^  Many,  who  are  firft,  fhall  be  laft,' 
which  applied  immediately  to  St.  Peter.  Want  of  in- 
formation therefore  was  the  caufe,  why  St.  Mark  has 
not  given  the  narrative  complete,  not  a  defigned  fup- 
preflion  of  what  he  really  knew.  Laftly,  St.  Mark's 
imperfect  defcription  of  Chriit's  tranfaftions  with  the 
Apoftles  after  he  was  rifen  from  the  dead  affords  the 
ftrongeft  proof  that  the  contents  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel  were  unknown  to  St.  Mark.  A  very  circum- 
Itantial  defcription  is  given  by  St.  Matthew  of  Chrift's 
converfation  with  the  Apoftles,  on  a  mountain  in  Ga- 
lilee :  yet  St.  Mark,  though  he  had  before  related  that 
Chrift  promifed  his  difciples  that  he  would  go  before 
them  into  Galilee,  has,  in  the  laft  chapter  of  his  Gofpel, 
no  account  whatever  of  Chrift's  appearance  in  Galilee. 
Now,  if  he  had  read  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  this  im- 
portant event  could  not  have  been  unknown  to  him, 
and  confequently  he  would  not  have  negleded  to  record 
it. 

4.  If  St.  Mark  had  had  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  before 
him,  when  he  wrote  his  own,  he  would  certainly  have 
avoided  every  appearance  of  contradidlion  to  the  ac- 
counts given  by  an  Apoftle,  and  an  eye-witnefs.  His 
account  of  the  call  of  Levi,  under  the  very  fame  cir- 
cumftance  as  St.  Matthew  mentions  his  own  call,  whe- 
ther Levi  and  Matthew  be  the  fame  or  different  perfons, 
is  at  leaft  a  variation  from  St.  Matthew's  defcription ; 
and  this  very  variation  would  have  been  avoided,  if  St, 
Mark  had  had  accefs  to  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  The 
fame  may  be  obferved  of  Mark  x.  46.  where  only  one 
blind  man  is  mentioned,  whereas  St.  Matthew  in  the 
parallel  paflage  mentions  two.  In  St.  Mark's  account 
of  St,  Peter's  denial  of  Chrift,  the  very  fame  woman, 

who 


110  Of  St.  Mark's  Gojpel.  chap.  v. 

who  addrefTed  St.  Peter  the  firft  time,  addrelTed  him 
likewife  the  fecond  time,  whereas,  according  to  St. 
Matthew,  he  was  addrefled  by  a  different  perfon :  for 
St.  Mark,  ch.  xiv.  69.  ufes  the  expreffion  k  ■sraJio-xti, 
which,  without  a  violation  of  grammar,  can  be  conftrued 
only  of  the  fame  maid,  who  had  been  mentioned  imme- 
diately before,  whereas  St.  Matthew,  ch.  xxvi.  71.  has 
aKAfi.  Now  let  the  harmonifts  reconcile  thefe  examples 
in  whatever  manner  they  pleafe,  there  will  always  remain 
a  difference  between  the  two  accounts,  which  would 
have  been  avoided,  if  St.  Mark  had  copied  from  St. 
Matthev/.  But  what  fhall  we  fay  of  inftances,  in  which,  , 
as  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge,  there  is  no  mode  of  recon- 
ciliation ?  If  we  compare  Mark  iv.  35.  and  i.  2S'  ^^^^'^ 
Matth.  viii.  28 — 34.  we  fhall  find  not  only  a  difference 
in  the  arrangement  of  the  fads,  but  fuch  a  determina- 
tion of  time  as  renders  a  reconciliation  imprafticable. 
For,  according  to  St.  Matthew,  on  the  day  after  the 
fermon  on  the  mount,  Chrift  entered  into  a  fhip,  and 
crofl^ed  the  lake  of  Gennefareth,  where  he  underwent  a 
violent  tempeft :  but  according  to  St.  Mark,  this  event 
took  place  on  the  day  after  the  fermon  in  parables;  and 
on  the  day,  which  followed  that,  on  which  the  fermon 
on  the  mount  was  delivered,  Chriit  went,  not  to  the 
fea  fide,  but  to  a  defe rt  place,  whence  he  pafled  through 
the  towns  and  villages  of  Galilee''.  Another  mftance, 
in  which  we  fhall  find  it  equally  impra6licable  to  recon- 
cile the  two  Evangelifts,  is  Mark  xi.  28.  compared  with 
Matth.  xxi.  23.  In  both  places  the  Jewifh  priefts  pro- 
pofe  this  queftion  to  Chrift,  iv  sroioi,  s^aa-ioe.  Taura  zsroin?  ; 
alluding  to  his  expulfion  of  the  buyers  and  fellers  from 
the  temple.  But  according  to  what  St.  Mark  had  pre- 
vioufly  related  in  the  fame  chapter,  this  queftion  was 
propofed  on  the  third  day  of  Chrift's  entry  into  Jeru- 
falem,  but  according  to  St.  Matthew  it  was  propofed  on 
the  fecond.  If  St.  Mark  had  copied  from  St.  Matthew, 
this  difference  in  their  accounts  would  hardly  have  taken 
place. 

SECT, 
k  See  above,  Ch.  II.  Seft.  8, 


SECT.  vr.  Of  St,  Mark's  Gofpel,  iii 


SECT.     VI. 

Examination  of  the  quejiion,  whether  St.  Mark  made  tije  of 
St.  Luke's  Go/pel. 


I 


F  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  was  written  whilfl  St.  Peter  was 
in  Rome,  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  muft  have  been  written 
before  that  of  St.  Mark,  and  therefore  it  is  fo  far  pof- 
fible  that  the  latter  copied  from  the  former.  St.  Luke 
came  to  Rome  with  St.  Paul  long  before  the  arrival  of 
St.  Mark,  and  both  his  Gofpel  and  the  Ads  of  the 
Apoftles  had  been  written  before  St.  Mark  arrived. 
When  St.  Paul  wrote  his  Epiftles  to  the  Ephefians, 
Coloffians,  and  Philemon,  they  were  both  of  them  with 
St.  Paul  in  Rome'.  When  St.  Paul  wrote  his  fecond 
Epiflle  to  Timothy,  which  was  written  during  his  le- 
cond  imprifonment  in  Rome,  St.  Luke  alone  was  with 
St.  Paul;  but  St.  Mark,  who  was  then  abfent,  was 
requefted  to  come  to  him".  Now  if  St.  Mark  wrote 
his  Gofpel,  after  St.  Peter's  arrival  in  Rome,  he  muft 
have  written  during  this  fecond  vifit,  for  before  that 
time  St.  Peter  does  not  appear  to  have  been  in  Rome. 
And  as  there  is  a  remarkable  agreement  between  St. 
Mark  and  St.  Luke,  the  fuppolition,  that  the  former 
copied  from  the  latter,  appears  at  firfl  fjght  to  be  very- 
probable. 

But  probable  as  this  fuppofition  may  appear,  we  fhall 
find  on  a  clofer  examination,  that  more  may  be  faid 
againft  it,  than  in  its  favour.  For,  in  the  firft  place, 
if  St.  Mark  had  made  ufe  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  in  the 
compofition  of  his  own,  we  fhould  have  hardly  met 
with  fo  frequent,  and  fo  remarkable  variations  in  their 
accounts  of  the  fame  tranfaiftion.  For  inftance,  ac- 
cording St.  Mark,  ch.  x.  46.    Chrift  reftores  a  blind 

man 


1  See  ColofT.  iv.  10.   14.     Philern,  23,  24. 
*■  See  2  Tim,  iv.  11. 


(t2l  Of  St.  Mark's  Go/pel  chap.  V> 

man  to  fight,  after  his  entry  into  Jericho,  and  he  was 
again  quitting  the  town":    but  according  to  St.  Luke, 
ch.  xviii.  2S'  Chrift  performed  this  miracle,  before  he 
entered  into  Jericho'.     It  may  be  faid  indeed  that  St* 
Mark,  if  he  wrote  under  the  direftion  of  St.  Peter, 
might  tacitly  corred  the  inaccuracies  of  his  predeceflbr: 
and  therefore  that  a  deviation  in  his  defcription  of  a 
faft  from  the  relation  of  St.  Luke  will  not  abfolutely 
prove  that  he  made  no  ufe  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel.     But 
if  this  anfwer  be  admitted  in  refpe6t  to  the  difference  in 
their  accounts,  it  will   be  difficult  to  find  a  fatisfaftory 
rcafon,  why   St.  Mark  totally  omitted  ^o  many  impor- 
tant fadls  recorded  by  St.  Luke,  if  he  really  made  ufe 
of  St.  Lwke's  Gofpel.     Examples  of  this  kind  may  be 
feen  in  the  Table  of  the  Gofpel  hiftory,  ch.  ii.  feft.  7. 
N".  29.  46.  48,  49,  69 — 83.  94,  95:  and  the  fafts  here 
related  by  St.  Luke  are  fo  very  credible,  that  St.  Peter 
could  have  entertained  no  doubt  of  their  truth. 

On  the  other  fide  of  the  ,quefl:ion  it  may  be  urged, 
that  notwithfiianding  the  above-mentioned  variations 
and  omiflions,  the  relation  in  which  St.  Mark  and  St. 
Luke  fi:ood  to  each  other,  render  it  highly  improbable 
that  a  Gofpel  written  by  the  one  fliould  have  remained 
unknown  to  the  other'  :  and  that  St.  Mark's  knowledge 
of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  does  not  necefiirily  imply  that 
they  Ihould  agree  in  every  tittle,  or  that  St,  Mark 
Ihould  never  omit  what  St.  Luke  has  related.  1  have 
fhewn  in  a  preceding  feftion,  that  the  compofition  of 
St.  Mark's  Gofpel  was  occafioned  by  the  requefi:  of  the 
Romans,  who  defired  to  have  a  v/ritten  memorial  of 
what  St.  Peter  had  verbally  taught.  It  may  be  faid 
therefore  that  St.  Mark  ufed  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke, 
but  that  he  retained  only  what  he  had  heard  confirmed 
by  St.  Peter,  and  made  fuch  corrections  and  additions, 
as   were  warranted  by  the  fame   authority.     And  the 

fuppo- 

"  St.  Matthew  fays  the  fame :    but  then  he  mentions  two  blind 
men. 


SECT.  VI r.  Of  St,  Mark's  Gofpel.  ■223 

fuppofition,  that  St.  Mark  ufed  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke, 
accounts  for  the  agreement  of  the  two  Evangeliits  in 
the  arrangement  of  their  fa£ts*. 


SECT.     VII. 

Whether  St.  Mark's  Go/pel  was  written  firfi,  and  ufed  ly 

St.  Luke. 


THIS  hypothefis  hath  been  lately  adopted  by  Dr. 
Storr,  in  his  Eflay  on  the  objeft  of  the  Ev^angclical 
Hillory,  and  the  Epiftles  of  St.  John.  In  the  58th 
and  following  feftions  of  this  work,  he  endeavours  to 
Ihew  that  St.  Mark  wrote  not  only  before  St.  Luke, 
but  foon  after  the  foundation  of  the  Chriftian  church 
at  Antioch,  in  fupport  of  which  opinion  he  appeals  to 
A6ts  xi.  17 — 30.  His  arguments  however  do  not  ren- 
der his  opinion  even  probable,  for  they  are  grounded 
merely  on  the  fuppofed  neceffity  of  a  Gofpel  for  the 
Chriftians  of  that  city,  and  therefore,  as  it  is  contrary 
to  the  accounts  of  ecclefiaftical  writers,  the  opinion  has 
no  foundation.  On  the  fuppofition  that  St.  Mark 
wrote  at  this  early  period.  Dr.  Storr  endeavours  to  ex- 
plain the  agreement  between  the  three  firft  Evangelifts 
by  affuming  that  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  was  ufed  both  by 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  But  their  agreement  may 
be  explained,  without  fuppofing  an  immediate  con- 
nexion between  them:  on  which  fubjcd  I  (hall  fay 
more  in  the  fifth  volume  of  the  New  Oriental  and  Exe- 
getical  Library ' , 


SECT. 


224  Of  St,  Mark's  Go/pel.  chap,  r^ 

SECT.     VIII. 

St.  Mark  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Greek. 

THE  Greek  language  was  more  common  In  Romcj 
in  the  age  of  the  Apoftles,  than  the  French  lan- 
guage is  at  prefcnt  in  Germany :  as  appears  from  the 
familiar  Letters  of  Auguftus,  which  are  for  the  mod 
part,  either  written  in  Greek,  or  are  interfperfed  with 
Greek  phrafes.  The  Jews  efpecially,  who  refided  in 
Rome,  underftood  Greek,  for  they  came  out  of  coun- 
tries, where  Greek  was  the  current  language  ;  and  they 
read  the  Old  Teftament,  not  in  a  Latin  tranflation, 
which  at  that  time  did  not  exill,  but  in  the  Greek 
verfion.  No  language  therefore  was  more  fuitable  to 
the  necefTity  of  the  times,  .and  therefore  St.  Mark 
would  probably  have  preferred  it,  even  if  he  had  been 
able  to  write  both  languages  with  equal  cafe.  But  we 
have  no  reafon  to  fuppofe,  that  he  was  fufficiently 
mafter  of  the  Latin  to  be  able  to  write  it. 

Some  modern  critics  however,  efpecially  Baronius, 
have  alTcrted,  that  St.  Mark  really  compofed  his  Gofpel 
in  Latin,  an  affertion,  which  not  only  contradids  hif- 
torical  evidence,  but  is  in  itfelf  almoft  incredible ;  for, 
as  the  Latin  church  from  the  earlieft  ages  of  Chriftia- 
nity  was  in  a  very  flourifhing  Hate,  and  the  Latin  lan- 
guage fpread  itfelf  throughout  the  whole  Roman  em- 
pire, the  Latin  original  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel,  if  fuch 
an  original  ever  exifted,  could  not  have  been  neglected 
in  fuch  a  manner,  as  that  no  copy  of  it  fliould  defcend 
to  pofterityp.  It  is  true  that  in  the  fubfcription  to  St. 
Mark's  Gofpel  in  the  Syriac  verfion,  it  is  faid  that  St. 

Mark 

P  Whoever  wlfhes  to  be  acquainted  with  the  hlftory  of  this  con- 
troverfy,  may  confult  Simon  Hift.  Crit.  du  Texte  du  N.  T.  ch.  xi, 
Maii  Examen  hiftorijecriticse,  cap.  xi.  Schroederi  difTert.  de  lingua 
Marci  authentica,  and  the  Letter  which  Baumgarten  annexed  to  his 
ViudiciK  textas  Grsci  N.T,  contra  Harduinum, 


SECT.  viir.  Of  St.  Mark's  Gojpel,  225 

Mark  wrote  in  the  Romifh,  that  is,  the  Latin  lan- 
guage "^ :  but  fubfcriptions  of  this  kind  are  of  no  autho- 
rity whatfoever,  for  no  one  knows  from  whom  they 
proceeded,  and  fome  of  them  contain  the  moft  glaring 
errors.  Befides  as  the  Syriac  verfion  was  made  in  the 
Eaft,  and  taken  immediately  from  the  Greek,  no  one 
can  appeal  to  a  Syriac  fubfcription,  in  regard  to  the 
languao-e  in  which  St.  Mark  wrote  in  Rome. 

The  advocates  for  a  Latin  original  of  St.  Mark's 
Gofpel  have  appealed  to  a  Latin  manufcript  in  the 
library  of  St.  Mark  at  Venice,  which  they  faid  the 
Evangelilt  wrote  with  his  own  hand.  Thou2;h  this 
affertion  was  not  only  incapable  of  proof,  but  like  other 
ftories  of  ancient  relics  favoured  ilrongly  of  the  fabu- 
lous, yet  during  fome  time  it  was  difficult  to  give  a 
pofitive  proof  of  its  falfity  :  for  the  dampnefs  of  the 
place,  in  which  the  manufcript  was  kept,  had  very  for- 
tunately for  the  admirers  of  this  treafure,  fo  materially- 
injured  it,  as  to  have  rendered  it  almoft  illegible. 
Hence  Miflfon  contended  that  it  was  written  in  Greek, 
for  he  fancied  that  he  had  difcovered  in  it  the  letters 
A  and  X,  and  in  one  paflage  the  whole  word  KATA. 
But  about  forty  years  ago,  Laurentius  a  Turre,  in  a 
Letter  publifhed  in  Blanchini  Evangeliarum  Quadru- 
plcx,  P.  ii.  p,  543.  threw  a  new  and  unexpetled  light 
on  this  obfcure  fubje<51:.  From  this  Letter  it  appears 
that  the  manufcript  in  queftion  was  brought  to  Venice 
from  Friuli  (Forum  Julii),  where  a  very  ancient  Latin 
manufcript   containing   the   Gofpels   of   St.   Matthew, 

St. 

<J     The      Syriac      fubfcription     to     St.     Mark's     Gofpel      h, 

j^ooij.ri.  A.*j:s:ooi;.  In  the  Philoxenian  verlion  is  an  addition 
to  this  fubfcription:  for  A_.|iDOoi;  (Romifh)  is  explained  by 
A4'^^^2>ol,  that  is,  Frankifh.  From  this  explanation  it  is  ob- 
vious, how  very  modern  the  fubfcription  is  in  the  Philoxenian 
veriion. 

Vol.  m.  P 


0.l6  Of  Sl  Mark's  Go/pel.  chap.  v. 

St.  Luke  and  St.  John  is  flill  preferved'.  That  this 
manufcript  once  contained  likewife  the  Gofpel  of  St. 
Mark  is  certain,  becaul'e  at  the  end  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel  is  written,  Expficit  Evangelium  fecundum  Mat- 
thaeum,  incipit  fecundum  Marcum :  and  that  the  Ve- 
nice manufcript  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  formerly  made  a 
part  of  the  Friuli  manufcript  appears  from  the  follow- 
ing circumftances.  In  the  year  1534,  the  emperor 
Charles  IV.  brought  with  him  from  Aquileia,  where 
the  MS.  was  then  preferved,  the  two  lail  quaternions, 
or  the  fixteen  laft  leaves  of  a  Latin  manufcript  of  St, 
Mark's  Gofpel.  This  fragment  is  now  at  Prague,  and 
has  been  lately  publilhed  by  Dobrowfl-iy,  under  the 
title  Fragmentum  Pragenfe  Evangelii  S.  Marci  vulgo 
autograph! '.  That  the  manufcript  now  in  Friuli  is  no 
other  than  the  MS.  which  in  the  time  of  Charles  IV. 
was  in  Aquileia,  appears  from  a  comparifon  of  it  with 
the  fragment  in  Prague,  for  they  are  written  in  the  very 
fame  hand,  on  the  fame  vellum,  and  in  each  page  is 
precifely  nineteen  lines.  And  that  the  Venetian  manu- 
fcript is  the  remaining  part  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  which 
fails  in  the  Friuli  manufcript,  appears  firft  from  its 
having  been  fent  from  Friuli  to  Venice  in  the  year  1420, 
as  a  prefent  to  the  doge  Macenico,  and  fecondly  from 
its  containing  the  firft  five  quaternions  of  St.  Mark's 
Gofpel,  of  which  the  Prague  fragment  contains  the  two 
]aft\  The  pretended  autograph  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel 
therefore  is  nothing  more  than  a  fragment  of  the  Friuli 
manufcript  publifhed  by  Blanchini,  and  confequently 
contains  only  a  part  of  the  Latin  tranflacion  \ 

No 

*  Blanchini  has  printed  this  MS.  which  is  called  Codex  Faro- 
Julianus,  letter  for  letter. 

»  Whoever  wifhes  for  more  information  on  this  fubjeft  muft  con- 
/ult  the  above-quoted  work  of  Debrowfky. 

*  Blanchini  has  given  a  copper-plate  reprefenting  the  letters  of  this 
jnaRufcript,  from  which  we  perceive  the  caufe  of  Miifon's  millake. 
A  he  miflook  for  A,  and  E  for  Z :  and  the  imaginary  word  KATA 
was  nothing  more  than  the  fecond,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  letters  of 
IBATAUTiiM  \ 


SECT.  viir.  of  Si.  Mark's  Gofpeh  22^ 

No  writer  of  the  New  Teftament  has  neglefted  ele- 
gance of  expreffion,  and  purity  of  language,  more  than 
St.  Mark.  The  word  £u9£w?  occurs  inceflantly,  and  he 
abounds  likewife  with  numerous  and  harfh  Hebraifms, 
Yet  his  Gofpel  is  very  valuable,  becaufe  it  contains  fe- 
Vera]  important  though  ihort  additions  to  the  accounts 
given  by  St.  Matthew.  For  inftance,  the  anfwer  of 
Chrift,  which  St.  Matthew  has  recorded,  ch.  xii.  48 — 
50.  would  be  thought  very  extraordinary,  unlefs  we 
knew  what  St.  Mark  has  related,  ch.  iii.  21. :  but  from 
this  paflage  we  clearly  perceive  the  reafon  of  Chrift's 
anfwer.  Sometimes  he  has  additions,  which  more 
clearly  afcertain  the  time,  in  wliich  the  events  happened, 
as  in  ch.  iv.  35.  vi.  i,  2.  It  is  therefore  unjuft  to  fup- 
pofe  that  St.  Mark  negledled  the  order  of  time  more 
than  the  other  Evangelifls,  and  ftill  more  io^  to  reje6t 
his  arrangement  for  that  of  St:  Matthew  or  St.  Luke, 
in  places  where  the  time  is  pofitively  determined  by  St» 
Mark  \ 


P  2  CHAP. 


aaS  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  chap.  vi. 


CHAP.    VI. 

OF  ST.  Luke's  gospel. 

SECT.     I. 

Of  the  life  and  character  of  St.  Luke. 

THE  Evangelift  St.  Luke "  appears  from  CololT.  iv. 
lo,  II.  14.  to  have  been  by  birth  a  heathen'  :  and 
therefore  he  was  neither  one  of  the  feventy  difciples, 

nor 

*  Inftead  of  Lucas,  fome  old  Latin  MSS.  have  Lufanus. 

»  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epiftle  to  the  Coloffians,  ch.  iv.   10,  11,  fays, 

BapvciQa,,  'mt^i  a  aXaSsTE  £^To^«s•  tctn  eA0;'5  -sj^o?  vi/,a,<;,  Se^xczBi  ocvToV 
xai  I>7C7«?  0  ^syof^Evo?  Isfo?,  o»  onii  ik  -CTEftTtitAH!?.  OfTo*  /xovoi  ervH^yoi 
iK;  Tnv  ^uaty^iiccv  fn  ©in.  Ver.  1 2,  13.  St.  Paul  makes  mention  of 
Epaphras,  and  ver.  14.  adds  AaTmCircci  vfxcci;  Aa^a?  0  tar^o?  0  ayx- 
9ry,To?,  y.a.1  Avf^ici^.  Here  then  the  Apoftle  diftinguifhes  Ariftarchus, 
Marcus,  and  Jefus  the  Juft,  from  Epaphras,  Lucas,  and  Demas,  faying 
exprefsly  of  the  three  firft,  that  they  were  of  the  circumcifion  :  we 
may  conclude  therefore  that  the  three  laft  were  not  of  the  circumci- 
fion. Further,  as  St.  Paul  immediately  after  o»  otrs?  ck  •ete^ito//.*)? 
adds  aroi  uosoi  ffwi^yot  ei;  rr.v  ^u.r7\Ki\a.)i  ra  ©eh,  and  it  cannot  be 
fuppofed  that  he  meant  to  exclude  St.  Luke  from  the  number  of  his 
fallow- labourers,  the  words  f/Mo*  avneyli  can  have  no  other  meaning 
than  *  my  only  fellow-labourer.^  of  the  circumcifion.'  Confcquently 
St.  Luke  as  well  as  Demas  and  Epaphras,  were  among  St.  Paul's 
fellow-labourers,  who  were  not  of  the  circumcifion.  1  admit  how- 
ever that  this  induftion  is  not  fo  declfive,  as  to  lead  to  an  abfolute 
certainty;  and  therefore  if  llronger  arguments  can  be  produced  in 
favour  of  the  opinion,  that  St.  Luke  was  by  birth  a  Jew,  the  pre- 
ceding inference  will  not  be  valid.  Now  that  St.  Luke  was  really  a 
Jew,  Dr.  Lardner  in  the  Supplement  to  his  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel 
Hiftory,  Vol.  L  p.  236.  has  endeavoured  to  fhew  by  the  two  fol- 
lowing arguments.  I.  '  That,  as  St.  Luke  conftantly  attended  St. 
Paul,  the  Jews,  efpecially  at  jerafalem,  would  have  reproached  the 
Apoftle,  if  his  companion  had  been  an  uncircumcifed  Gentile,  but 
that  we  no  where  find  an  account  of  any  fuch  reproaches  having  been 
made  him.  2.  That  St.  Luke  follows  the  Jewifti  computation  of 
time^  and  mentions  the  Jewilh  feltivals,  as  in  Afts  xii.  3.  xx.  6.  16. 

xxvii. 


SECT.  I.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  219 

nor  an  eye-witnefs  of  the  anions  of  Chrlft,  to  which 
indeed  he  lays  no  claim,  laying  only  that  he  would 
write  according  to  the  beft  information  he  could  pro- 
cure, ■nr«flvixoXa6»)xw?  xvoi^iv  zjocViV  ax^iSwf.       From  Col.  iv, 

14.  we  find  that  he  was  a  phyfician,  on  which  fubjecl 
Claufewitz  has  written  a  Ihort  treatife  entitled,  De  Luca 
Evangelifta  medico.  Heumann  was  formerly  of  opinion 
that  Luke  the  phyfician  mentioned  Col.  iv.  14.  was  not 
Luke  the  Evangelift:  but  he  afterwards  revoked  it, 
and  in  his  Notes  to  A6ts  xiii.  i.  and  Col.  iv.  14.  has 
fhewn  that  they  were  one  and  the  fame  perfon. 

The  two  circumftances,  that  St.  Luke  was  not  a 
Jew,  at  lead  not  by  birth  and  education,  and  that  his 
profeflion  was  that  of  a  phyfician,  have  had  fome  in- 
fluence on  his  mode  of  writing  and  the  choice  of  his 
expreffions.  For  inftance,  the  word  J'ai/otoi/ioj',  which 
the  other  Evanglifts  ufe,  without  any  epithet,  to  de- 
note an  evil  fpirit,  appears  to  have  been  underftood  by 
St.  Luke,  as  it  was  underftood  by  the  pure  Greek 
writers,  namely  as  denoting  either  a  good  or  an  e-vil 
fpirit:  for  at  ch.  iv.  23'  where  he  ufes  ^xi^onioy  for  the 
firft  time,  he  explains  it  by  the  epithet  axaQa^roi/ '.  The 
lake  of  Gennefareth,  which  the  other  Evangelifts,  ac- 
cording to  the  ufual  mode   of  expreflion    among  the 

Jews 

xxvii.  9.'  But  the  firfl:  argument,  though  fpecious,  is  not  declfive, 
becaufe  it  depends  merely  on  the  filence  of  our  hiftorian,  who  was  {o 
free  from  egotifm,  that  he  has  very  feldom  related  what  concerned 
himfelf,  even  where  the  relation  would  be  of  fome  importance :  for 
inftance,  his  ftay  at  Philippi,  of  which  I  fhall  take  notice  in  the  next 
feftion.  Nor  does  the  other  argument  prove  that  St.  Luke  was  a  Jew  ; 
for  an  heathen  hiftorian,  who  underftood  the  Jewifti  cuftoms,  would 
accommodate  his  relation  to  the  Jewifti  mode  of  reckoning,  in  de- 
fcribing  St.  Paul's  tranfadlions  with  the  jews. 

Some  writers  have  related  that  St.  Luke  was  a  native  of  Antiochj 
others  that  he  was  originally  a  flave,  others  again  that  he  was  by 
profeflion  a  painter.  Thefe  reports,  which  are  very  uncertain,  the 
reader  will  find  examined  by  Lardner,  whofe  opinion  of  them  is  per- 
feftly  juft.  Laftly,  fome  authors  may  have  fuppofed  that  St,  Luke 
was  one  of  the  two  difciples,  whom  Chrift  met  on  the  road  to  Em^. 
maus ;  a  fuppofition,  which  Lardner  thinks  not  improbable, 

P  J 


©3^  Of  St.  Luke's  Gojpel  chap.  vi. 

Jews  and  Syrians,  called  3-aAao-<r«,  is  termed  by  St. 
Luke,  ch.  V.  I,  2.  viii.  22,  23.  very  properly  Xiiavv\, 
In  ch.  iv.  38.  he  terms  the  fever,  with  which  St.  Peter's 
mother-in-law  was  afflicted,  z^v^i-roq  [t.iyoi^^  on  which 
cxpreflion  Wetftein's  Note  may  be  confulted.  The 
phrafe  t^x-vav  -nixi^av  ocyn  uled  by  St.  Luke,  ch.  xxiv. 
21.  occurs  particularly  in  the  writings  of  Galen*.  In 
defcribing  the  blindnefs  of  Elymas,  A6ls  xiii.  1 1 .  which 
was  to  laft  only  for  a  time,  he  ufes  the  proper  word 
a;)^Au?,  on  which  Kypke  may  be  confulted.  In  general, 
he  wrote  much  better  Greek,  than  the  other  Evangelifts, 
efpecially  in  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles,  of  which  I  fhaU 
give  examples  in  a  following  feftion. 

That  St.  Luke  accompanied  St.  Paul  to  Rome,  and 
remained  with  him  there  during  fomc  time,  we  learn 
from  A61-S  xxviii.  13—16.  Col.  iv.  14.  and  Philem.  24, 
From  Rome  he  is  faid  to  have  travelled  into  Africa, 
and  to  have  preached  the  Gofpel  in  Egypt,  a  fubjeft 
which  will  be  confidered  hereafter. 


SECT.    II. 

Examination  of  the  queflton,  whether  St.  Luke's  Gojpel, 
though  it  contains  upon  the  whole  a  very  credible  hijloryy 
is  perfe^ly  free  from  inaccuracies, 

ST.  LUKE'S  intercourfe  with  the  Apoftles,  and 
other  eye-witnefies  to  the  tranfadions  of  Chrift, 
render  him  a  very  credible  hiftorian,  as  he  affures  us, 
that  he  has  diligendy^  inquired  into  the  whole  hiftory, 
and  traced  up  the  feveral  fadls  to  the  fountain  head  ^, 
But  the  diligence  with  which  he  inftituted  his  inquiries 
did  not  neceflarily  exempt  him  from  the  danger  of 
making  feme  few  miftakes,  unlefs  he  wrote  under  the 

influence 


SECT.  II.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  231 

influence  of  divine  infpiration.  Now  St.  Luke  him- 
felf  not  only  lays  no  claim  to  fupernatural  afllftance, 
but  on  the  contrary  grounds  the  fidelity  of  his  hiftory 
merely  on  the  accuracy  of  his  own  refearches.  I  have 
already  fhewn  in  the  firft  volume  of  this  Introdu6lion  % 
that  inftead  of  being  lofers  we  fhould  be  real  gainers, 
if  we  confidered  St.  Luke  as  a  mere  human  hiilorian, 
becaufe  the  objedions  which  have  been  made  to  the 
contradidions  in  the  Gofpels,  afFed;  St.  Luke  more 
than  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John.  He  was  neither  an 
Apoftle  nor  an  eye-witnefs  to  the  fa6ls,  which  he  has 
recorded  in  his  Gofpel,  and  therefore  when  he  differs 
from  an  Apoftle  and  eye-witnefs,  we  muft  conclude, 
fince  two  accounts  which  vary  from  each  other  cannot 
both  of  them  be  accurate,  that  the  inaccuracy  is  on  the 
part  of  St.  Luke. 

In  ch.  xviii.  2>S-  ^^'  Luke  relates  that  Chrifl  reftored 
a  blind  man  to  fight,  as  he  was  approaching  toward 
Jericho :  whereas  both  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  re- 
late, that  this  miracle  was  performed  after  Chrift's  de- 
parture from  Jericho.  His  account  of  the  fpices  pre- 
pared by  the  women  for  the  embalming  of  the  body  of 
Chrifl,  cji.  xxiii.  56.  and  their  bringing  thefe  fpices  to 
the  grave,  ch.  xxiv.  i.  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impofTible, 
to  reconcile  with  what  St.  John  has  related  on  this  ac- 
cafion^.  In  the  fhort  extraft  which  St.  Luke  has  given 
from  the  fermon  on  the  mount,  he  has  inverted  one 
of  the  precepts  delivered  by  Chrift.  According  to 
Matth.   V.   40.    Chrift  gave   the   following   command, 

Toj  ^iKovli   <roi   xfl»G»)i'Q:»,    xat    y^iloovcx,  cs  AaSf*f,    aipgf  aujw  xai 

TO  ifxoiliov :  but  on  the  contrary  in  St.  Luke's  Gofpel, 
ch.  vi.  29,  the  command  is  given  thus :  Atto  tb  ai^o^I^v 
CH  TO  iiA.a\iov  Koct  Toi/  p^tTwt/a  ur\  yi(juXv(Tvg.  To  thofc  who  are 
unacquainted  with  the  Jewilh  laws^  the  form  in  which 

St. 


»  Ch.  III.  fed.  3. 

faid  on  thi 

*,4 


^  See  what  I  have  faid  on  this  fubjed  in  my  HiHory  of  the  Refur« 
redion'. 


23^  Of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel.  chap.  vf. 

St.  Luke  has  recorded  this  precept,  will  appear  to  be 
the  moft  natural,  becaufe  an  outward  garment  (ijM.a7toi/) 
muft  be  taken  off  before  the  under  garment  {x'^'^^)- 
But  Chrift  alluded  in  this  inftance  to  a  Jewifii  law, 
according  to  which  a  creditor  could  fummon  a  debtor 
before  a  court  of  juftice,  and  if  he  were  unable  to  pay, 
could  claim  from  him  his  under  garment:  but  the  out- 
ward garment  was  facred,  and  could  not  be  feized,  even 
if  the  wearer  had  pledged  it  as  furety  for  a  debt^  The 
meaning  therefore  of  the  precept,  as  recorded  by  St. 
Matthew,  is  this  :  that  if  any  one  has  a  claim  upon  us, 
we  fhould  rather  give  up  even  more  than  the  laws  re- 
quire, than  difpute  that,  which  can  with  juftice  be 
demanded.  This  is  a  very  rational  precept :  but  in  the 
form  in  which  St.  Luke  has  delivered  it,  and  in  the 
connexion  in  which  he  has  related  it,  the  precept  im- 
plies that  not  even  robbers  ought  to  be  refifted,  and 
hence  objedions  have  been  made  to  the  Chriflian  re- 
ligion. But  the  objeftions  will  ccafe  to  be  of  weight, 
if  we  admit,  that  St.  Luke  mifunderftood  the  precept*. 
According  to  the  relation  of  St.  Matthew,  ch.  xviii. 
21,  2  2.  when  St.  Peter  demanded  of  Chrift  how  often 
he  fhould  forgive  his  brother,  who  offended  him,  whe- 
ther feven  times,  he  received  for  anfwer  '  feventy  times 
feven' :  by  which  Chrift  intended  to  fay  in  general 
terms,  that  we  fhould  be  ready  at  all  times  to  be  re- 
conciled with  thofe,  who  had  offended  us.  But  St. 
Luke,  ch.  xvii.  j,  4.  has  recorded  the  precept  in  the 
following  manner :  '  If  he  trefpafs  againft  thee  feven 
times  in  a  day,  and  feven  times  in  a  day  turn  again  to 
thee,  faying,  I  repent,  thou  fhak  forgive  him.'  Now 
feven,  it  is  true,  is  much  lefs  than  feventy  times  feven, 
but  the  addition  of  *  in  a  day,'  increafes  the  force  of 
the  exprcffion  in  fuch  a  manner  as  to  produce  a  very 
incomprehenfible  doctrine.  For,  if  a  man  offend  me 
ftwtn  times  a  day,  and  com.es  to  me  each  time  to  fay  that 
he  repents,  how  is  it  poffible  that  his  repentance  fhould 

be 

t  Mofaic  Law,  Vol.  III.  feft.  J50.  No.  i,  and  Exod.  xxil.  25,  26. 


SECT.  ir.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  233 

be  fincere,  when  he  continually  repeats  the  offence  in 
the  very  fame  day  ?  The  addition  therefore  of  mg  niM^a^ 
is  certainly  without  authority,  and  St.  Luke  rauft  have 
derived  his  information  in  this  inftance,  not  from  the 
Apoftles,  but  from,  one  of  thole  apocryphal  Gofpels, 
of  which  he  fpeaks  in  his  preface  ^  Again,  the  account 
which  St.  Luke  has  given,  ch.  xix.  13.  of  the  fum  of 
money,  which  a  certain  prince  entruftcd  to  ten  of  his 
fubjeftsj  to  be  employed  on  intereft  during  his  abfence, 
appears  to  be  not  perfectly  accurate.  This  fum,  ac- 
cording to  St.  Luke,  v/as  ten  Minas.  Now  the  Attic 
Mina,  according  to  Eifenfchmidt,  was  fifteen  ounces 
Cologne  weight;  in  filver  therefore  it  was  two  and  twenty 
rix-dollars,  and  in  gold  between  an  hundred  and  twenty- 
four  and  an  hundred  and  twenty-five  ducats.  The 
whole  treafure  was  at  the  utmoft  twelve  hundred  and 
fifty  ducats.  Even  if  we  underftood  the  Hebrew 
Mina,  which,  according  to  Eifenfchmidt,  was  one 
pound  thirteen  ounces,  and  reckon  the  Mina  in  gold, 
the  whole  fum  will  not  exceed  two  thoufand  four  hun- 
dred and  fifty  ducats :  which  is  really  defpicable,  con- 
fidered  as  a  royal  treailire  in  the  Eall,  and  in  tjie  age  of 
the  wealthy  Herods,  from  whofe  hiflory  the  whole  pa- 
rable was  borrowed.  A  fimilar  parable  is  related  by 
St.  Matthew,  ch.  xxv.  14.  not  of  a  fovereign,  but  of  a 
private  man  :  and  even  this  perfon  delivers  to  one  of 
his  fervants  only  not  kfs  than  five  talents.  The  word 
fAvoi  therefore,  ufcd  by  St.  Luke  muft  be  a  miftake, 
v/hich  probably  arofe  in  the  following  manner.  The 
Hebrew  word  H^Q,  if  pointed  H^!^  fignifies  *  a  portion' 
or  '  part,'  but  if  pointed  HJD,  it  fignifies  *  a  Mina.* 
Chrift  probably  ufed  the  word  in  the  former  fenfe,  and 
meant  to  fay,  that  the  king  delivered  to  ten  of  his  fub- 
jefts  the  ten  portions  of  his  treafure.  It  ought  there- 
fore to  have  been  rendered  by  /^s^©^:  but  in  confequence 
of  a  wrong  punftuationj  it  was  improperly  rendered  by 

SECT. 


SJ4  Of  St.  Luke^s  GoffcK  chap.  vr» 


SECT.    III. 

Whether  St.  Luke  is  thejame  perfon  as  Lucius  mentioned 
A5ls  xiii.  I.  Rom.  xvi.  21. 

DR.  HEUMANN  in  his  Note  to  Afts  xiii.  i.  has 
endeavoured  by  feveral  very  probable  arguments 
to  fhew  that  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  who  is  called  a  prophet, 
A6ls  xiii.  I.  and  who  is  mentioned  by  St.  Paul,  Rom. 
xvi.  21.  is  no  other  than  the  EvangeHfl;  St.  Luke. 
Lardner**  is  inclined  to  adopt  the  fame  opinion,  and 
Wetftein  fays  in  pofitive  terms,  that  Lucas  and  Lucius 
are  only  different  names  of  the  fame  perfon.  If  this 
opinion  were  founded  on  fad,  we  fhould  derive  from  it 
material  advantages:  for  we  ihould  not  only  acquire  a 
more  complete  knowledge  of  our  Evangelift,  but  might 
afcribe  to  him,  without  fcruple,  divine  infpiration,  be- 
caufe  Lucius  of  Cyrene  is  exprefsly  called  a  prophet, 
and  is  faid  to  have  been  feleded,  under  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  Apoftle  St.  Paul  to  the  mi- 
niftry ". 

But  there  lie  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  opinion, 
which  appear  to  me  to  be  infurmountable.  That 
Lucius  was  a  Jew*^,  but  St,  Luke  an  heathen  by  birth, 
is  an  argument  on  which  I  will  not  infift,  becaufe  the 
dedudtion,  by  which  St.  Luke's  heathen  origin  is  fhewn, 
is  not  abfolutely  decifive^.  The  material  objedion  is 
the  following.  St.  Paul  wrote  his  Epiftle  to  the  Ro- 
mans 


*  Supplement  to  the  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory,  Vol.  1. 
p.  250:  Lardner  likewife  obferves  that  fome  entertained  this  opinion 
as  long  ago  as  the  time  of  Origen. 

*  Afts  xiii.  I,  2. 

'  Lvicius  was  certainly  a  Jew,  becaufe  St,  Paul  calls  him  ffvyym^, 
Rom.  xvi.  21. 

t  See  the  firft  feftion  of  this  chapter.  Note  x. 


SECT.  III.  Of  St,  Luke's  Gojpel.  235 

mans  from  Corinth,  and  Lucius  was  with  him  at  that 
time,  for  St,  Paul  fends  a  falutation  from  Lucius ^ 
Confequently  if  Lucas  and  Lucius  are  one  and  the  fame 
perfon,  the  author  of  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles  muft 
have  been  with  St,  Paul  at  Corinth,  when  the  Epiftle 
to  the  Romans  was  written.  But,  if  we  attend  to  the 
mode  of  writing  in  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles,  we  fhall 
perceive  that  the  author  of  this  book  was  not  at  that 
time  in  Corinth.  He  begins  to  fpeak  in  the  firft  per- 
fon at  ch,  xvi.  10.  *  JVe  endeavoured  to  go  into  Ma- 
cedonia.' He  was  therefore  at  that  time  in  company 
with  St.  Paul:  and  from  ver.  12.  where  he  llkev^^ife 
ipeaks  in  the  firft  perfon.  It  appears  that  they  arrived 
together  at  Philippi.  In  the  laft  verfe  of  the  fame 
chapter,  he  mentions  St.  Paul's  departure  from  Phi- 
lippi j  and  in  this  verfe,  and  likewife  in  the  following 
chapters,  he  fpeaks  of  St.  Paul  and  his  companions  in 
the  third  perfon :  *  Now  when  they  had  pafled  through 
Amphipolis*,  &c.  Confequently  he^  ftaid  behind  at 
Philippi,  for  if  he  had  accompanied  St.  Paul  to  Corinth, 
he  would  not  have  altered  his  mode  of  writing.  The 
third  perfon  continues  as  far  as  Acts  xx.  ^6.  where  the 
firft  perfon  is  again  ufed :  '  Thefe  going  before  tarried 
for  us  at  Troas,  and  we  failed  away  from  Philippi,  &c. 
Hence  we  perceive  that  the  author  of  the  Ads  of  the 
Apoftles  remained  at  Philippi  (probably  with  a  view  of 
edifying  the  newly  founded  community),  during  the 
whole  of  St.  Paul's  travels,  which  are  defcribed  in  the 
feventeenth,  eighteenth,  and  nineteenth  chapters,  and 
that  they  again  joined  company  in  the  fame  city.  But 
it  was  in  this  interval  that  St.  Paul  wrote  his  Epiftle  to 
the  Romans  from  Corinth :  and  therefore  the  author 
of  the  A6ls  was  not  with  St.  Paul  when  he  "wrote  that 
Epiftle.  Confequently  he  was  not  the  fame  perfon 
with  Lucius,  who  is  mentioned  Rom.  xvi.  21.  If,  in 
order  to  evade  this  argument,  it  be  objeded,  that  the 
Lucius  of  Cyrene,  whom  we  find  at  Antioch,  A6ls  xiii. 
I.  may  be  a  different  perfon  from  the  Lucius,  who  was 

with 
^  Rom.  xvi.  21.  i  Afts  xvii.  i. 


2.^6  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  chap.  vi. 

with  St.  Paul  at  Corinth,  and  therefore  that  the  Evan" 
gelift  St.  L>uke,  though  he  cannot  be  the  fame  with 
the  latter,  may  yet  be  the  fame  with  the  former,  I 
anfwer  that  if  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  who  was  with  St. 
Paul  at  Antioch,  had  been  the  author  of  the  A<5ls,  he 
would  have  fpoken  in  the  firft  perfon  in  defcribing  the 
tranfadlion  at  Antioch,  ch.  xiii.  i — 3.  and  would  have 
faid,  ver.  3.  '  w^  fent  them  away,'  not  '  they  fent  them 
away.'  Befides,  the  name  of  Lucius  flands  before  that 
of  St.  Paul,  A6i:s  xiii.  i.  an  arrangement  v/hich  is  in- 
compatible with  St.  Luke's  modefty,  if  he  himfelf  were 
Lucius,  for  he  would  then  have  placed  his  own  name 
before  that  of  an  Apoftle'. 


SECT.    IV. 


Of  the  perfon  of  Theophiius,  to  whom  St.  Luke  addrejfed 
his  writings  K 

THAT  the  word  Bio<piXo<i  is  not  an  appellative,  but 
a  proper  name,  appears  from  the  addition  of  the 
title  ji^altrof.  But  who  this  perfon  was,  it  is  at  pre- 
fent  difficult  to  determine.  That  he  was  a  man  of 
rank  appears  from  the  title,  which  St.  Luke  has  given 
him :  for  in  the  Adls  of  the  Apoftles,  ch.  xxiii.  16. 
xxiv.  3.  xxvi.  26.  this  title  is  applied  to  the  Roman 
Governors  of  J  udsa,  Felix  and  Feftus.  On  the  other 
hand  it  was  not  confined  to  men  of  this  elevated  ila- 
tion,  but  was  appHed  in  the  Eaft  to  perlbns  in  general, 
whofe  rank  and  office  entitled  them  to  refped.  The 
word  was  adopted  in  the  Palmy rene  Syriac,  for  there 
are  three  Palmyrene  infcriptions,  in  each  of  which  a 
certain  Epitropus  and  Ducenarius  is  entitled  t£o.^i»k^p, 
that  is,  K^alifo-.  This  title  therefore  determines  no 
particular  rank,  and  Oecumenius  was  certainly  miftaken, 
in  faying  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Atfts  of  the  Apof- 
tles, that  St.  Luke's  Theophilus  was  a  Roman  Gover- 
nor, 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  ±^y 

nor,  bccaiife  Felix  and  Feftus  had  the  fame  title,  for 
Theophilus  is  neither  a  Latin  name,  nor  does  it  ever 
occur  in  the  Roman  hiftory,  as  the  name  of  the  governor 
of  a  province. 

That  Theophilus  was  not  a  Chriftian,  but  either 
a  Jew  or  an  Heathen,  when  St.  Luke  addrefled  his 
Gofpel  to  him,  I  think  not  improbable,  becaufe  St. 
Luke  in  his  preface  ufes  the  word  xocjn^n^rgj  from  which 
it  appears  that  Theophilus  had  then  a  very  imperfect 
knowledge  of  the  hiftory  of  Chrift* :  and  the  expref- 
fion  ufed  by  St.  Luke  ver.  i.  '  among  us,'  that  is, 
'  among  us  Chriflians,'  feems  to  imply  that  Theophilus 
was  at  that  time  not  of  the  number  ^ 

It  would  be  tedious  and  even  ufelefs  to  relate  the 
various  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  relative  to  the  cha- 
rafler  and  refidence  of  Theophilus:  for  they  are  in 
general  mere  conjeftures  unfupported  by  hiftorical  evi- 
dence ''.  And  it  is  the  lefs  neceflary  in  this  Introduc- 
tion, becaufe  whatever  has  been  advanced  on  this 
fubjedl',  as  well  in  ancient  as  in  modern  times,  the 
reader  will  find  examined  at  full  length  in  the  fourth 
volume  of  the  Bibliotheca  Bremenfis.  I  will  therefore 
content  myfelf  at  prefent  with  dating  the  refult  of  the 
inquiries  inflituted  in  that  work.  The  firft  diflertation 
on  Theophilus  has  Dr.  Heumann  for  its  author',  who 
contends  that  this  perfon  was  an  Heathen :  but  he 
argues  chiefly  from  the  word  v.^alir'^,  which  as  he  fup- 
pofes,  not  only  implies  a  Roman  governor,  but  one 
who  had  not  embraced  Chriftianity,  becaufe  the  Romans 
would  not  have  entruftcd  the  government  of  a  .pro- 
vince to  a  Chriftian.  But  tJiis  argument  is  wholly  in- 
conclulive:  for  the  title  K^alir®^,  as  I  have  already 
fliewn,  was  not  confined  to  governors  of  provinces, 
and  it  might  have  been  applied  to  men  of  rank  among 

the 

^  Some  have  fuppofed  that  he  lived  at  Antioch,  others  that  he  lived 
at  Alexandria;  and  Alexander  Morus  conjedured  that  he  lived  at 
Athens,  becaufe  Tacitus  (Annal.  Lib.  II.  55.)  mentions  a  perfon  of 
this  name  who  was  convided  at  Athens  of  a  forgery. 

1  Bibl.  Eremens.  Clafs  IV.  Fafcic.  III.  Dillert.  3. 


238  Of  St.  Luke's  Gcfpet.  chap,  vn 

the  Jews^  for  inftance  to  fuch  a  perfon  as  Nicodemus. 
Nor  is  it  by  any  means  certain  that  a  Roman  governor 
would  have  been  deprived  of  his  office  for  embracing 
Chriftianity:  for  the  Romans  were  ai  that  time  not 
inclined  to  perfecution,  but  tolerated  the  Chriftiaa 
like  every  other  religion,  and  Sergius  Paulus,  governor 
of  Cyprus,  made  no  fcruple  to  embrace  Chriftianity™. 
The  title  xoaljr©-*  therefore  determines  no  more  in 
favour  of  Heathenifm,  than  of  Judaifm,  or  of  Chrif- 
tianity. 

The  fecond  diflertation  on  this  fubjeft  was  written 
by  Theodore  Hafe",  who  contends  that  Theophilus 
was  formerly,  though  not  when  St.  Luke  addreffed 
his  Gofpel  to  him,  a  Jewifli  High  Prieft.  The  argu- 
ments advanced  in  favour  of  this  opinion  are  fo  ftrong, 
as  to  render  it  more  probable  than  any  other.  That 
a  perfon  of  the  name  of  Theophilus  once  executed  the 
office  of  High  Prieft,  appears  from  the  Antiquides  of 
Jofephus".  He  was  fon  of  Annas'',  who  was  High 
Prieft  in  the  year  in  which  Chrift  was  crucified :  and 
was  himfelf  nominated  High  Prieft  by  the  Roman 
Governor  Vitellius,  in  the  place  of  his  brother  Jona- 
than, whom  Vitellius  depofed''.  This  office  Theo- 
philus held  till  Agrippa  was  appointed  King  of  Judsea, 
who  depofed  him  and  made  Simon  Cantheras  High 
Prieft.  Agrippa  foon  after  difpoileffed  Cantheras  of 
the  High  Priefthood,  and  offered  it  again  to  Jonathan ; 
but  he  refufed  it,  and  recommehded  his  brother  Mat- 
thias, who  was  accepted  '.  After  feveral  changes  in  the 
Priefthood,  v*/hich  are  of  no  importance  in  the  prcfent 
inquiry,  another  fon  of  Annas,  named  Ananus,  was 
appointed  High  Prieft :  fo  that  Theophilus  had  not 
only  himfeif  prefided  over  the  Jewifti  church,  but  had 

three 

■  Afts  xili.  4.  7.  12. 

«  Bibl.  Brem.  Clafs.  IV.  Fafclc.  III.  Dlflert.  3, 

9  Antiq.  Lib.  XVIII.  XIX.  XX. 

9  Antiq.  Lib.  XIX.  6.  2-. 

s  Antiq.  XVIIJ.  5.  3.  '  Antiq.  XIX.  6.  4* 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel .  239 

three  brothers  who  had  likewife  executed  that  office. 
Ladiy,  his  own  fon  Matthias  was  nominated  High 
Priefl  in  the  place  of  Jefus  the  fon  of  Gamaliel :  and 
it  was  during  the  Priefthood  of  Matthias,  that  the 
Jewilli  war  commenced'.  Theophilus  therefore,  though 
no  longer  High  Prieft,  when  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gof- 
pel,  yet,  as  he  had  formerly  held  that  office,  and 
moreover  had  brothers  and  a  fon  for  his  fuccefTors, 
he  was  certainly  of  fufficicnt  rank  to  be  entitled  to 
the  appellation  of  x^altr*^.  It  is  therefore  not  impof- 
fible  that  this  perf  )n  is  the  Theophilus,  to  whom  St. 
Luke  addreifed  his  Gofpel,  which  muft  then  be  con- 
fidered  as  an  hiftorical  apology  for  the  Chriftian  reli- 
gion, addreffed  to  one  of  the  heads  of  the  Jewifh 
nation.  Further,  Ananus,  the  brother  of  Theophilus, 
was  in  the  Priefthood  after  the  death  of  the  Procurator 
Feftus:  confequently  Theophilus  himfelf  might  have 
been  alive,  not  only  when  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel, 
but  likewife  when  he  wrote  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles. 
Laftly,  when  we  take  into  confideration  that  this  Theo- 
philus is  the  only  perfon  of  that  name,  whofe  hifborjr 
is  recorded  in  the  annals  of  the  firfb  century  j  the  pof- 
fibility  that  he  is  the  fame  with  St.  Luke's  Theophilus 
becomes  a  probability. 

That  St.  Luke  addreffed  his  Gofpel  to  one  of  the 
heads  of  the  Jewifh  church  agrees  likewife  extremely 
well  with  the  opinion,  that  he  wrote  it  in  Palefline 
during  the  time  St.  Paul  was  prifoner  at  Casfarea. 
He  had  then  the  very  beft  opportunity  of  tracing  up 
the  hiftory  of  Chrift  to  the  fountain  head,  agreeably  to 
what  he  himfelf  fays  in  his  Preface  :  and,  as  the  pro- 
pagation of  the  new  religion  engaged  at  that  time  the 
particular  attention  of  the  leading  men  among  the 
Jews  ^  there  could  not  be  a  fitter  opportunity  for  pre- 
fenting  to  a  perfon,  who  had  once  executed  the  im- 
portant office  of  High  Prieft,  an  authentic  narrative  of 
the  miracles  and  refurredlion  of  Chrift,  in  vindication 

of 

•  Antiq.  XX.  9.  I.  7.  ^  See  Ads  xxv.  13. — xxvi.  32. 


240  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.        -  chap.  v*. 

of  thofe,  who  had  embraced  his  doftrines.  Nor  is  it 
improbable  that  St.  Luke's  narrative  jQiould  have  pro- 
duced fuch  an  cffeft  on  the  mind  of  this  perfon,  as 
to  induce  him  to  requeft  from  the  fame  author  a  fur- 
ther account  of  the  Chriftians,  efpecially  of  St.  Paul, 
who  was  then  prifoner  in  Cjefarea,  which  occafioned 
the  compofition  of  St.  Luke's  fecond  work,  the  Afts 
of  the  Apoftles.  All  thefe  ctrcumftances  put  together 
render  the  opinion  highly  probable,  that  St.  Luke's 
Theophilus  is  no  other  than  Theophilus  the  fon  of 
Annas,  who  is  mentioned  by  Jofephus.  And  if  the 
opinion  be  true,  as  I  really  believe,  it  adds  greatly  to 
the  credibility  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel ;  for  the  Evangelift 
would  hardly  have  ventured  to  dedicate  to  the  fon  of 
that  very  Annas,  who  was  High  Prieft,  when  Chrift: 
was  crucified,  a  narrative  of  fads  performed  in  Palcf- 
tine,  unlefs  he  had  been  able  to  warrant  their  truth. 

The  third  differtation  on  St.  Luke's  Theophilus,  m 
the  Bibliotheca  Bremenfis",  was  written  by  James  Hafe, 
brother  of  Theodore.  This  writer  fuppofes  that  St. 
Luke's  Theophilus  was  a  Jewifh  convert  in  Alexandria, 
and  moreover  the  firft  who  embraced  Chriflianity  irt 
that  city.  In  favour  of  this  opinion  he  produces  the 
authority  of  Bar  Bahlul,  a  Syrian  lexicographer  of  the 
tenth  century,  who  is  quoted  in  Catleili  Lexicon 
Heptaglotton,  pag.  3859,  under  the  article  \\-»-^o\L 
Theophilus.  The  words  of  Bar  Bahlul,  in  Caftell's 
Latin  tranflation  are,  '  Theophilus,  primus  credentium 
et  celeberrimus  apud  Alexandrienfes,  qui  cum  aliis 
iEgyptiis  S.  Lucam  rogabat,  ut  eis  Evangelium  fcri- 
beret.'  But  an  affertion  made  by  a  writer  of  the  tenth 
century  relative  to  what  happened  in  the  firft  century 
cannot  be  confidered  as  hiftorical  evidence,  when  his 
aflertion  is  not  fupported  by  any  preceding  authority. 
And  in  the  prefent  inftance  I  have  no  doubt  that  the 
aflertion  is  nothing  more  than  a  conjedure  of  Bar 
Bahlul  founded  on  the  common  belief  of  the  Syrians 
relative  to  the  place  where  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel. 

In 
»  Clafs.  IV.  Fafc.  VI.  DifT.  4. 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  241 

In  the  fuperfcription  to  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  in  the  Syriac 
verfion  it  is  faid  that  St.  Luke  wrote  and  preached  his 
Gofpel  at  Alexandria'' :  hence  Bar  Bahlul  concluded 
that  the  perfon  to  whom  he  addrefled  it  muft  have  been 
an  inhabitant  of  Alexandria.  Further,  the  author  of 
the  differtation  in  queftion  appears  to  be  of  opinion  ^y 
though  he  has  not  pofitively  advanced  it,  that  St. 
Luke's  Theophilus  was  no  other  than  the  celebrated 
Alexandrian  Jew,  Philo.  But  if  Philo  and  Theophilus 
were  one  and  the  fame  perfon,  which  is  in  itfelf  very 
improbable,  the  Alexandrine  Fathers  Clement  and 
Origen  muft  certainly  have  known  it,  and  confequently 
would  not  have  failed  to  relate  it.  Befides,  as  Philo, 
in  the  account  of  his  embaffy  to  the  emperor  Caius 
Caligula,  calls  himfelf  at  that  time  an  old  man%  it  is 
not  very  probable  that  he  was  alive,  when  the  Ads  of 
the  Apoftles  were  written,  which  extend  as  far  as  the 
end  of  the  fecond  year  of  St.  Paul's  imprifonment  in 
Rome,  under  the  emperor  Nero,  and  therefore  muft 
have  been  written  more  than  twenty  years  after  the 
embafly  of  Philo, 


SECT.     V. 

Of  the  time  when  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gcfpet. 

^'^HE  time  when,  as  well  as  the  place  where,  St. 
.     Luke's  Gofpel  was  written,  is  wholly  uncertain  ', 
Lardner,  in  the  firft-  volume  of  his  Supplement  *  to  the 
^  Credibility 

"  Ebed  Jefu  fays  the  fame.  See  Affemani  Bib.  Orient.  Tom.  Ill; 
P-  1-  P-  9- 

y  His  own  words,  p.  1077.  are,  Equidem  et  ipfe  ille  Philo  inter 
fuos  gefllt  nomen  nn'T,  feu  Jedidsei,  hoc  eft  0£o(ptAa,  quod  ipfe  in 
Philonis  Graxum  ex  more  turn  temporis  folemni  commutavit.  He- 
braeo  enim  hoc  et  nativo  nomine  Philojiem  citat  Jedidsi  Alexandrini 
R.  Azarias  in  Meor  Enajim,  cap.  32. 

*  In  the  beginning  of  his  work  entitled,  De  legatione  ad  Caium, 
»  Chao.  VIII.  Sea.  4,  5,  6. 
Vol.'  III.  Ct 


242  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  chap.  vf. 

Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiftoiy,   has  examined  the 
various  opinions  on  this  fubjeftj  and  very  clearly  fhewn 
the  miftakes,  which  had  been  made  by  his  predeceflbrs : 
bur,  as  it  often  happens  in   dubious  cafes,  the  opinion 
which  he  himfelf  defends  is  equally  liable  to  objedlion. 
All  that  we  can  affirm  with  certainty  is,  that  St.  Luke 
wrote  his  Gofpel   before  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  and 
that  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles  were  not  written  before 
the  end  of  the  fecond  year  of  St.  Paul's  imprifonment 
in  Rome.     But  of  the  interval  which  elapfed,  between 
the  compofition  of  the  former  and  that  of  the  latter, 
we   have   no  knowledge  ;    nor   are   there   any  internal 
marks,  either  in  the  Gofpel  or  in  the  A6ls,  by  which 
we  can  determine  whether  the  interval  was  long  or  fliort. 
It  is  indeed  the  commonly  received  opinion,  and  Lard- 
ner   has  adopted  it,    that  St.  Luke  wrote  his   Gofpel 
not  long  before  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles ;  but  this  is 
mere  conje6ture,  for  thougli  it  is  very  pofiible  that  the 
former  was  written  fo  late  as  the  very  year  in  which 
the  latter  was  written,  yet  it  is  equally  poflible  that  it 
was  written  ten  years  before.     One  of  the  reafons  which 
Lardner  afllgns'',  namely,  that  St.  Luke^s  Gofpel  con- 
tains a  more  complete  view  of  the   Gofpel  difpenfation, 
than  could   have    been    expeded  from  a   perfon  who 
wrote  only  a  few  years  after  the  afcenfion,   is  wholly 
foreign  to  the  purpofe.     If  the   queftion  related  to  the 
work  of  an  impoftor,  who  invented   ftories  and   doc- 
trines in  order  to  deceive   the  world  and   introduce   a 
falfe  religion,  the  argument  would  be  valid  :  for  when 
a  writer  exhibits  a  fi6lion,  and  produces  merely  a  work 
of  his  own   invention,  he  cannot  eafily  afcribe   to  his 
pretended  prophet  a  kt  of  dodrines,  with  which  he 
himfelf  was   unacquainted.      But  it  is  wholly  inappli- 
cable to  the  Evangelifts,  who  have  recorded  a  feries 
of  do6trines,    not  of  their  own  difcovery,  but   which 
had  been  aflually  delivered  by  Chrift  :  and  therefore^ 
whether  they  fully  underftood  the   Gofpel  difpenfation 
or  not,  when  they  wrote  their  hiftories,  it  was  furely 

in 
t-  Chap.  VIII.  Sea.  5.. 


SECT.  V,  Of  Sf.  Luke's  Go/peL  243 

in  their  power  to  record,  as  true  and  faithful  difciples, 
v/hat  had  been  taught  by  their  Lord  and  Mailer. 
Lardner's  other  argument,  namely,  that  feveral  hiftories 
of  Chrift  had  been  written  before  St,  Luke  wrote  his 
Gofpel,  as  the  EvangeHfl  himfelf  fays  in  the  Preface, 
is  more  to  the  purpofe,  but  equally  indecifive.  For  we 
are  wholly  ignorant  of  the  time  in  which  the  hiftories, 
to  which  St.  Luke  alludes  were  written,  and  there- 
fore we  cannot  argue  from  them  to  the  time,  when 
St»  Luke  himfelf  wrote.  Lardner  indeed  fays,  *  It 
cannot  be  reafonably  thought,  that  many  fhould  have 
written  hiftories  of  Jefus  Chrift  prefently  after  his  af- 
cenfion,  nor  indeed  till  many  years  after  it.'  But  if 
we  argue  from  mere  probability  we  may  with  equal 
reafon  fuppofe  that  fome  accounts  at  leaft  were  com- 
mitted to  writing  foon  after  the  afcenfion.  In  faft  we 
cannot  conclude  either  one  way  or  the  other  with  any 
certainty,  and  the  probability  or  improbability,  which 
we  find  in  the  cafe  itfelf,  depends  chiefly  on  the  opi- 
nion, which  we  have  already  embraced.  If  we  argue 
from  analogy,  the  inference  will  be  equally  uncertain  ; 
for  fome  hiftories  are  written  foon  after  the  events, 
which  are  recorded,  though  other  events  of  equal  im- 
portance are  not  committed  to  writing,  till  long  after 
they  had  happened.  For  inftance,  Charles  XII.  of 
Sweden  had  a  biographer  in  Voltaire,  within  a  few 
years  after  his  death,  whereas  the  life  of  Guftavus 
Adolphus  has  been  defcribed  by  no  hiftorian  l^efore  the 
prefcnt  age. 

St.  Luke's  Gofpel  therefore,  for  ought  we  know, 
may  have  been  written  many  years  before  the  A6ls  of 
the  Apoftles  :  and  confequently  the  opinion  of  Theo- 
dore Hafe,  which  I  noticed  in  the  preceding  fedion, 
that  it  was  written  in  Paleftine,  before  St.  Paul  was 
fent  prifoner  from  Ctefarea  to  RomiC,  may  very  poffibly 
be  true^     Nay  it  is  poffible  that  St.  Luke  wrote  before 

St. 

«  The  fubfcription  to  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  in  fome  Greek  manu- 
fcripts  quoted  by  Wetltein  imports  that  it  was  written  only  fifteen 
years  after  the  afcenfion. 

0^2 


(i44  Q/"  ^^-  Luke's  Go/pet.  chap,  vi, 

St.  Matthew;  for,  though  I  would  not  undertake  to 
prove  that  he  did,  I  fliould  find  it  difficult  to  prove 
that  he  did  not.  It  is  true  that  according  to  the  com- 
mon arrangement  of  the  four  Gofpels,  that  of  St. 
Luke  is  placed  after  that  of  St.  Matthew :  but  we 
cannot  argue  from  their  pofition  to  the  time  in  which 
they  were  written.  Nor  do  all  the  manufcripts  agree  in 
the  arrangement  of  the  Gofpels :  for  there  are  fome, 
cfpecially  Latin  manufcripts,  in  which  St.  John's  Gof- 
pel  is  placed  before  that  of  St.  Matthew,  though  it  is 
certain  that  St.  John's  Gofpel  was  written  laft  *.  It  is 
therefore  not  improbable  that  the  ccmmon  arrangement 
of  the  three  firft  Gofpels  was  grounded  not  on  the 
time  when  they  were  written,  but  on  the  different  de- 
grees of  dignity  of  their  refpcftive  authors.  St.  Mat- 
thew had  the  firft  rank,  becaufe  he  was  an  Apoftle, 
and  St.  Mark  the  fecond  rank,  becaufe  he  had  not 
only  been  a  companion  of  St.  Peter,  but  had  likewife 
attended  St.  Paul,  before  St.  Luke  attended  him.  Yet 
St.  Mark,  if  he  wrote  his  Gofpel  after  St.  Peter  was  in. 
Rome,  wrote  certainly  later  than  St.  Luke.  The  only 
Gofpel  of  which  we  can  pofitively  affirm  that  its  ufual 
pofition  correfponds  to  the  time  of  its  compofition  is 
that  of  St.  John  :  but  as  in  feveral  manufcripts  this 
Gofpel  has  a  different  pofition,  we.  fee  that  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  Gofpels  leads  to  no  conclufion  what- 
foever. 

That  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  was  really  written  before 
that  of  St.  Matthew  has  been  afferted  by  feveral  com- 
mentators, in  confequence  of  what  St.  Luke  fays  in  his 
preface  ^  Macknight  efpecially  has  devoted  to  this 
fubjeft  a  great  part  of  his  feventh  Preliminary  Diflerta- 
tion%  and  in  addition  to  the  argument  deduced  from 
St.  Luke's  preface,  has  drawn  a  conclufion  in  favour 

of 

^  Beza  obferves  in  a  Note  to  Luke  i.  i — 4.  Forfitan  tx  hoc  loco 
utcunque  colligi  poflet,  Lucam  ante  Matthsum  quoque  et  Marcuia 
hanc  fuam  hilloriam  edidi/Te. 

«  Prefixed  to  his  Harmony  of  the  Gofpels.  The  edition  whicK  i 
quote  is  that  of  1763. 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel.  245 

of  the  early  compofition  of  this  Gofpel  from  a  paflage 
in  St.  Paul's  fecond  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians*',  where 
St.  Paul  fays,  '  We  have  fent  with  him  the  brother 
whofe  praifc  is  in  the  Gofpel  throughout  all  the 
churches.'  That  this  brother  was  St.  Luke,  Mack- 
night  thinks  highly  probable,  and  quotes  in  favour  of 
tins  interpretation  the  authority  of  Origen,  Jerom^, 
and  the  interpolator  of  Ignatius,  who  explains  the 
paflage  in  the  fame  manner.  But  if  we  admit  that  St. 
Luke  was  the  brother  whom  St.  Paul  fent,  yet  the 
word  '  Gofpel'  in  this  pafl^age  ought  not  to  be  ex- 
plained of  St.  Luke's  written  Gofpel :  the  word  ivay^ 
yihiou  in  the  writings  of  the  Apoftles  and  Evangelifls 
denotes  '  the  glad  tidings  of  the  Chriftian  religion,'  or 
*  the  preaching  of  Chriftianity  in  general,'  and  it  was 
not  till  after  their  time,  that  it  acquired  the  fcnfc  of  a 
'  written  narrative  of  the  life  of  Chrifl.' 

Bifhop  Pearce  has  ufed  another  argument  in  favour 
of  the  early  compofition  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  which 
he  has  deduced  from  ch.  i.  5.  where  St.  Luke,  fpeak- 
ing  of  Herod  the  Great,  calls  him  fimply  Herod  the 
King  of  Jud^a,  without  the  addition  of  an  epithet  to 
diftinguifh  him  from  the  Herod,  who  is  mentioned 
A6ls  xii.  I.  and  who  was  likewifc  King  of  Jud^a. 
Hence  Pearce  concludes  that,  St.  Luke  wrote  his 
Gofpel  before  the  fecond  Herod  King  of  Judsea  had 
begun  to  reign.  But  this  inference  is  not  valid,  for 
St.  Luke  in  fpeaking  of  the  fecond  Herod  A6ls  xii,  i. 
calls  him  fimply  Herod  the  King,  as  he  had  named 
his  grandfather  the  firft  Herod,  and  therefore  if  Pearce's 
argument  proved  any  thing  it  would  prove  too  much. 
Befides,  it  v/as  not  the  pracStice  of  the  ancient  hifto- 
rians  to  dirtinguifh  princes  of  the  fame  name  by  the 
addition  of  '  the  firit,'  '  the  fecond,'  and  fo  on,  as  is 
cuftomary   in   modern  ages :    they  left  the  reader  to 

judge 

f  Ch.  VIII.  18. 

5  The  words  of  Jerom  are  :  Hoc  de  Luca  intelligitur,  qui  laudenst 
in  Eyangdio  confcribendo  videtur  habere  p;£  cseteris* 

^3 


24^  Of  St.  Luke's  Gcfpel.  chap.  vi.  . 

judge  from  the  context,  and  in  the  cafe  in  queftion 
St.  Luke  could  have  no  reafon  whatfoever  for  making 
an  exception,  fince  none  of  his  readers  could  fuppofe 
that  the  Herod,  under  whofe  reign  Chrift  was  born,  was 
any  other  than  Herod  the  Great. 

But  whether  St.   Luke   wrote  before    St.   Matthew 
and  St.  Mark  or  not,  it   is  evident  that  he   had  not 
feen  their  Gofpels,  when  he  wrote  his  own.     For  the 
*  many'  of  whom  he  fpeaks,  ch.  i.  i.  cannot  poffibly 
be  confined  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  alone  :  con- 
fequently,    they   mud  be  either   included  among   the 
many  or  not  meant  at  all.      But  we  cannot  fuppofe 
that  St.  Luke  would  place  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew 
and   St.  Mark  on  a  level    with   apocryphal  Gofpels, 
■which  flood  in  need  of  corre6lion.     Further,  St.  Luke 
fpeaks  of   the    authors  of  thefe   Gofpels,    as  if   they 
themfelves  were   not  eye-witnefles  of  the   fads  which 
they  had  recorded,  and  therefore  at  any  rate  he  could 
not  have  St.  Matthew  in  view.      Nor  would  he  have 
negledled  ver«  3.  where  he  declares  that  he  had  traced 
lip  the  hiftory  of  Chrift  to  the  fountain  head,  to  have 
quoted   the   authority  of  St.  Matthew  who   was   both 
Apoftle  and  eye-witnefs,  if  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew 
had   been   known   to    him.       Laftly,   he    would    have 
avoided  in  that  cafe  every  appearance  of  contradiction, 
and    the    variations   which   we   find    between   the   two 
Gofpels,    would    hardly   have    taken    place.      For   in-^ 
ftance,  if  he   had  ever  ^cfin.   the   Genealogy  of  Chrift, 
which  is   given  in  the   firft  chapter  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel,  he  would  not  have  given  another  Genealogy, 
which  appears  fo  very  different  from  the  former,  with- 
out  giving  fome  intimation   of  the   manner,  in  which 
they  may  be  reconciled.     At  ch.  v.  12,   St.  Luke  de- 
fcribing  the  cure  of  the  leper,  fays,  Eytviro  iv  tu  uvoh 
avTov  IV  |u.<»  rov  -cs-oXiUiv ;  the  name  of  the  city  therefore, 
in  which  the  miracle  was  performed,  was  unknown  to 
him,  or  he  would  not  have  expreffed  himfelf  in  fo  in- 
determinate a  manner.     But  this  could  not  have  been 
unknown  to  him,  if  he  had  read  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel, 

where 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  247 

where  we  fee  from  ch.  viii.  i — 5.  that  the  name  of  the 
city  was  Capernaum.      At  ch.  vi.  17.  he  would  either 
have  avoided  the  apparent  contradi6tion  to  Match,  v.  i. 
or  would  have  introduced  an  explanation,   to  Ihew  that 
the  accounts  were   confident.     Again,  at  ch.  viii.  22. 
he  would  not  have  written   eyivsro  lu  fji.i»  rm  ti/Af^wi/,  if 
he  had  read   what  St.   Mark   has  written  ch.  iv.  32., 
where    it  appears  that  the   faft   in   queftion  happened 
on  i\\Qfa7ne  day,  as  that  which  he  had   before  related. 
At  ch.  xxii.  58.  defcribing  St,  Peter's  denial  of  Chrift, 
he  fays  of  the  perfon  who  addrefled  St.  Peter  the  fecond 
time,  in^oq  Jwv  auTo^,  whereas  it  appears  from  the  re- 
lation both  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,    that  St. 
Peter  was  addreffed  both  times  by    a   maid  fervant. 
Now,  though  it  muft  be  admitted  that  the  word  £T£f  0? 
~  may   be  taken  indefinitely   to  denote  either  a  man  or 
a  maid  fervant,  becaufe  we  generally  ufe  the  mafculine 
gender  when  the  fex  is  not  particularly  diftinguilhed, 
yet  on  the   other  hand,  as  this  laft  mode   of  fpeaking 
ufually  takes  place  in  thofc  cafes  only,  where  the  fex  is 
unknown  to  us,  it  follows  that  St,  Luke  was  uncertain 
whether  the  perfon,  who  addreffed  St.  Peter  the  fecond 
time,  was  a  male  or  a   female,  and  confequently  that 
he  had  not  read  the   accounts  of  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark. 

So  far  then  is  certain  that  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew, 
as  well  as  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark,  was  unknown  to 
St.  Luke,  when  he  wrote  his  own.  Moreover  it  is 
certain  on  other  accounts  that  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  did 
not  exift  at  that  time  :  but  whether  St.  Luke's  want  of 
knowledge  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  warrant  the  con- 
clufion  that  he  wrote  likewife  before  St.  Matthew  will 
depend  on  the  decifion  of  the  queflion,  where  St. 
Luke's  Gofpel  was  written.  If  it  was  written  either 
in  Afia  Minor,  or  in  Greece,  before  St,  Luke  ac- 
companied St.  Paul  to  Jerufalem,  it  is  very  poffible 
that  a  Hebrew  Gofpel  written  in  Paleftine,  might  re- 
main unknown  to  him :  and  therefore  in  that  cafe 
we  cannot  argue  from  his  want   of  .knowledge  of  it 

<i.4  tQ 


248  Of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel.  chap,  vi' 

to  its  noh-exiftence.  But  if  it  was  written  after  the 
time  that  St.  Luke  had  been  with  St.  Paul  in  Jeru- 
falem,  whether  in  Paleftine  or  in  Rome  we  muft  con- 
clude that  when  St.  Luke  embarked  with  St.  Paul  at 
Casfarea  to  go  to  Rome,  St.  Matthev/'s  Gofpel  had 
not  been  compofed.  For  if  it  had,  it  could  hardly 
have  efcaped  the  notice  of  St.  Luke,  who  fpent  fome 
time  in  Jerufalem,  was  two  years  either  in  C'a?farea 
or  its  neighbourhood,  and  made  every  where  the  moft 
diligent  inquiries  relative  to  the  hiftory  of  Chrill. 
The  queftion  therefore,  whether  St.  Luke  wrote  before 
St.  Matthev/  or  not,  depends  entirely  on  the  place  where 
he  wrote,  which  fhall  be  the  fubjed:  of  inquiry  in  the 
next  fedion. 


SECT.     VI. 


Of  the,  various  of  inions  relative  to  the  place  where  St.  Luke 
wrote  his  Gcjpel. 

NOT  lefs  than  nine  different  opinions  have  been 
advanced,  either  in  ancient  or  in  modern  times, 
refpefting  the  place  where  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel. 
They  are  as  foliov/s.  i.  That  he  wrote  his  Gofpel  at 
Antioch.  1.  At  Troas.  3.  At  Alexandria  in  Kgypt, 
before  hp  joined  company  with  St.  Paul.  4.  In  Bithy- 
nia.  5.  In  Macedonia.  6.  In  Achaia.  7.  In  Palef- 
tine. 8.  At  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  after  he  had  left 
St.  Paul.  9.  At  Thebes  in  Egypt '.  According  to 
the  four  firft  opinions,  he  muft  have  written  before  he 
began  to  travel  with  St.  Paul*"  :    according  to  the  five 

laft, 

''  St.  Luke  in  his  account  of  Cjirifl's  Refurreftion  has  omitted  cir- 
cumftances  noted  by  St.  Paul,  for  inftance,  that  Chrift  appeared  to 
five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  i  Cor.  xv.  6.  This  favours  the  fup- 
pofition  that  St.  1-uke  wrote  his  Gofpel  before  he  was  acquaint<;J 
with  iit.  Paul.     On  the  other  hand  he  fometimes  ufes  peculiar  expref- 

fions. 


SECT.  VI.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  249 

iaft,  at  a  later  period.  Each  opinion  fhall  be  examined 
in  order. 

I.  That  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  at  Antioch,  has 
not  been  afTerted,  as  far  as  I  recoiled;,  in  pofitive 
terms,  but  is  only  implied  in  the  notion  that  Theophi- 
lus,  to  whom  St.  Luke  addrefled  it,  was  bifhop  of 
that  city.  Now  that  this  notion  is  erroneous  every 
one  at  prefent  will  allow ',  and  confequently  the  in- 
ference deduced  from  it  falls  of  itfelf  to  the  ground. 
If  Lucas,  and  Lucius  mentioned  xiii.  i,  were  the  fame 
perfon,  it  would  follow  that  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  might 
have  been  written  at  Antioch  j  but  as  the  identity  of 
Lucas  and  Lucius  is  incapable  of  proof,  we  have  no 
ground  even  for  a  conjedture  that  it  was  written  in 
that  city. 

1.  The;  opinion  that  St.  Luke  wrote  at  Troas,  in 
the  Trojan  diftrift  of  Afia  Minor,  is  grounded  on  the 
fuperfcription  to  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  which  is  found  in 
the  Syriac  verfion,  and  the  fubfcription  to  feveral  Greek 
manufcripts  ^  For  the  city  of  Troas  was  properly  called 
Alexandria  Troas,  and  in  the  fuperfcription  and  fub- 
fcription juft  mentioned,  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  is  faid  to 
have  been  written  at  Alexandria.  It  is  true  that  the 
epithet  there  annexed  to  Alexandria,  which  in  the 
Syriac  is  l^^^  and  in  the  Greek  p.f-yaXjj,  is  unfavour- 
able to  the  interpretation  Alexandria  Troas,  becaufe 
the  title  of  *  the  Great'  was  particularly  applied  to 
Alexandria  in  Egypt.  If  therefore  this  epithet  is  not 
an  addition  of  later  ages,  but  ftood  there  from  the 
very  beginning,  the  author  of  it  cannot  have  meant 
Alexandria  Troas,   and  the  interpretation  in  queftion 

muft 

lions,  which  he  appears  to  have  learnt  from  St.  Paul :  for  inftance, 
iv.y.a.y.i\v,  ch.  xviii.  3.  See  Vol.  I.  Ch.  iv.  Sedl.  8.  But  neither  of 
thefe  arguments  is  deciiive. 

*  The  miftake  probably  arofe  from  a  confufion  of  St.  Luke's 
Theophilus  with  the  Theophilus  who  was  Biihop  of  Antioch  in  the 
fecond  century. 

^  See  the  end  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  in  Mill's  and  WetHein's  edition. 


2^0  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  chap.  vr. 

miift  be  falfe.  But  it  is  really  not  improbable  that  the 
epithet  is  fpurious*.  Alexandria  Troas  is  the  place 
where  St.  Paul  firll  met  with  St.  Luke  ',  where  they 
joined  company,  and  whence  they  travelled  together 
into  Macedonia.  When  therefore  it  is  faid  that  St. 
Luke  wrote  at  Alexandria,  one  might  fuppofe  that  the 
Alexandria,  where  according  to  his  own  account  he 
had  adually  been,  and ,.  not  the  Egyptian  Alexandria 
was  meant  by  the  author  of  the  above  fubfcription. 
Further  the  year  afllgned  in  the  fame  fubfcription  to 
the  time  when  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  was  written,  favours 
this  interpretation  :  for  it  is  there  faid  to  have  been 
written  in  the  fifteenth  year  after  Chrift's  afcenfion, 
and  it  was  either  at  the  end  of  the  fame,  or  at  the 
beginning  of  the  following  year,  that  St.  Paul  arrived 
at  Troas  ^ 

3.  The  third  opinion  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel 
at  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  but  before  he  joined  company 
with  St.  Paul,  is  grounded  likewife  on  the  fubfcription 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  article.  According  to  this 
opinion,  the  word  [/.cyoiXnj  is  taken  for  genuine,  and 
confequently  the  Egyptian  Alexandria  is  fuppofed  to 
have  been  meant.  Further  as  according  to  the  fame 
fubfcription,  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  the  fifteenth 
year  after  the  afcenfion,  and  the  commencement  of  his 
travels  with  St.  Paul  took  place  fhortly  after  that  period, 
it  is  inferred  that  his  vifit  to  Alexandria  in  Egypt 
muft  have  happened  before  the  joining  company  with 
St.  Paul™.  But  as  we  have  no  hiftorical  account  what- 
foever  of  any  vifit  made  by  St.  Luke  in  Egypt,  the 
opinion  refts  on  a  very  unftable  foundation. 

4.  That 

*  This  appears  from  St.  Luke's  mode  of  narration.  For  at  A£ls 
xvi.  8.  he  relates  the  arrival  of  St.  Paul  and  his  companions  at  Troas 
in  the  third  perfon  ;  i/jey  came  to  Troas.  But  the  departure  from 
Troas,  ver.  10.  is  related  in  the  firft  perfon  :  <we  endeavoured  to  go 
into  Macedonia. 

•"  Bar  Bahlul,  mentioned  in  the  4th  Seftion  of  this  Chapter,  who 
makes  Theophilus  the  firft  Chriftian  in  Alexandriaj  argued  probably 
ill  this  manner  from  the  Syriac  fubfcription* 


SECT.  VI.  Of  St.  Luke's  Gojpel.  25 1 

4.  That  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Bithynia  has 
not  been  afferted  by  any  modern  writers  j  but  the  opi- 
nion is  mentioned  by  Jerom   in  the  Prologue  to  his 
Expofition  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,    not  indeed  ac- 
cording to  the  reading  of  the  common  editions,   but 
according  to  the  reading  of  feveral  manufcripts.     The 
common  printed  text  of  the  paflage,  to  which  I  allude, 
is  :  Tertius  Lucas,  medicus,  natione  Syrus,  Antiochen- 
fis,    cujus    laus   in  evangelio,    qui  et    ipfe    difcipulus 
Apoftoli  Pauli,  in  Achai^e  Baoti^cque  partibus  volumen 
condidit :    but  Martianay  in  a  marginal  note   obferves, 
that  feveral  manufcripts  inftead  of  B^eoti^que  read  Bi- 
thyni^que.       Now   as   Bithynia  was   not  only    no  part 
of  the  Roman  province  of  Achaia,  but  lay  at  a  con- 
fiderable  diftance  from  it,    Jerom  could  not  poffibly 
have  related  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Golpel  in  Achaia 
and  Bithynia :    and  therefore,  if  Bithynis  is  the   ge- 
nuine reading,    que  muft  be   a  miftake  in  the  manu- 
fcripts for  1;^,  and  Jerom  mufb  have  written  in  Achaia 
Bithyni^'ve  partibus.     According  to  this  reprefentation 
he   will   have   reported  two  different  opinions  relative 
to  the  place  where  St.  Luke  wrote,  without  deciding  in 
favour  of  either  of  them.      That   Bithyniave  was  the 
original  reading,  that  Bithyniaque  arofe  from  it  through 
the   miftake  of  a  copyift,  and  that  Baotiaque  was  the 
refult  of  a  critical  conje6lure,    founded   partly  on  the 
obfcurity  of  the  reading  Bithyniaque,  and  partly  on  the 
legend  that  the  grave  of  St.  Luke  was  difcovered  in 
B^otia,  I  will  not  pofidvely  alTert.     But  this  at  leaft 
is  certain  that  Bithynia,  a  country  not  very  far  diftant 
from  Troas,    is  a  much   more  probable   place  for  the 
compofition  of   St.  Luke's  Gofpel   than  Bsotia,    as  I 
fball  fhew   in  the  examination    of  the   fixth    opinion. 
If  it  be  true  that  St.  Luke  wrote  in  Bithynia,  before 
he  joined  company  with   St.    Paul  at  Troas,    Theo- 
philus    was  probably    a    Bithynian,    in   which  cafe   all 
attempts  to  obtain  further  knowledge  of  him  will  be 
fryitlefs, 

5.  The 


25^  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  chap.  vr. 

5.  The  fifth  opinion,  of  which  very  little  notice 
has  hitherto  been  taken,  but  which  appears  to  me  to 
deferve  particular  attention,  refers  the  compofition  of 
St.  Luke's  Gofpel  to  a  city  in  Macedonia.  It  is 
founded  on  the  following  fubfcription  to  the  Arabic 
verfion  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  which  was  publifhed  by 
Erpenins :  *  He  (St.  Luke)  wrote  it  in  Greek,  in  a 
Macedonian  city,  two  and  twenty  years  after  Chrift's 
afcenfion,  and  in'  the  fourteenth  year  of  the  Emperor 
Claudius.'  Now  this  account  agrees  extremely  well 
with  St.  Luke's  long  ftay  at  Philippi ",  not  only  in 
refpe6t  to  the  place,  as  Philippi  is  in  Macedonia,  but 
likewife  in  refped  to  the  time  ;  for  it  was  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Claudius  that  St. 
Luke  refided  there.  This  appears  from  A6ls  xviii.  2. 
where  we  find  that  St.  Paul,  who  had  left  St.  Luke 
behind  him  at  Philippi,  met  on  his  arrival  at  Corinth 
with  Aquila  and  Prifcilla,  who  had  been  obliged  to 
leave  Rome  in  confequence  of  an  edi6l  of  the  Emperor 
Claudius,  that  all  the  Jews  fliould  depart  from  that 
city.  This  edi6l  was  given  toward  the  end  of  Clau- 
dius's reign  :  confequently,  as  St.  Luke  continued  fome 
time  at  Philippi,  the  account  that  he  was  in  a  city 
of  Macedonia  in  the  fourteenth,  that  is,  in  the  laft  year 
of  Claudius,  has  hiftorical  evidence  in  its  favour.  It 
is  true,  that  we  neither  know  the  author  of  this  Arabic 
fubfcription,  nor  the  fourcc  from  which  he  derived 
his  information:  but  as  it  has  ftrong  internal  marks 
of  probability,  or  at  leaft  none  of  improbability,  it  is 
entitled  to  a  high  rank  among  the  various  opinions  re- 
lative to  the  place  where  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  was  com- 
pofed.  If  St.  Luke's  objeft  in  remaining  at  Philippi, 
while  St.  Paul  travelled  into  other  countries,  was  to 
give  further  inftru6lions  to  thofe  whom  the  Apoflle 
had  converted  to  Chriflianity,  and  to  form  a  com- 
munity of  Chriftians  in  that  city,  he  could  not  have 
more  completely  effected  his  purpofe,  than  by  deliver- 
ing them  a  written  narrative  of  the  birth,  the  miracles, 

an(i 
*■  See  the  latter  part  of  the  third  Sedion  of  this  Chapter, 


SECT.  vr.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  253 

and  the  refurreftion  of  Chrift.  The  Greek  name  Theo- 
philus  agrees  likewife  with  the  opinion  that  he  wrote 
in  a  Grecian  city.  The  only  objeftions  which  can 
be  made  to  it,  are  :  firft,  that  St.  Paul,  in  his  fecond 
Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians",  reprefents  the  Macedonian 
Chriflians  as  being  extremely  poor,  whereas  Theophi- 
lus,  as  appears  from  the  title  which  St.  Luke  has  given 
him,  was  a  man  of  rank  :  and  fecondly,  that  St.  Paul 
in  his  Epiftle  to  the  Philippians  has  greeted  no  perfon 
of  the  name  of  Theophilus,  nor  in  his  fecond  Epiftle 
to  the  Corinthians,  which  he  wrote  in  Macedonia,  has 
mentioned  Theophilus  as  greeting  the  Corinthians.  But 
neither  of  thefe  objedions  are  of  any  weight.  For  we 
are  not  certain  that  Theophilus  was  a  Chriftian  '•" :  and 
if  he  were,  there  is  no  neceflity  for  fuppofing,  either 
that  he  lived  in  the  city  of  Philippi,  or  that  he  was 
acquainted  with  the  members  of  the  Corinthian  com- 
munity ^. 

In  the  preceding  paragraph  I  have  interpreted  the 
words  of  the  Arabic  fubfcription,  *  a  Macedonian  city/ 
as  denoting  '  a  city  of  Macedonia,'  as  it  appears  to 
me,  that  they  admit  of  no  other  interpretation.  But 
James  Hafe,  in  a  diftertadon  inferted  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Bremenfis  p,  has  endeavoured  to  ftiew  that  the  author  of 
this  Arabic  fubfcription  underftood  by  *  Macedonian 
city,'  the  city  of  Alexandria  in  Egypt.  In  fupport  of 
this  pofition  he  has  quoted  feveral  pafTages,  but  all  of 
them  from  poetical  works,  in  which  the  epithets,  Pel- 
l^eus,  Emathius,  Macedonicus,  are  applied  to  Egypt  in 
general,  or  to  the  capital  of  that  country,  Alexandria, 
in  particular.  Now  no  one  will  deny  that  thefe  epithets 
were  often  applied,  efpecially  by  the  poets,  to  the 
Egyptian   Alexandria,    in   confequence  ,  of   its  having 

been 

°  Ch.  viii,  2,  3. 

P  Clafs.  IV.  Fafcic.  4.  Differt.  9.  The  title  of  the  dlflertation  is, 
Jacob!  Hafsi  Obfervatio  geographico-critica  qua  Macedonicam  ci- 
vitatem,  et  Alexandrian  Magnam,  in  quariim  altera  Arabs,  altera 
Syrus  Graecique  interprctes  D.  Lucam  Evangelium  confignafle  pro- 
•  dunt,  eandem  civitateip,  el  quidem  /Eg/piiacam  Alexandriam,  elTe 
oUenditur, 


254  Q/"  •5'/.  Luke's  Go/pel.  chap,  vt* 

been   fqunded  and  governed  by  Macedonian  princes. 
But  we  muft  not  interpret  the  plain  language  of  a  profe- 
writer,  as  we  would  interpret  the  figurative  language  of 
a  poet.     The  impropriety  of  fuch  an  interpretation  will 
appear  more  confpicuoufly,  if  we  take  an  inftance  from 
the  prefent  period.     A  poet  might  call  Lifbon,  in  confe- 
quence  of  the  numerous  Englilli  families,  which  are  fet- 
tled in  that  city,  the  Englifh  Lifbon :  yet  no  bibliographer 
would  fay  of  a  book,  v/hich  was  printed  in  Lifbon,  that 
it  was  printed  in  an  Englifh  city.     In  like  manner,  the 
author  of  the  Arabic   fubfcription,  if  he  had   meant  to 
fay  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  at  Alexandria,  would 
not  have  faid  that  he   wrote  it  in  a  Macedonian  city. 
That  the  author  of  the  Syriac  fubfcription  referred  the 
compofition  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  to  Alexandria,  is  no 
proof  that  the  author  of  the  Arabic  fubfcription  intended 
to  do  the  fame ;  efpecially  as  we  know  from  the  KGts, 
that  St.  Luke  flaid  fome  time  in  the  country  of  Mace- 
donia properly  fo  called,   but  we  no  where  read  in  the 
A6ls  of  a  journey  into  Egypt. 

Before  I  proceed  to  examine  the  four  other  opinions, 
it  will  be  necelTary  to  make  a  few  general  obfervations 
on  the  five  which  have  been  already  examined.  If  it 
were  certain  that  St.  Paul  in  his  fecond  Epiftle  to  the 
Corinthians,  ch.  viii.  i8.  where  he  fpeaks  of  the  bro- 
ther, whofe  praife  is  in  the  Gofpel,  meant  St.  Luke 
and  the  Gofpel  written  by  that  Evangelifl,  one  of  the 
five  preceding  opinions  muft  be  the  true  one :  for  the 
four  lall,  which  I  have  hereafter  to  examine',  refer  the 
compofition  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  to  a  later  period  than 
the  time  of  St.  Paul's  writing  his  fecond  Epiflle  to  the 
Corinthians  ^.     I  have  already  obferved  in  the  preceding 

fedion^ 

•J  This  is  obvious  of  the  three  lad  of  the  nine  opinions :  and  it  is 
equally  true  of  the  fixth,  which  makes  Achaia  the  country  in  which 
St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel.  For  I  have  fhewn  that  St.  Luke  flaid 
behind  at  Philippi,  and  did  not  accompany  Sr.  Paul  to  Corinth. 
But  the  fecond  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written  on  St.  Paul's 
return  to  Macedonia.  If  therefore  St.  Luke  ever  was  in  Achaia,  he 
muft  have  been  there  at  a  later  period. 


SECT.  VI.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel,  255 

fedlion,  that  the  word  lvxyyiX^ovy  as  ufed  by  the  Apoftles 
and  Evangelifts,  does  not  denote  a  written  narrative  of 
the  life  of  Chrift,  and  therefore  that  St.  Paul  can  hardly 
be  fuppofed  in  the  paffage  in  queftion  to  allude  to  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  Luke.  It  is  moreover  probable  that  by 
the  expreflion,  *  the  brother  whofe  praife  is  in  the 
Gofpel,'  he  meant  a  totally  different  perfon  from  St. 
Luke.  For  this  *  brother,'  as  appears  from  the  quoted 
paffage,  was  fent  by  St.  Paul  to  Corinth :  yet  though 
St.  Paul  himfelf  went  to  Corinth  ^  foon  after  he  had 
written  this  Epiftle,  St.  Luke  was  not  with  him,  when 
he  again  departed  from  that  city,  for,  according  to 
Afls  XX.  2-^'  St.  Luke  went  from  Philippi  (where 
he  had  ftaid  feveral  years)  to  join  company  with 
St.  Paul  at  Troas  ^.  Befides,  as  this  '  brother'  was 
lent  with  Titus,  in  order  to  remove  all  fufpicions  of 
Paul's  making  an  improper  ufc  of  the  contributions 
of  the  Corinthians  ■",  St.  Luke,  who  was  his  intimate 
friend  and  companion,  was  by  no  means  qualified  to 
anfwer  that  purpofe.  And  if  we  may  judge  from  what 
St.  Paul  fays,  2  Cor.  viii.  23,  24.  both  of  the  brethren, 
who  are  there  oppofed  to  Titus,  whom  St.  Paul  calls 
his  partner  and  fellow-helper,  were  deputies  from  the 
churches  in  Macedonia  ^ 

But  many  of  the  ancient  Fathers  have  given -a  dif- 
ferent interpretation  of  this  paffage,  and  underftood  St. 
Luke  as  the  perfon  meant  by  St.  Paul :  and  the  word 
Gofpel  feveral  of  them  have  explained  as  denoting  the 
written  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke.  What  Origen,  Chryfoftom, 
Jerom  and  Theophyla6t  have  faid  on  this  fubjed  I  will 

fubjoin 

'  See  2  Cor.  viii.  20. 

*  Who  they  were  it  is  impoflible  to  determine :  but  as  Sopater, 
Ariftarchus,  and  Secundus  were  Macedonians  (fee  Afls  xx.  4.),  it  is 
not  impoffible  that  two  out  of  thefe  three  perfons  were  the  brethren 
of  whom  St.  Paul  fpeaks,  2  Cor,  viii.  18—23. 


2^6  Of  SL  Luke's  Go/pel.  chaf.  vn 

fubioin  in  a  note  *,  that  the  reader  may  be  able  to  form 
a  judgement,  without  the  trouble  of  turning  to  the 
authors  themfelves.  Now  whether  their  explanations 
be  right,  or  whether  they  be  wrong,  it  necelTarily  fol- 
lows that  they  who  gave  them  could  never  have  heardj 
or  at  lead  they  could  not  have  believed,  that  St.  Luke 
wrote  his  Gofpel,  either  in  Paleftine,  or  in  Rome,  or  in 
Alexandria  after  he  had  left  Rome.  For  in  that  cafe 
they  could  not  even  have  conjeftured  that  St.  Paul  al- 
luded to  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  in  his  fecond  Epiftle  to  the 
Corinthians,  which  was  undoubtedly  written  before  St, 
Luke  accompanied  St.  Paul  into  Paleftine.  But  their 
explanations  do  not  necelTarily  imply  that  they  had 
never  heard  of  St.  Luke's  having  written  in  Achaia. 
For,  though  it  is  certain  from  St.  Luke's  mode  of 
writing  in  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles,  that  he  ftaid 
behind  at  Philippi,  that  he  did  not  go  with  St.  Paul 
into  Achaia,  and  confequently,  if  he  ever  was  in  that 
diftrict,  that  he  muft  have  been  there  after  St.  Paul  had 
written  his  fecond  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  :  yet  as 
the  Fathers,   through  want  of  attention  to  St.  Luke's 

mode 

*  Origen,  in  his  firft  homily  to  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  (Tom.  III.  p< 
983.  ed.  Benedifl.)  fpeaking  of  Luke  i.  3.  fays,  according  to  the 
words  of  the  Latin  tranflation  now  extant,  '  Inculcat  ac  i-eplicat, 
quoniam  ea,  quae  fcripturus  eft,  non  rumore  cognorit,  fed  ab  initio 
ipfe  fuerit  confecutus.  Unde  et  ab  Apoftolo  merito  collaudatur  di- 
cente,  cujus  laus  in  Evangelic  eft  per  omnes  ecclefias.'  Chryfoflom 
exprefles  himfelf  IHII  more  decidedly  :  for  at  the  beginning  of  his 
Commentary  to  the  Ac\s  of  the  Apoftles  (Tom.  IX.  p.  2.  cd.  Mont- 
faucon)  he  fays  of  St.  Paul,  '  In  his  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  he 
writes  of  him,  whofe  praife  is  in  the  Gofpel  throughout  all  the 
churches.  And  when  he  mentions,  that  Chrift  appeared  to  Cephas, 
and  then  to  the  twelve,  and  adds,  according  to  the  Go/pel,  ^.vhich  ye 
have  received,  he  means  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke.'  Chryfoftom  deli- 
vers again  the  fame  opinion,  p.  4.  5.  But  Theophyladl:  appears  ta 
have  been  in  doubt,  whether  St.  Paul  really  alluded  to  St.  Luke's  Gof- 
pel at  2  Cor.  viii.  18.  :  for  in  his  Note  to  this  paffage  he  fays  only, 
*  Some  apply  thefe  words  to  St.  Luke,  becaufe  he  wrote  a  Gofpel : 
others  apply  them  to  Barnabas,  for  the  Apoftles  ufed  the  term  Gofpel 
to  denote  even  a  verbal  preaching.'  What  Jerom  fays  on  this  fubjeil^ 
has  been  quoted  in  the  preceding  fedion. 


SECT.  VI.  Of  St.  Luke's  GofpeL  257 

mode  of  writing,  might  fuppofe  that  he  attended  St. 
Paul  from  Philippi  to  Corinth,  a  report,  that  St.  Luke 
wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Achaia,  would  appear  to  them  per- 
fedtly  confident  with  the  opinion  that  St.  Paul  alluded 
to  it  in  his  fecond  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians.  Whether 
it  be  true  that  he  wrote  in  Achaia  or  not,  will  be  exa- 
mined in  the  article  which  nov/  follows. 

6.  When  it  is  faid  that  St.  Luke's  Golpel  was 
written  in  Achaia,  this  word  muft  not  be  taken  in 
the  confined  fenfe,  in  which  it  was  ufed  by  the  ancient 
Greeks,  but  in  the  more  extenfive  fenfe  in  which  it  was 
ufed  by  the  Romans,  who  gave  the  name  of  Achaia  to 
the  whole  fouthern  part  of  Greece,  in  oppofition  to 
Macedonia,  which  was  the  northern  province.  Bceotia 
therefore  was  a  part  of  the  Roman  province  of  Achaia, 
and  confequently  when  it  is  faid  that  St.  Luke  wrote 
in  Bceotia  in  particular,  it  does  not  contradidl  the  ge- 
neral aflertion  that  he  wrote  in  Achaia".  Of  the  various 
countries  which  have  been  affigned  for  the  compofitioa 
of  this  Gofpel,  Lardner  "^  thinks  Achaia  the  mofl  pro- 
bable. Befide  the  authority  of  Jerom,  he  quotes  a 
verfe,  from  the  metrical  catalogue  of  canonical  books 
by  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  where  St.  Luke  is  faid  to 
have  written  for  Achaia ''.  Further,  he  appeals  to  the 
ftory,  that  the  bones  of  St.  Luke  were  brought  to 
Conftantinople  in  the  time  of  the  emperor  Conftantius 
from  Thebes  in  Boeotia,  where,  according  to  Nicepho- 
rus,  St.  Paul  converted  him  to  Chriftianity. 

But  that  St.  Luke  wrote  in  Achaia  appears  to  me 
much  lefs  probable  than  it  did  to  Lardner.  For  in  the 
firft  place,  though  it  were  true  that  St.  Luke  was  buried 
in  Achaia,  yet  this  circumflance  could  not  afford  the 
fmalleft  prefumption  that  he  wrote   his  Golpel  there. 

If 

"  Thepaflage  in  which  Jerom  fays  of  St.  Luke,  in  Achai<£  Baotla- 
que  partihus  'volumen  condidit,  has  been  already  quoted  in  this  feftion, 

^  Supplement,  P.  11.  Vol.  i.  p.  268.  and  following  pages. 

Vol.  III.  R 


258  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel  chap.  vi. 

If  St.  Luke  died  in  Achaia,  he  muft  have  gone  thither 
from  Rome  after  the  fecond  year  of  St.  Paul's  impri- 
fonment  was  expired  :  and  indeed  later,  for  we  find  him 
with  St.  Paul  in  Rome,  not  only  when  the  Apoftle 
wrote  his  Epiftle  to  the  ColofTians '',  and  his  Epiftle 
to  Philemon  %  but  likewife  when  he  wrote  his  fecond 
Epiftle  to  Timothy*.  Hence  it  appears  that  the  in- 
ference that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Achaia,  is  not 
only  unwarranted  by  the  circumftance,  that  he  died 
there,  but  is  alfo  improbable  in  itfelf.  Further,  the 
flory  of  St.  Luke's  grave  at  Thebes  in  Boeotia  gave  rife 
to  other  inferences,  which  arc  undoubtedly  falfe  :  for 
inftance,  that  he  was  firft  converted  to  Chriftianity  in 
that  city,  which  can  no  more  be  true  of  Thebes  in 
Boeoda,  than  of  Thebes  in  Egypt,  for  he  was  become 
a  fellow-traveller  and  fellow-labourer  of  St.  Paul  before 
he  went  into  Greece ''.  The  former  inference  there- 
fore, which  is  drawn  from  the  fame  premifcs,  is  expofed 
at  leaft  to  the  fufpicion  of  being  equally  falfe.  Laftly, 
this  very  inference,  inftead  of  being  fupported  by  the 
opinion  of  the  Fathers,  who  fuppofed  that  St.  Paul 
alluded  to  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  in  his  fecond  Epiftle  to 
the  Corinthians,  is  direflly  contradi<5led  by  it.  For  if 
they  believed  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Achaia, 
they  muft  have  underftood  it  of  the  time,  when  he 
vifited  Greece  in  company  with  St.  Paul,  and  before 
St.  Paul's  imprifonment  either  in  Carfarea  or  Rome,  as 
I  have  fhewn  in  the  preceding  article.  It  is  likewife 
contradifted  by  the  Greek  fubfcriptions  to  St.  Luke's 
Gofpel,  which  refer  the  compofition  of  it  either  to  the 
fifteenth  or  twenty-fecond  year  after  the  afcenfion :  for 
if  St.  Luke  went  into  Achaia  after  St.  Paul's  imprifon- 
ment in  Rome,  he  muft  have  gone  thither  above  thirty 
years  after  the  afcenfion.  But  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his 
Gofpel  at  fo  late  a  period,  is  improbable,  and  fupported 
by  no  authority. 

7.  The 

y  ColoiT.  Iv.  14,  *  Phllem.  24. 

»  2  Tim.  iv,  II.  ♦>  See  Ails  xvi.  10. 


SECT.  VI.  Of  SL  Luke's  Go/pel,  C59 

7.  The  feventh  opinion  rcfpeding  the  place,  where 
St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  is  that  of  Theodore  Hare% 
who  contends  that  he  wrote  it  in  Paiefline,  while  St. 
Paul  was  prifoner  in  Caefarea.  It  is  true  that  this  opi- 
nion has  no  hiftorical  evidence  in  its  favour :  but  no 
obje(5lion  can  be  made  to  it  on  this  ground,  for  the  ac- 
counts in  general,  which  ancient  writers  have  delivered 
on  this  fubje<5l,  are  fo  very  contradidory  and  incon- 
fiftent,  that  not  one  of  them  is  entitled  to  the  name  of 
hiftorical  evidence.  They  are  merely  the  refult  of  pri- 
vate opinion,  and  therefore  have  no  more  authority, 
merely  as  fuch,  than  the  opinion  of  a  mDdern  writer. 
The  only  qucftion  to  be  afked,  is,  which  of  the  feveral 
hypothefes,  whether  advanced  in  early  or  in  later  ages, 
has  the  greater  fhare  of  internal  probability.  Now  in 
order  to  determine,  whether  the  hypothefis,  that  St. 
Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Paleftine,  while  St.  Paul  was 
prifoner  in  Csefarea,  is  probable  or  not,  we  muft  afk  this 
previous  queftion.  Had  St.  Matthew  written  his  Gofpel 
at  that  time,  or  had  he  not  ? 

If  St.  Matthew  had  already  written  his  Gofpel,  when 
St.  Luke  came  with  St.  Paul  into  Paleftine,  one  might 
fuppofe  that  it  would  not  have  efcaped  the  notice  of  a 
writer,  who  took  all  pofTible  pains  to  colleft  accounts 
of  the  hiftory  of  Chrift-.  Yet  we  muft  conclude  boih 
from  St.  Luke's  preface,  and  the  variations  between  his 
Gofpel  and  that  of  St.  Matthew,  that  he  had  no  know- 
ledge of  it.  This  objeftion  however  is  not  of  fo  much 
weight  as  it  appears  to  be.  For  we  are  not  certain  that 
St.  Luke  underftood  Hebrew  ^  or  if  he  did,  that  St. 
Matthew's  Gofpel  was  known  at  Caefarea,  a  city  inha- 
bited chiefly  by  Greeks  and  Romans.  If  he  did  not 
underftand  Hebrew,  he  might  have  heard  of  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gofpel,  and  yet  not  have  been  able  to  ufe  it,  as 
it  is  very  poflible  that  no  Greek  tranflation  of  it  then 
exifted.     I  can  produce  a  cafe  in  point  in  regard  to 

niyfelf: 

«  Biblioth.  Bremenf.  ClaiT.  IV.  p.  516. 

R  2 


a6o  Of  Sl  Luke's  Go/pel.  chap.  vi. 

myfelf :  for  about  forty  years  ago  I  read  leflures  on  the 
Ruffian  hiftory,  yet  for  want  of  knowledge  of  the  Ruffian 
language,  I  took  not  the  lead  notice  of  Neftorj  though 
he  is  the  principal  hiflorian  of  the  Ruffians. 

On  the  other  hand  if  St.  Matthew  had  not  written 
his  Gofpel,  when  St.  Paul  was  prifoner  at  Casfarea,  St. 
Luke,  if  he  wrote  at  that  time,  wrote  before  St.  Mat- 
thew. But  if  he  wrote  before  St.  Matthew,  and  not 
only  wrote  in  Paleftine,  but  dedicated  his  Gofpel  to  a 
perfon,  who  in  the  opinion  of  Theodore  Hafe,  had 
been  High  Prieft  at  Jerufalem,  it  may  be  objefted 
that  fuch  a  Gofpel  could  not  have  been  overlooked 
by  St.  Matthew.  Dr.  Storr  indeed  alTerts  that  St. 
Matthew  not  only  read,  but  even  copied  from  St. 
Luke's  Gofpel'.  But  this  appears  to  me  incredible, 
for  an  author,  who  was  eye-witnefs  to  the  fafts,  which 
he  related,  would  hardly  borrow  his  materials  from  a 
■writer,  who  was  not  an  eye-witnefs :  nor  do  I  believe 
that  he  had  even  read  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  for  if  he  had, 
he  would  have  avoided  many  apparent  contradi6lions, 
which  he  might  eafily  have  removed  by  a  fhort  explana- 
tion, and  fometimes  by  the  addition  of  a  fmgle  word. 
Since  therefore  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  was  certainly  unknov»'n 
to  St.  Matthew,  the  queflion  to  be  aflced  is,  whether 
this  circumftance  is  confident  with  the  fuppofition  that 
St.  Luke  wrote  in  Paleftine  before  St.  Matthew  ?  Now 
I  think  it  is  not  abfolutely  inconfiftent :  for  if  St.  Luke 
wrote  his  Gofpel  at  CjEfarea,  and  fent  it  to  a  Jewifh 
High  Prieft,  it  is  at  leaft  poffible  that  fome  years  elapfed 
before  copies  of  it  were  fpread  abroad  among  the  Chrif- 
tians  in  Paleftine.  Befides,  as  the  fuppofition  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  fo  late,  is  improbable,  the  objec- 
tions which  are  grounded  on  it,  reft  on  a  very  unftable 
foundation.  The  opinion  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel 
in  Paleftine,  while  St.  Paul  was  prifoner  in  Casfarea, 
implies  neither  that  he  wrote  before,  nor  that  he  wrote 
after  St.  Matthew.  On  this  laft  head,  we  may  adopt 
whatever  fuppofition  appears  to  be  the  moft  confiftent 
with  it.— Whether  the  opinion  be  true  or  not,  I  will 

not 


SECT.  VI.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  a6i 

not  undertake  to  determine,    but  will  leave  it  to  the 
decifion  of  the  reader  '°. 

8.  The  eighth  opinion  on  this  fubjeft  is,  that  St. 
Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  at  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  after 
he  had  been  with  St.  Paul  in  Rome.  In  fupport  of  this 
opinion  appeal  has  been  made  to  the  fubfcription  to 
St.  Luke's  Gofpel  in  feveral  Greek  manufcripts,  in 
which,  as  well  as  in  the  Syriac  verfion,  St.  Luke  is  faid 
to  have  written  at  Alexandria  the  Great,  by  which  is 
meant  Alexandria  in  Egypt.  But  the  fame  Greek 
fubfcription  contradifts  the  latter  part  of  this  opinion, 
for  it  alfigns  the  fifteenth  year  after  the  afcenfion  for 
tht  time  of  its  compofition,  which  was  long  before  St. 
Paul's  Journey  to  Rome.  However  Grabe  and  Mill 
have  argued  very  ftrenuoudy  in  fupport  of  this  opinion, 
and  their  arguments  are  fo  plaufible,  that  they  induced 
me  to  fubfcribe  to  it  in  the  firft  edition  of  this  Intro- 
duftion.  But  fmce  I  have  read  Lardner's  objeftions'^, 
I  have  fo  far  altered  my  feiitiments,  that,  though  I  will 
not  affirm  it  is  abfolutely  falfe,  I  think  it  at  leaft 
very  uncertain.  Simeon  Metaphraftes,  to  whom  Grabe 
appeals,  lived  fo  late  as  the  tenth  century;  and  is, 
therefore  on  that  account,  as  well  as  feveral  others, 
of  no  authority  in  determining  a  fa6t,  which  happened 
in  the  firft  century.  Befides,  as  Lardner  has  rightly^ 
obferved,  he  does  not  fay  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his 
Gofpel  at  Alexandria,  but  only  that  he  preached  there. 
Nor  has  Oecumenius,  to  whom  Mill  appealed,  but  with- 
out quoting  any  particular  pafTage,  alTerted  that  St. 
Luke  wrote  at  Alexandria :  for  Lardner,  who  was  per-^ 
fe6lly  well  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
declares  that  he  could  find  no  fuch  allertion  in  Oecu- 
menius. Further,  the  advocates  for  this  opinion  have 
appealed  to  the  work,  which  goes  by  the  nam.e  of  the 
Apoftolic  Conftitutions,  of  which  the  author  is  un-» 
known,  and  to  which  we  have  no  reafon  to  give  much, 
credit.     Befide  the  objedlions,  which  Lardner  has  made 

to 

^  Supplement,  P,  II.  Vol.  i.  p.  270,  27  u 

R  3 


i62  Of  Si.  Luke's  Gojpel.  chap.  vi. 

to  this  work  in  general,  a  particular  obje(ElIon  may  be 
made  to  that  very  chapter  %  in  which  St.  Luke's  fup- 
pofed  refidence  in  Alexandria  is  mentioned.  It  is  there 
iaid :  '  The  firft  bifhop  of  Alexandria,  Anianus,  was 
ordained  by  the  Evangehft  St,  Mark,  and  his  fucceflbr 
Avilius  by  the  EvangeHft  St.  Luke.*  Now  if  this  were 
true,  St.  Luke  muft  have  been  at  Alexandria  after  St. 
Mark  had  been  there,  in  which  cafe  St.  Mark's  Gofpel 
would  hardly  have  remained  unknown  to  him.  Fur- 
ther, as  St.  Mark  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Rome  while  St. 
Peter  v/as  there,  and  St.  Peter  certainly  did  not  go  to 
Rome  till  fome  time  after  St.  Paul,  St.  Mark's  journey 
into  Egypt  muft  have  taken  place  at  fo  late  a  period, 
that  St.  Luke  could  hardly  have  written  his  Gofpel  at 
a  ftill  later  time.  Befides,  he  was  with  St.  Paul  at 
Rome  in  the  year  66  or  67,  when  the  fecond  Epiftle 
to  Timothy  was  written,  as  appears  from  2  Tim. 
iv.  II. 

p.  The  ninth  and  laft  opinion  is,  that  St.  Luke 
wrote  his  Gofpel  at  Thebes  in  Egypt.  This  opinion 
is  grounded  partly  on  the  fuppofed  journey  of  St,  Luke 
into  Egypt  nientioned  in  the  preceding  article,  and 
partly  on  the  report  mentioned  in  the  fifth  article  that 
he  wrote  at  Thebes  in  Boeotia,  which,  it  is  faid„  was 
confounded  with  Thebes  in  Egypt,  But,  fince  not 
only  the  inference  is  unwarranted,  but  the  premifes 
from  which  it  is  drawn,  are  themfelves  uncertain,  this 
opinion  falls  of  itfelf  to  the  ground.  But  if  any  one 
jhould  think  it  neceffary  to  have  a  particular  confuta- 
tion of  it,  he  may  have  recourfe  to  Lardner's  Supple- 
ment*'. 


*  Ch.  xlvi,  '  Vol,  I.  p.  271 — 273. 


SECT, 


SECT.  VII.  Of  St.  Luke's  Gofpeh  ^63 

SECT.    VJI. 

Rejult  of  the  inquiries  inftituted  in  the  preceding  fe5f  ion, 

IT  appears  from  what  has  been  faid  in  the  preceding 
fedlion,  that  of  the  nine  opinions  refpe(5ling  the  place 
where  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel,  there  are  only  two 
of  which  it  can  be  faid,  that  they  have  hiftorical  ac- 
counts in  their  favour :  namely,  that  which  refers  the 
compofition  of  it  to  Troas  in  the  fifteenth  year  after 
the  afcenfion,  and  that  which  refers  its  compofition  to 
Macedonia  in  the  twenty-fecond  year  after  the  afcenfion. 
But  then  thefe  hiftorical  accounts  are  of  fuch  a  nature 
that  they  hardly  deferve  the  name  of  evidence  :  for  they 
are  contained  in  the  fubfcriptions  to  St.  Luke's  Golpel, 
the  authors  of  which  are  unknown,  and  who  probably 
gave  nothing  more  than  their  own  conjectures.  The 
moft  ancient  Fathers  appear  not  to  have  known  either 
the  time,  or  the  place  where  St.  Luke  wrote:  and 
therefore  what  later  writers  have  aflerted  is  hardly  en- 
titled to  more  credit,  than  what  is  afierted  by  an  author 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  Eufebius,  whofe  objedt  was 
to  colled:  whatever  information  could  be  procured  re- 
fpeding  the  four  Evangelifts,  has  not  faid  a  fyllable 
either  on  the  time  or  the  place  where  St.  Luke  wrote : 
nor  of  the  perfon  and  charafter  of  Theophilus.  We 
muft  conclude  therefore  that  Eufebius  was  not  able  to 
procure  any  intelligence  on  this  fubjed,  at  leaft  none 
on  which  he  could  depend.  Origen  is  equally  filent 
on  the  time  and  place  where  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  was 
written  :  and  when  he  fpeaks  of  Theophilus,  inftead  of 
communicating  information  of  his  perfon  and  charadler, 
he  gives  an  explanation  founded  on  the  compofition  of 
the  Greek  word  ©eo^jAo?,  which  Ihews  that  he  had  no 
real  information  to  communicate. 

Under  thefe  circumftances  we  muft  be  diredled  In 
ovir  choice  of  the  moft  eligible  opinion,  not  by  external, 

R  4  but 


<j64  Q/"  *5'/.  Luke's  Gojpel.  chap,  vi, 

but  by  Internal  evidence.  Now  in  favour  of  Troas  is 
the  circumftance  that  this  was  the  place,  where  St.  Paul 
firft  met  with  St.  Luke,  and  took  him  into  his  company : 
in  favour  of  Macedonia,  that  he  refided  there  for  fome 
time,  while  St.  Paul  was  travelling  in  other  countries; 
and  in  favour  both  of  Troas  and  Macedonia  is  the  cir- 
cumftance, that  either  fuppofition  will  account  for  St, 
Luke's  want  of  knowledge  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel. 
On  the  other  hand  there  arc  two  circumftances  againft 
both  of  thefe  opinions.  For  if  he  wrote  either  at 
Troas,  or  in  a  city  of  Macedonia,  it  is  difficult  to  com- 
prehend how  the  many  apocryphal  Gofpels,  to  which 
he  alludes  in  his  preface,  could  have  been  propagated 
in  Greece  at  fo  early  a  period  :  and  fecondly,  he  had  no 
opportunity  either  in  Troas  or  in  Macedonia  of  tracing 
up  the  hiftory  of  Chrift  to  its  fource,  and  of  confulting 
thofe  who  had  been  eye-witnefies  to  the  feveral  fa6ls, 
which  he  has  recorded.  The  latter  objcdlion  may  in- 
deed be  removed  by  the  fuppofition  that  he  had  been 
at  Jerufalem,  before  he  went  thither  with  St.  Paul ; 
but  for  this  fuppofition  we  have  no  foundation  whatfo- 
ever. 

In  favour  of  the  opinion  that  he  wrote  his  Gofpel  iq 
Egypt,  is  the  circumftance  that  St.  Luke  alluded  to 
apocryphal  Gofpels,  and  that  of  all  the  apocryphal 
Gofpels  now  extant,  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Egyp-r 
tians,  is  fuppofed  to  be  the  moft  ancient.  This  argu- 
lYient  however  will  be  of  no  weight,  if  it  be  true  that 
the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Egyptians  was  not  writteri 
before  the  fecond  century  ^  Another  circumftance  in 
favour  of  this  opinion  is,  that  there  are  feveral  paflages 
sn  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  which,  as  I  ftiall  fhew  in  the 
next  feclion,  are  particularly  applicable  to  the  Eflenes, 
who  were  very  numerous  in  Egypt.  But  againft  this 
opinion  may  be  alleged  the  following  arguments. 
Firft,  St.  Luke  has  totally  omitted  the  flight  of  Jofeph 
and  Mary  with  Jefus  into  Egypt,  and  omitted  it  in 

fueh 

K  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiilory,  P,  II.  Vol.  IL  p.  527-530, 


SECT.  VII.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel  165 

fiich  a  manner  as  to  produce  a  very  ftrong  apparent 
contradi6tion   between   what    he    has    related,    ch.   ii. 
22 — 39.  and  the  relation  of  St.  Matthew,  ch.  ii.  13 — 
23.     Now  as  this  part  of  the  hiftory  of  Chrift  would 
have   particularly    interefted    the  Egyptians,  St.  Luke 
would  hardly  have  pafled  it  over  in  filence,  if  he  had 
written  his  Gofpel  in  Egypt.       Befides,  the   apparent 
contradiftion  between  the  accounts  of  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke  would  be  confiderably  augmented,  if  it  were 
true  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Egypt :  for  his 
total  filence  of  the  flight  of  Jofeph  into  that  country 
might  then  be  conftrued  into  a  pofitive  contradi6lion 
to  St.  Matthew's  account.     Secondly,  if  St.  Luke   had 
fpent  fome  time  in  Egypt,   he  would  probably  have 
communicated  in  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoflles  fome  infor- 
mation relative  to  the  propagation  of  Chriftianity   in 
that  country^.      But   St.  Luke,  though  he   has  very 
circumftantially  defcribed  the  propagation  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  religion  in  Syria,  Cyprus,  Afia  minor,  and  Greece, 
has  no  where  related  its  introduftion  into  Egypt :  nor 
has  he  mentioned  any  circumftance  that  could  intereft 
the  Egyptians  in  particular,  if  we  except  the  account 
which  he  has  given  A6ls  viii.  27.  of  the  converfion  of 
the  eunuch  who  came  from  the   court   of  Candace  *, 
Thirdly,  the  time  alTigned  in  the  Greek  fubfcriptions 
to  the  compofition  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  in   Egypt,  is 
the  fifteenth  year  after  the  afcenfion.     But  it  appears 
from  A6ls  xviii.  24 — 26.  that  Apollos,  when  he  came 
from  Alexandria,  which  according  to  St.  Luke's  nar- 
rative was  certainly  later  than   the  fifteenth  year  after 
the  afcenfion,  had  been  inftrufted  only  in  the  baptifm 
of  John.     Now  as  Apollos  is   faid,  ver.   24,  to   have 
been  converfant  in  the   Scriptures,  St.  Luke's  Gofpel, 

if 

^  The  Chriftian  religion  foon  fprcad  itHf  into  Egypt,  though  at 
firft  it  was  taught  there  in  a  very  imperfeft  manner.  See  A<Ss  xviii, 
24 — 26. 

^  Queeii  of  Meroe  in  Nubia.  See  the  Spicilegium  geographsiaj 
Hebrasorum  exterse,  Tom.  I.  p.  J  76 — i§S, 


^66  Of  St.  Luke's  Gojpel.  chap.  vi. 

if  it  had  been  already  written  in  the  country,  from 
which  he  came,  would  hardly  have  efcaped  his  notice  : 
but  in  that  cafe  his  knowledge  would  not  have  been 
confined  to  the  baptifm  of  John.  If  therefore  St.  Luke 
wrote  in  Egypn  he  muft  have  written  at  a  later  period : 
either  during  the  three  years  that  St.  Paul  remained  in 
Ephefus'',  or  after  he  had  left  St.  Paul  in  Rome. 

Laftly,  the  opinion  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  Gofpel  in 
Paleftine,  while  St.  Paul  was  prifoner  at  Ctefarea,  though 
not  confirmed  by  hiftorical  evidence,  is  fupported  at 
lead  by  its  own  internal  probability.  It  is  moreover  an 
opinion  to  which,  as  far  as  I  know,  no  material  objec- 
tions can  be  made  :  and  therefore,  though  it  is  only  con- 
jedure,  it  is  perhaps  more  eligible,  than  any  one  of' the 
traditionary  reports. 

If  St.  Luke  had  given  us  a  fhort  account  of  his  own 
hiftory,  we  might  have  been  enabled  to  form  a  decifive 
judgement  on  this  fubjed.  But  fmce  his  peculiar  mo- 
delly  has  prevented  him  from  faying  any  thing  of  him- 
felf,  it  is  impoflible  to  determine  either  where,  or  when, 
he  wrote-  his  Gofpel.  I  once  thought  that  the  decifion 
was  eafy :  but  the  more  I  have  inquired,  the  more  I 
have  learnt  to  doubt. 

^  Durlne  thefe  three  years  St.  Luke  was  abfent  from  St.  Paul,  as 
v.'ell  as  during  hia  refidence  at  Corinth,  having  as  I  have  already 
fjbferved  parted  company  at  Philippi.  It  is  therefore  pofiible  that 
Sc.  Luke,  while  St.  Paul  was  at  Ephefus,  took  a  journey  from  Phi- 
lippi into  Egypt,  and  retiuned,  before  St.  Paul  came  again  into 
Macedonia.  But  it  is  mere  pofiibility,  for  we  no  where  find  the 
fmalleft  traces  of  any  fuch  journey. 


SECT, 


SECT.  VIII,  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel.  267 

SECT.    VIIL 

Of  the  motivej  which  induced  St.  Luke  to  write  a  GofpeU 

IT  has  been  fuppofed  by  feveral  perfons  that  St.  Luke 
not  only  wrote  his  Gofpel  at  the  requeft  of  St.  Paul, 
but  that  St.  Paul  even  didlated  what  St.  Luke  wrote. 
This  notion  took  its  rife  from  a  falfe  interpretation  of 
a  paflage  in  St.  Paul's  Epiftle  to  the  Romans ' :  and 
that  St.  Luke  wrote  of  his  own  accord,  and  of  his  own 
authority,  appears  from  the  exprefTion  tSo'^i  aa^ij^oij  which 
he  has  ufed  in  the  preface  to  his  Gofpel.  He  there 
afligns  the  motive  which  induced  him  to  fend  to  Theo- 
philus  an  authentic  narrative  of  the  miracles  and  refur- 
reclion  of  Chrift,  which,   to  ufe  his  own  words,  was 

the  following,  itniS-nTn^  tsoXKoi  iTrsp^Si^ria-ocv  oiu.Oilx^oia-^an 
Siifiyria-iy  tstb^i  tuv  T!ri7rXvi^o^o^n[Mvuv  iv  vfj-n^  ZTexyfA.ocluv.  To 
the  accounts  of  thefe  *  many,'  he  muft  certainly  have 
had  fome  objeftions  to  make,  for  no  man  would  argue 
thus :  fmce  feveral  perfons  have  delivered  accounts  of 
Chrift,  on  which  perfe6t  reliance  may  be  placed,  I  have 
likewife  thought  proper  to  write  the  hiftory  of  Chrift. 
We  muft  conclude  therefore,  that  his  intention  was  to 
correct  the  inaccuracies  of  the  accounts,  which  were 
then  in  circulation,  and  to  deliver  to  Theophilus  a  true 
and  genuine  document,  in  order  to  filence  feveral  idle 
ftories,  which  might  have  prejudiced  Theophilus  againft 
the  Chriftian  rehgion '. 

Mill  and  Grabe  have  fuppofed,  and  perhaps  not 
without  fome  reafon,  that  St.  Luke  had  particularly  in 
view  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Egyptians,  of  which 
the  fragments  that  are  now  extant  may  be  feen  in 
Fabricii  Codex  Apocryphus "".  The  Effenes  were  at 
that  time  in  great  repute  in  Egypt,  and  the  fragments 

of 

*  Ch,  ii,  16,  »  Vol,  I.  p,  335—337. 


£68  Of  St.  Luke's  GofpeL  chap,  vi, 

of  the  Egyptian  Gofpel  fhew  that  the  author  of  it 
was  an  EiTene,  for  they  contain  the  tenets  of  this  fedt 
relative  to  the  prohibition  of  matrimony.  It  is  really 
to  be  lamented,  that  we  have  not  the  Egyptian  Gofpel 
complete,  for  we  fhould  then  be  enabled  to  determine 
with  more  precifion  whether  Grabe's  opinion  be  true  or 
not.  Lardner  indeed  contends,  that  the  Gofpel  accord- 
ing to  the  Egyptians  was  not  written  before  the  fecond 
century,  though  other  critics  affert  that  it  is  the  moft 
ancient  of  the  apocryphal  Gofpels.  But  whether  the 
Egyptian  Gofpel  exifted,  or  not,  at  the  time  when  St. 
Luke  wrote,  he  appears  in  feveral  paflages  of  his  Gofpel 
to  have  had  the  ElTenes  in  view  *.  The  following  may 
lerve  as  examples. 

St.  Luke  is  the  only  Evangelift,  who  mentions  Chrifl's 
particular  command  to  his  difciples  to  fell  their  lands  in 
Paleftine,  (which  however  would  have  been  taken  from 
them  in  a  time  of  perfecution),  and  to  give  the  money 
to  the  poorP;  a  command  which  did  not  extend  to 
every  Chriftian,  but  was  necefiary  for  the  Jewifh  con- 
verts in  Paleftine,  fmce  thofe  lands  might  have  proved 
a  fnare  to  them,  and  have  tempted  them  to  return  to 
Judaifm*.  In  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  fixth  chapters  of 
the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles  he  defcribes  at  full  length  the 
conftitution  of  the  Chriftian  church  at  Jerufalem :  and 
relates  that  the  members  of  this  church  fold  their  pro- 
perty and  eftablifhed  a  common  fund,  or  rather  a  com- 
mon depofitory  of  alms  for  the  poor ;  for  I  much  doubt 
whether  they  had  a  perfed:  community  of  goods,  in 
the  ftrift  fenfe  of  the  word.  Now  this  account  has  no 
neceftary  connexion  with  St.  Luke's  principal  obje(5l  in 
the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles :  but  he  feems  to  have  related 

it 

•  In  writing  a  commentary  on  St.  Luke,  other  apocryphal  Gofpels 
might  be  likevvife  applied  to  advantage :  for  they  might  enable  us  to 
explain  feveral  paflages,  where  the  Evangelift  endeavoured  to  corre(^ 
the  falfe  notions,  which  then  prevailed. 

»  Luke  xii.  33,  34, 


SECT.  VIII.  Of  St.  Luke's  GofpeL  269 

it  for  the  fake  of  the  EfTenes,  who  likewife  lived  without 
property,  and  had  every  thing  in  common  ^ 

St.  Luke  is  the  only  Evangelift,  who  has  related  the 
converfation  between  Gabriel  and  Mary  "^ :  and  he  pro- 
bably related  it  with  a  view  of  correding  a  falfe  account 
of  the  appearance  of  Gabriel,  inferted  in  an  apocry- 
phal Gofpel,  of  which  I  think  fome  traces  are  ftill 
vifible  in  the  Koran.  It  is  well  known  that  Mohammed 
took  moft  of  his  accounts  concerning  Chrifl  from 
the  falfe  Gofpels,  which  in  his  time  ftill  circulated  in 
Arabia :  and  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Koran  he  has 
given  a  long  but  inaccurate  narrative  of  the  birth  of 
Chrift  and  John  the  Baptift,  of  which  we  find  the  true 
account  in  St.  Luke's  Gofpel.  I  believe  therefore  thac 
Mohammed  derived  his  intelligence  from  that  very 
Gofpel  which  St.  Luke  intended  to  corred :  efpecially 
as,  contrary  to  the  ufual  pradlice  of  Mohammed,  he 
has  here  a  palTage  which  favours  perpetual  virginity, 
an  elTential  doftrine  of  the  EfTenes,  and  has  here  given 
to  Chrift  the  appellation  of  the  Word  of  God,  a  title 
generally  applied  to  him  by  thofe,  who  had  been  edu- 
cated in  the  Egyptian  or  oriental  philofophy.  After 
having  related,  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Koran,  the 
birth  of  Mary,  her  education  in  the  temple,  the  an- 
nunciation of  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptift,  and  the 
dumbnefs  of  Zacharias,  Mohammed  proceeds,  ver.  40 
— 43.  as  follows'*:  ^  The  angel  faid,  O  Mary,  verily 
God  fendeth  thee  good  tidings,  that  thou  ftialt  bear  the 
Word  proceeding  from  himfelf:  his  name  fhall  be 
Chrift  Jefus'  the  fon  of  Mary,  honourable  in  this 
world  and  in  the  world  to  come,    and  one  of  thofe, 

who 

9  Ch.i.  26—38. 

'  According  to  St.  Luke,  ch.  i.  30,  31.  the  angel  faid  to  Mary: 
'  Fear  not  Mary,  for  thou  haft  found  favour  with  God  :  and  behold, 
thou  fhalt  conceive  in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  fon,  and  ihalt  call 
his  name  Jefus.' 


^70  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel,  chap,  vr, 

who  approach  near  to  the  prefence  of  God ' :  and  he 
ihall  fpeak  unto  men  in  the  cradle,  and  when  he  is 
grown  up,  he  fhall  be  one  of  the  righteous.  She 
anfwered.  Lord,  how  fhall  I  have  a  fon,  fince  a  man 
hath  not  touched  me  ?  The  angel  faid.  So  God  createth 
that  which  he  pleafeth :  when  he  decreeth  a  thing,  he 
only  faith  unto  it.  Be,  and  it  is.'  In  the  nineteenth 
chapter  of  the  Koran,  Mohammed  has  given  another 
extradt  from  an  apocryphal  Golpel  relative  to  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  angel  Gabriel  to  Mary,  which  is  as 
follows.  *  She  (namely  Mary)  retired  from  her  family 
to  a  place  toward  the  eaft,  and  took  a  veil  to  conceal 
herfelf.  And  we  fent  our  Spirit  Gabriel  unto  her,  and 
he  appeared  unto  her  in  the  Ihape  of  a  perfedt  man. 
She  faid,  I  fly  for  refuge  unto  the  merciful  God,  that  he 
may  defend  me  from  thee :  if  thou  feareft  him,  thou 
wilt  not  approach  me.  He  anfwered,  verily  I  am  the 
meflenger  of  thy  Lord,  and  am  fent  to  give  thee  a  holy 
Son.*  Other  paflTages,  which  Mohammed  had  taken 
from  apocryphal  Gofpels,  might  be  felefted  from  the 
"Koran,  and  added  as  a  Supplement  to  Fabricii  Codex 
Apocryphus. 

What  St.  Luke  has  related  ch.  xvii.  20,  21.  of  the 
queftion  propofed  to  Chrifl  concerning  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  the  anfwer  which  he  gave,  appears  to  be 
a  corre(5bion  of  the  following  inaccurate  account,  which 
had  been  given  of  it  in  the  Egyptian  Gofpel '.     ETrt^w- 

UTTiv'  cjotv  TO  T>)?  aicTp^umc  £V(?UjW.»  TxraT7)(r»)Tf,  xat  otcav  is'cci  ra 
^vo  iv,   x«i  roc  i^w  wg  rot  t(yu,   KXi  ro    a^civ  ^tros  fnq  ^nXsioti 

In  this  manner  St.  Luke  improved  and  corrected  the 
accounts,  which  were  then  in  circulation,  of  the  hif- 

tory 

«  Luke  i.  32.  «  He  fhall  be  great,  and  Ihall  be  called  the  Son  of 
the  Higheft.' 

*  Fabricii  Codex  Apocryphus,  Tom.  I.  p.  335. 


SECT.  VIII.  Of  St.  Luke's  Go/pel,  271 

tory  of  Chrifl.  For  this  undertaking  he  is  entitled  to 
our  warmefl  thanks :  as  in  confequence  of  the  accurate 
inquiries  which  he  made,  he  was  enabled  to  diftinguifh 
truth  from  falfehood,  and  to  communicate  a  hiitory, 
on  which  we  can  depend.  It  is  true  that  the  accounts 
contained  in  the  hiftories,  which  it  was  St.  Luke's 
objed:  to  corredt,  were  not  wholly  fabulous,  and  the 
mere  inventions  of  the  authors  who  recorded  them  : 
but  they  contained  fo  much  falfehood  intermixed  with 
truth,  that  a  corredlion  of  them  was  abfolutely  necef- 
fary.  The  fame  thing  happened  to  thefe  hiftories,  as 
happens  to  our  modern  gazettes,  when  a  battle  or  a 
fiegc  is  defcribed.  The  main  ftory  is  true,  but  in 
pafling  through  different  hands,  it  generally  acquires 
an  acceffion  of  circumftance,  which  are  totally  devoid 
of  truth.  Official  intelligence  alone  is  certain :  iand 
fuch  certain  intelligence  we  have  received  from  St, 
Luke ". 


"  St.  Luke's  Gofpel  alone  was  admitted  by  Marcion,  who  made 
however  many  alterations  in  it,  fo  as  to  render  it  more  fuitable  to  his 
own  fyilem.  But  not  all  the  alterations  in  Marcion's  copy  are  to  be 
confidered  as  wilful  corruptions ;  for  feveral  of  them  are  nothino^ 
more,  than  what  modern  critics  call  various  readings  *, 


CHAP. 


272  Of  St.  John's  Gojpel,  chap,  vn, 

CHAP.    VII. 

OF    ST.    JOHN'S    GOSPEL*'* 

SECT.    L 

Of  the  life  and  character  of  St.  John: 

THAT  St.  John  the  Evangelift  was  one  of  the 
twelve  Apoftles,  fon  of  Zebedee  and  Salome,  and 
brother  of  the  elder  James,  appears  from  Matth.  iv.  21. 
xxvii.  55,  56.  Mark  xv.  40.  xvi.  i.  In  the  opinion  of 
moft  ecclefiaftical  writers  he  was  a  relation  of  Chrifl'': 
and  this  opinion  I  adopted,  when  I  publilhed  the  firft 
edition  of  this  Introduction.  The  extraordinary  re- 
queft  made  by  the  mother  of  James  and  John,  that  her 
two  fons  Ihould  fit,  the  one  on  the  right  hand  and  the 
other  on  the  left  hand  of  Chrift^,  implied  a  claim, 
which  might  be  thought  to  be  founded  on  relationfhip. 
But  at  prefent  I  much  doubt  whether  any  fuch  relation- 
fhip fubfifted :  for  in  Gal.  i.  19.  James  the  lefs,  who 
was  not  brother  of  John,  is  diftinguifhed  by  the  title 
of  *  Brother  of  the  Lord,'  which  implies  that  the  other 
James,  and  confequently  John,  were  not  related  to 
Chrift. 

It  appears  from  Matth.  xxvii.  ^^,  ^6.  that  St.  John's 
mother  attended  Chrift,  not  only  to  Jerufalem,  but 
like  wife  to  the  place  of  his  crucifixion.  Of  his  father 
Zebedee,  who  was  alive,  when  St.  John  was  called  to 
the  Apoftlefhip  ',  no  mention  is  made  in  the  latter  part 

of 

^  On  thefubjcftof  St.  John's  Gofpel,  I  would  recommend  Lampe's 
Prolegomena  prefixed  to  his  Expofition  of  this  Gofpel,  Oporini  Clavis 
Evangelii  Johannis,  and  Lardner's  Supplement  to  the  Credibility  of 
the  Gofpel  Hiftory,  Vol.  I.  ch.  9. 

^  See  Lampe,  Prol.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i.  fe£l.  4, 

y  Matth.  XX,  20,  2i.  »  See  Matth.  iv.  21,  22. 


SECT.  i.  Of  St.  John's  Gojpeh  273 

of  Chrift's  life :  and  as  Salome  accompanied  Chrlft  on 
his  travels,  it  is  probable  that  he  died  foon  after  his 
fons  were  chofen  Apoftles.  From  Luke  xxiv.  i.  10. 
compared  with  Mark  xvi;  i,  2*  one  might  conclude 
that  Salome  was  one  of  the  perfons,  who  firft  faw  Chrift 
after  his  refurredion:  but  St.  John,  in  the  twentieth 
chapter  of  his  Gofpelj  though  he  particularly  relates 
the  circumftances  of  the  refurredion,  makes  no  mention 
of  his  mother :  nor  does  St.  Matthew,  though  he  had 
named  her  among  the  perfons  who  were  prefcnt  at  the 
crucifixion  %  make  any  mention  of  her  among  the  per- 
fons, who  on  the  day  of  tlie  refurredion  went  to  viiic 
the  fepulchre  ^. 

It  is  not  improbable,  though  it  cannot  be  affirmed 
with  certainty',  that  St.  John  the  Evangelift,  before  he 
became  a  difciple  of  Chrirt,  had  been  a  difciple  of  John 
the  Baptill.  At  leaft,  the  circumflantial  account;, 
which  he  has  given,  ch.  i.  37 — 41.  of  the  two  difciples 
of  John  the  Baptift,  who  followed  Chrifl,  might  induce 
us  to  fuppofe,  that  he  was  one  of  the  two.  St.  John 
was  the  favourite  difciple  of  Chrift,  and  was  called  the 
difciple  whom  Jefus  loved  ^  This  pardcular  affection 
and  regard  arofe  from  the  foftnefs  and  tendernefs  of 
St.  John's  character,  which  had  a  great  refemblance  to 
that  of  Chrift  himfelf.  Hence  we  find  him  prefent  at 
feveral  fcenes  to  which  moft  of  the  other  difciples  were 
not  admitted.  He  was  eye-witnefs,  in  company  with 
only  Peter  and  James,  to  the  rcfurredion  of  Jairus's 
daughter  to  life,  to  Chrift's  transfiguration  on  the 
mount,  and  to  his  agony  in  the  garden.  St.  John  re- 
paid this  attention  by  the  moft  fincere  attachment  to  his 
lliafter  :  for  he  was  the  only  Apoftle  who  followed  Chrift 
to  the  place  of  his  crucifixion.  No  writer  whatfoevcr 
therefore  was  better  enabled  to  give  a  circumftantial  and 
authentic  hiftory  of  Chrift. 

On 

'  Matth.  xxvii.  55,  56.  ''  Matth.  xxviii.  i. 

«=  JoHr  xiii.  23 — 26. 

Vol.  III.  S 


174  Q/"  ^^'  John's  Go/pel.  chap.  vir. 

On  the  death  of  Chrift,  St.  John  took  his  mother 
Mary,  whom  Chrift  had  recommended  to  his  care,  to 
his  own  home**.  His  long  intercourfe  therefore  with 
the  mother  of  Chrill  muft  have  afforded  him  an  oppor- 
tunity of  acquiring  the  beft  information,  relative  to  the 
birth,  education,  and  early  hiftory  of  Chrift:  and  St. 
John's  attachment  to  his  mafter  could  not  permit  him  to 
remain  indifferent  even  to  the  minuteft  anecdote,  which 
refpefted  fo  remarkable  a  charafter.  Yet  he  has  related 
no  circumftance  whatfoever  of  Chrift's  life,  prior  to 
his  thirtieth  year :  though  he  certainly  had  it  in  his 
power  to  make  very  numerous  additions  to  the  few 
accounts,  which  had  been  given  by  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke,  of  Chrift's  early  hiftory.  From  St.  John's 
filence  therefore  we  muft  conclude,  that  it  was  not  his 
intention  to  write  a  complete  hiftory  of  all  that  had 
been  faid  and  done  by  Chrift,  but  that  he  wrote  his 
Gofpel  to  anfwer  a  particular  purpofe,  which  required 
no  more  than  what  he  has  adlually  communicated. 
What  this  purpofe  was,  will  be  examined  in  the  next 
and  following  fedions. 


SECT.  II. 

Various  opinions  refpe5fing  the  objeSf,  which  St.  John  had  in 
view,  when  he  wrote  his  Gojpel. 

CLEMENT  of  Alexandria,    and   Eufebius%    fup- 
pofed  that  St.  John  wrote  his  Gofpel  as  a  fupple- 
ment  to  the  three  firft :  but  they  are  not  agreed  as  to 
the  matter,  which  St.  John  intended  to  fupply.     Ac- 
cording 

^  John  xix,  26,  27. 

«  See  Lardner's  Supplement,  Vol.  I.  p.  385 — 389.  where  the 
words  of  Clement  and  Eufebius  are  quoted,  and  alfo  a  pafTage  from 
Jerora*  * 


SECT.  ir.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel  275 

cording  to  Clement,  St.  John,  obfervlng  that  in  the 
other  Gofpels  thofe  things  were  related  which  concern 
the  humanity  of  Chrift,  wrote  a  fpiritual  Gofpel,  in 
order  to  explain  at  full  length  the  divinity  of  Chrift. 
Now  this  made  a  part  of  St.  John's  defign,  but  not 
the  whole  of  it :  for  his  obje<ft  was  not  to  prove  the 
divinity  of  Chrift  in  general,  but  to  prove  it  in  oppo- 
fition  to  the  tenets  of  a  particular  fed.  Eufebius  on 
the  contrary  relates,  that  St,  John's  intention  was  to 
fupply  what  his  predeceflbrs  had  omitted  concerning  the 
firft  part  of  Chrift's  miniftry,  their  accounts  having 
been  chiefly  confined  to  the  laft  year.  But  this  is  not 
probable  :  for  St.  John  in  his  account  even  of  the  latter 
part  of  Chrift's  miniftry,  efpecially  of  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  fupper,  has  related  fadts  and  fpeeches  of  the 
utmoft  importance,  which  are  not  recorded  by  the 
three  firft  Evangelifts.  In  fhort,  I  cannot  be  perfuaded 
that  the  materials  contained  in  St.  John's  Gofpel,  in 
addition  to  thofe  contained  in  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke,  whether  they  refpe6t 
the  former  or  the  latter  part  of  Chrift's  miniftry,  were 
intended  by  St,  John  as  a  mere  hiftorical  fupplement. 
That  it  was  not  his  defign  to  record  even  all  the  mira- 
cles, which  Chrift  had  performed,  is  evident  from  what 
he  himfelf  fays,  ch,  xx.  30.  xxi.  25.  and  therefore, 
though  his  Gofpel  contains  a  confiderable  quantity  of 
very  important  matter,  of  which  no  mention  is  made 
in  the  three  firft  Gofpels,  yet  this  matter  was  introduced 
■with  a  different  view,  from  that  of  merely  fupplying  the 
defe6ls  of  his  predeceflTors.  If  this  had  been  his  fole, 
or  even  his  principal  obje6l,  he  would  not  have  pafled 
over  in  filence  the  whole  hiftory  of  Chrift's  early  life, 
of  which,  as  I  obferved  in  the  preceding  fedlion,  he 
had  the  beft  opportunity  of  procuring  information : 
nor  would  he  have  neglected  to  confirm  by  his  own 
teftimony  the  account  of  Chrift's  transfiguration  on  the 
mount,  his  agony  in  the  garden,  and  other  important 
events,  at  which  St,  John  was  prefent,  but  St,  Matthew 
was  not.     However  it  is  far  from  my  intentions  to  alfert, 

s  2  that 


O.yB  Of  SL  John's  Gofpel.  chap.  vr. 

that  St.  John  intended  no  part  of  his  Gofpel  as  a  fup- 
plement  to  the  preceding  Gofpels :  I  mean  only  that 
this  was  not  his  fole  or  his  principal  obje6l. 

A  very  different  opinion  from  that  of  Clement  and 
Eufebiiis  has  been  advanced  by  Lampe^  and  defended 
by  Lardner^.  According  to  this  opinion,  St.  John's 
principal  object  was  to  convince  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
and,  in  cafe  they  rcfufed  their  aflcnt,  to  prove  to  them 
the  jiiftice  of  the  divine  piinifhment  which  awaited 
them,  on  the  ground  that  they  had  ample  means  of 
conviclion.  But  it  is  very  improbable  that  St.  John's 
view  was  fo  confined :  and  therefore,  as  the  Apoftlc 
himfelf  has  no  where  given  the  fmalleft  intimation  that 
this  was  his  particular  obje6t,  I  can  fee  no  reafon  for 
fuppofmg  it.  If  his  Gofpel  had  been  direfted  againft 
the  Jews  in  particular,  he  would  hardly  have  omitted 
Chrift's  prophecy  of  the  deftruftion  of  Jerufalem,  and 
his  lamentation  over  the  impending  fate  of  that  devoted 
city*".  It  is  true  that  St.  John  fays,  ch.  xx.  31. 
'  Thefe  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jefus  is 
the  Chrifl  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  might 
have  life  through  his  name.'  But  the  purport  exprelTcd 
in  this  paiTage  was  the  general  purpori  of  all  the  Evan- 
gelifts,  not  that  of  St.  John  alone :  nor  does  it  appear 
from  any  thing  which  St.  John  had  faid,  that  in  writing 
this  fentence  he  had  in  view  the  Jews  in  particular. 
Many  other  extradls  are  made  by  Lardner  from  St. 
John's  Gofpel,  which,  I  grant,  are  applicable  to  the 
Jews  only  :  but  extracts  of  the  very  fame  kind  might 
be  made  from  the  three  other  Gofpels,  and  therefore  if 
they  prove  any  thing,  they  will  prove  too  much.  Be- 
fides,  if  many  other  paffages  were  contained  in  St.  John's 
Gofpel,  which  were  applicable  to  the  Jev/s,  and  to  the 
Jews  only,  we  could  not  argue  from  them  to  the  main 

object 

^  In  the  Prolegomena  to  his  Commentary. 

t  Supplement,  Vol.  I.  p.  393 — 419. 

^  Luke  xix.  41 — 44.  ^ 


SECT.  ir.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  qri"] 

obje6l  of  the  Apoftle  in  writing  his  Gofpel.  The  paf- 
fage  quoted  by  Lardner  from  John  xii.  37 — 43.  appears 
cfpecially  to  favour  his  opinion.  But  if  in  this  parti- 
cular palTage  St.  John's  attention  was  direfted  againfl: 
the  Jews,  we  muft  not  therefore  conclude  the  fame  of 
the  whole  Gofpel.  However,  I  much  doubt  whether 
St.  John,  even  in  this  inftance,  intended  to  write  againft 
the  Jews,  in  the  fenfe  which  Lardner  means:  for  it 
feems  to  be  nothing  more  than  an  anfwer  to  an  objec- 
tion founded  on  the  Jewifh  reje6lion  of  Chrift's  mira- 
cles. The  Apoftle  had  probably  heard  the  following 
argument  brought  againfl  the  truth  of  the  evangelical 
hiflory:  '  If  fo  many  miracles  had  been  performed,  as 
is  pretended,  and  that  too  in  fo  public  a  manner,  it  is 
inconceivable  how  the  Jews  could  refufe  to  believe, 
after  they  had  {ttx\  thofe  miracles  with  their  own  eyes. 
If  it  were  true  that  a  perfon  really  dead  was  reftored  to 
life  in  the  prcfence  of  many  witnefTes,  and  in  a  village, 
which  was  only  a  mile  and  an  half  from  Jerufalem,  it 
mufl  have  been  known  to  the  whole  city ;  and  the 
necefTary  confequence  would  have  been,  that  the  Jews 
would  have  acknowledged  the  perfon,  who  could  per- 
form fuch  miracles,  to  be  the  MefTiah,  whom  they  ex- 
pefted.  But  fince  the  contrary  is  true,  the  wonders 
related  by  Chrifl's  difciples  are  entitled  to  no  credit.* 
An  objection  of  this  kind  St.  John  probably  intended 
to  anfwer,  when  he  wrote  the  paflage  in  queiHon.  He 
admits  that  the  incredulity  of  the  Jews  might  afford 
juft  matter  of  furprize:  but  he  denies  that  any  inference 
can  be  deduced  from  it,  prejudicial  to  the  credibility 
of  the  Gofpel  hiflory.  For  the  prophets  had  foretold 
that  iheir  eyes  would  be  blinded,  and  their  hearts  har- 
dened :  and  therefore  as  they  were  incapable  of  con- 
vi6lion,  their  rejection  of  Jefus  could  afford  no  proof 
that  he  was  not  the  Mefliah.  St.  John  however  adds 
that  many  were  really  convinced  in  their  hearts,  and, 
that  only  the  fear  of  expulfion  from  the  fynagogue  de- 
terred them  from  an  open  confcflion, 

S3  SECT, 


278  Of  St.  John's  Go/peL  chap.  vii. 

SECT.    III. 

Sf.  John  wrote  his  Go/pel  to  confute  the  errors  of  Cerinthus. 

IRENi^US,  the  earlieft  writer,  who  has  made  any 
mention  of  St.  John's  defign  in  writing  his  Gofpel, 
has  given  the  following  account  in  his  third  book 
againft:  Herefies,  ch,  xi.  *  Hanc  fidem  annuntians 
Joannes  Domini  difcipulus,  volens  per  Evangelii  an- 
niintiationem  aiiferre  eiim,  qui  a  Cerintho  infeminatus 
crat  hominibus,  errorem,  et  multo  prius  ab  his  qui  di- 
cuntur,  Nicolaita?,  qui  funt  vulfio  ejus,  quiu  falfo  cog- 
nominatur  fcientia,  et  confunderet  eos,  et  fuaderet, 
quoniam  unus  Deus,  qui  omnia  fecit  per  verbum  fuum; 
et  non,  quemadmodum  illi  dicunt,  alterum  quidcm 
fabricatorem,  alium  autem  Patrem  Domini.'  Jerom 
likewife  in  his  treatife  of  illuftrious  men,  aflerts,  that 
St.  John  wrote  againft  Cerinthus.  Now,  fetting  afide 
the  aflertion  of  Jerom,  which  I  will  confider  only  as 
private  opinion,  I  think  the  account  given  by  Irena^us 
of  fufticient  weight  to  prove  that  St.  John  wrote  againft 
Cerinthus,  notwithftanding  the  conjedtures,  which  may 
be  made  to  the  contrary.  For  Irennsus  is  not  only 
the  moft  ancient  writer  on  this  fubjecl,  but  was  a  dif- 
ciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  perfonally  acquainted  with 
St.  John.  Confequently  Iren?eus  had  the  very  beft 
means  of  information  on  this  fubjeft. 

Lardner'  has  quoted  another  palTage  from  the  works 
of  Iren^eus,  which  appears  to  be  at  variance  with  the" 
paftage  quoted  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  Namely, 
in  the  fixteenth  chapter  of  the  third  book  againft 
herefies  Irena^us  fays,  *  Quemadmodum  Joannes  Do- 
mini difcipulus  confirmat  dicens,  "  H^ec  autem  fcripta 
funt  ut   credatis  quoniam  Jefus  eft  filius   Dei,    et   uc 

credentes 

'  Supplement,  Vol.  I.  p.  383. 


SECT.  III.  ,  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel,  279 

credences  vltam  teternam  habeatis  in  nomine  ejus:" 
providens  has  blalphemas  regulas,  quse  dividunt  Domi- 
num,  quantum  ex  ipfis  attinet,  ex  altera  et  altera  fub- 
ftantia  dicentes  eum  fa6tum.'  Now  if  Irengeus  here 
meant  to  fay,  that  St.  John  only  forejaw  the  errors, 
which  were  propagated  by  Cerinthus  and  the  Gnoftics, 
it  muft  appear  very  extraordinary  that  he  fhould  fay  in 
the  pafTage  quoted  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  that  St. 
John  wrote  againft  the  errors,  which  had  been  propa- 
gated by  Cerinthus.  But  the  contradidiion  is  only  ap- 
parent: for  providens  fignifies  here,  not  '  forefeeing* 
but  '  guarding  againft.'  The  latter  pafTage  therefore, 
when  properly  explained,  does  not  confute  but  confirm 
the  former.  Befides,  St.  Paul  in  his  firft  Ejpiftk  to 
Timothy  fpeaks  of  Gnoftic  errors ;  and  therefore  they 
muft  have  been  propagated  long  before  St.  John  wrote 
his  Gofpel. 

But  even  if  Irensus  had  not  afierted  that  St.  John 
wrote  his  Gofpel  againft  the  Gnoftics,  and  particularly 
againft  Cerinthus,  the  contents  of  the  Gofpel  itfelf 
would  lead  to  this  conclufion.  The  fpeeches  of  Chrift, 
which  St.  John  has  recorded,  are  feledled  with  a  totally 
difFerent  view,  from  that  of  the  three  firft  Evangelifts, 
who  have  given  fuch  as  are  of  a  moral  nature,  whereas 
thofe  which  are  given  by  St.  John,  are  chiefly  dogma- 
tical, and  relate  to  Chrift's  divinity,  the  doftrine  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  the  fupernatural  afliftanee  to  be  commu- 
nicated to  the  Apoftles,  and  other  fubjefts  of  a  like 
import.  In  the  very  choice  of  his  exprefTions,  fuch  as 
Light,  Life,  &c.  he  had  in  view  the  philofophy  of  the 
Gnoftics,  who  ufcd,  or  rather  abufed  thefe  terms. 
That  the  fourteen  firft  verfes  of  St.  John's  Gofpel  are 
merely  hiftorical,  and  contain  only  a  ftiort  account  of 
Chrift's  hiftory  before  his  appearance  on  earth,  is  a 
fuppofition  devoid  of  all  probability.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  evident  that  they  are  purely  do6lrinal,  and  that 
they  were  introduced  with  a  polemical  view,  in  order 
to  confute  errors,  which  prevailed  at  that  iimt  refped- 

s  4  ing 


sSo  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  chap.  vii. 

ing  the  perfon  of  Jefus  Chrift.  Unlefs  St.  John  had 
had  an  adverfary  to  combat,  who  made  particular  ufc 
of  the  words  '  light,'  and  '  life,'  he  would  not  have 
thought  it  neceflary,  after  having  defcribed  the  Creator 
of  all  things,  to  add,  that  in  him  was  life,  and  the  life, 
was  the  light  of  men,  or  to  aflert  that  John  the  Baptift 
was  not  that  light.  The  very  meaning  of  the  word 
*  light'  would  be  extremely  dubious,  unlefs  it  were 
determined  by  its  particular  application  in  the  oriental 
Gnofis.  For  without  the  fuppofition,  that  St.  John 
had  to  combat  with  an  adverfary  who  ufed  this  word  in 
a  particular  fenle,  it  might  be  applied  to  any  divine 
inftrudlor,  who  by  his  doftrines  enlightened  mankind. 
Further,  the  pofitions  contained  in  the  fourteen  firft 
verfes   are    antithefes   to   pofitions    maintained   by   the 

Gnoftics,   who  ufed  the  words  Aoyo?,    ^con,   (pwf,   fxouoysungy 

•crXyj^WjtAa,  &c.  as  technical  terms  of  their  phiiofophy. 
Laftly,  the  fpeeches  of  Chrift,  which  St.  John  has 
felefted,  are  fuch  as  confirm  the  pofitions  laid  down  in 
the  firft  chapter  of  his  Gofpel :  and  therefore  we  mull 
conclude  thaL  his  principal  objed  throughout  the  whole 
of  his  Golpcl,  was  to  confute  the  errors  of  the 
Gnoftics. 

-  If  we  except  the  writings  of  St.  John,  the  word 
>^oyoq  is  no  where  ufed  either  in  the  Old  or  New  Tefta- 
ment,  to  denote  a  perfon.  For  in  Pfaim  xxxiii.  6.  and 
other  places  of  the  Old  Teftament,  where  Xoyo?  is  ufed 
in  the  Septuagint,  the  figurative  fenfe,  in  which  fome 
commentators  have  taken  it,  is  much  lefs  fuitable  to 
the  context,  than  its  literal  fenfe.  St.  John  therefore 
did  not  derive  this  particular  ufe  of  the  term  Aoyo?  from 
the  Bible.  Nor  did  he  derive  it  from  the  writings  of 
the  Rabbins:  for  though  they  frequently  ufed  the  ex- 
preftion  in  Nn,^*D,  that  is,  '  the  Word  of  God,'  ef- 
pecially  in  their  Targums  or  paraphrafes,  they  did  not 
mean  to  exprefs  a  feparate  and  diftin6t  Being  from 
Jehov^  himfelf,  or,  as  we  fliould  fay,  the  fecond  Perfon 

of 


SECT.  HI.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel  aSj 

of  the  Trinity  ^.  Befides,  if  the  Chaldee  word  K^D^!D 
were  equivalent  to  Aoyof,  ss  applied  by  St.  John,  we 
might  conclude  that  Chrift  himfelf,  who  fpake  Chaldee, 
would  alfo  have  ufed  this  expreffion :  but  though  St. 
John  has  particularly  lelefted  thofe  fpeeches  of  Chrift, 
which  tend  to  confirm  the  pofitions  laid  down  in  the 
firft  chapter,  and  in  thofe  fpeeches  Chrift  frequently 
calls  himfelf  *  the  Light,'  '  the  Life,'  '  the  Only- 
begotten,'  &c.  he  has  not  applied  to  himfelf  m  a  fingle 
inftance  the  title  of  '  the  Word.' 

Nor  can  we  fuppofe  that  St.  John  invented  this  term, 
or  rather  this  particular  ufe  of  it,  in  order  to  exprefs 
the  relation  of  the  fecond  to  the  firft  Perfon  of  the 
Trinity.  The  term  Ao-yo?,  when  applied  to  a  divine 
perfon,  is  capable  of  fo  many  different  explanations, 
that  no  writer  could  think  of  ufing  it,  without  fome 
explanation,  unlefs  its  meaning  was  already  fixed  by 
a6tual  ufage.  But  St.  John  begins  his  Gofpcl  with 
fpeaking  of  the  Logos,  and  adds  no  explanation  of  the 
term :  confeqiiently  he  wrote  for  readers,  who  were 
already  acquainted  with  its  meaning.  Now  we  know 
that  the  Gnoftics  in  general,  and  Cerinthus  in  particular, 
applied  the  term  Ao-yo?  to  denote  a  divine  perfon.  Since 
therefore  St.  John  has  adopted  feveral  other  terms, 
which  were  ufed  by  the  Gnoftics,  we  muft  conclude 
that  he  derived  alfo  the  term  Aoyo?  from  the  fame  Iburce. 
If  it  be  further  afked,  whence  did  the  Gnoftics  derive 
this  ufe  of  the  exprellion  *  Word,'  I  anfwer  that  they 
derived  it  moft  probably  from  the  Oriental  or  Zoroaf- 
trian  philofophy,  from  which  was  borrowed  a  confide- 
rable  part  of  the  Manichasan  do6lrines.  In  the  Zend 
Avefta,  we  meet  with  a  Being  called  ^  The  Word,* 

who 

^  The  word  l^lp'n  is  frequently  ufed  in  the  Chaldee  paraphrafes 
as  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  Dtrn,  that  is,  '  the  Name,'  a  term  by 
which  the  Jews,  who  out  of  fuperftitious  reverence  for  the  v.'ord 
Jehova  avoided  the  uttering  of  it  as  much  as  pofiible,  denoted  the 
Supreme  Being.  See  for  inftanccj  Ifaiah  xxvi.  4.  in  the  Chaldee 
paraphrafe. 


282  Of  Sl  John's  Go/pel,  chap.  vii. 

who  was  not  only  prior  in  exiflence,  but  gave  birth  to 
Ormuzd  the  creator  of  good,  and  to  Ahriman,  the 
creator  of  evil '.  It  is  true  that  the  work,  which  we 
have  at  prefent  under  the  title  of  Zend  Avefta  is  not 
the  ancient  and  genuine  Zend  Avefta ;  yet  it  certainly 
contains  many  ancient  and  genuine  Zoroaftrian  dodlrines. 
It  is  faid  likewife  that  the  Indian  philofophers  have  their 
>.oyoi;y  which,  according  to  their  doftrines,  is  the  fame  as 

the  Movoyi]/7)i;. 

Perhaps  the  opinion  that  St.  John  derived  the  term 
Aoyo;  from  the  Gnoftics  will  be  thought  by  many  to 
affe6t  in  fome  degree  his  charafter  as  a  divine  Apoftle. 
But  fuch  perfons  fhould  recolleft,  that  there  is  nothing 
more  in  a  mere  name,  than  in  a  fign  of  algebra.  It  is 
the  notion  afcribed  to  the  name,  and  not  the  name 
itfelf,  to  which  we  muft  attend.  Orherwife,  we  muft 
make  the  fame  obje6lion  to  St.  John's  ufe  of  the  word 
3-£o?,  which  was  likewife  ufcd  by  the  heathen  philofo- 
phers, and  fignified  perhaps  originally  nothing  more 
than  a  planet,  from  S-ew  curro.  If  the  Gnoftics  gave  the 
name  of  Aoyog  to  the  Being,  who  came  next  in  order 
to  the  Supreme  Being,  St.  John  might  without  the 
ieaft  impropriety  retain  this  name  in  a  work  which  was 
written  againft  the  Gnoftics,  and  apply  it  to  the  fecond 
perfon  of  the  Trinity.  The  laws  of  controverfy  require 
that  we  fhould  retain,  as  much  as  poflible,  the  terms 
which  are  ufed  by  our  adverfaries  :  for  if  each  party  has 
his  own  peculiar  terminology,  no  pofition  can  have  a 
clear  and  diftinft  counterpofition.  Confequently  the 
difpute  will  be  vague,  and  incapable  of  being  brought 
to  an  iftue. 

St.  John  himfelf  has  really  declared,  though  not  in 
exprefs  terms,  that  he  wrote  with  a  view  of  confuting 
errors  maintained  by  the  Gnoftics.  He  fays,  ch.  xx. 
J  I.   '  Thefe  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe  that 

Jefus 

'  See  the  Memolres  de  I'Academie  des  Infcriptions  et  Belles  Lettresi 
Tom.  XXXVII.  p.  618, 


SECT.  HI.  Of  St.  John's  Gofpel.  aSj 

Jefus  is  the  Chrift,  the  Son  of  God.'  To  moll  readers 
this  will  appear  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  declaration 
that  he  wrote  with  the  fame  general  view,  as  the  other 
Evangelifts,  to  fhew  that  Jefus  was  the  promifed 
Mefiiah,  and  to  convince  the  world  of  the  truth  of 
Chriftianity.  But  whoever  compares  this  paflage  with 
his  firft  Epiftle,  ch.  v.  i  -6.  will  find  it  to  be  a  decla- 
ration, that  he  wrote  in  order  to  convince  the  Gnoftics 
in  particular.  In  his  firft  Epiftle,  ch.  v.  5,  6.  he  afterts 
that  Jefus  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  he  was^  the 
Chrift,  not  by  water  only,  but  by  water  and  blood. 
This  affertion,  which,  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
*  Gnoftic  opinions,  muft  uppear  unintelligible,  was 
direded  againft  the  notions  of  Cerinthus,  that  Jefus 
and  Chrift  were  two  diftinct  Beings,  that  Jefus  was  a 
mere  man,  and  Chrift  a  fuperior  Spirit  or  ^Eon,  which 
was  united  with  Jefus  at  his  baptifm,  but  feparated 
from  him  before  his  death  on  the  crofs.  Now  if  we 
read  ch.  v.  5,  6.  of  St.  John's  firft  Epiftle  with  this 
notion  of  Cerinthus  in  view,  it  becomes  perfe6lly  in- 
telligible ;  for  we  then  perceive  that  St.  John  meant  to 
combat  this  notion,  and  to  declare  that  Jefus  was  the 
Chrift,  not  only  at  his  baptifm,  or  by  water,  but  like- 
wife  during  his  fufferings  and  at  his  death,  that  is,  by 
blood.  After  this  explanation,  the  paflage  above- 
quoted  from  St.  John's  Gofpel,  ch.  xx.  jf.  prefents 
itfelfin  a  totally  different  light:  and  the  declaration, 
that  he  wrote  to  ftiew  that  Jefus  was  the  Chrift  the  Son 
of  God,  appears  to  be  a  declaration,  that  he  wrote  to 
confute  the  notion  of  Cerinthus,  that  Jefus  and  Chrift 
were  two  diftinft  Beings,  united  at  the  baptifm  of  Jefus, 
but  feparated  before  his  death.  I  admit  however  that, 
as  the  declaration  of  St.  John  is  general,  this  pafl'age 
alone,  undecided  by  other  arguments,  would  be  of  no 
great  weight. 

An  objedion  to  the  opinion  that  St.  John  wrote 
againft  Cerinthus  I  found  written  in  my  father's  copy 
of  the  firft  edition  of  this  Introdudlionj  and   as  it  is  a 

material 


284  Of  St.  Jehu's  Gofpel.  CHAP.  vii. 

material  qne,  I  cannot  pafs  it  over  in  filence.  His 
objeclion  was  this:  '  Cerinthus  denied  that  Chrift  v/as 
born  of  a  virgin,  becaufe  the  faft,  he  faid,  was  impof- 
fible ;  and  contended,  that  he  was  begotten  in  the 
natural  way  by  Jofeph.  This  is  related  by  Iren^us.  If 
therefore  St.  John's  objeft  had  been  to  confute  Cerin- 
thus, he  would  have  thought  it  indifpenfibly  neceflary 
to  aiTert  the  miraculous  conception.  But  this  fubje6b, 
as  well  as  the  birth  of  Jefus,  he  has  paffed  over  in  total 
lilence.'  To  this  obje6tion  I  can  make  no  other  anfwer 
than  the  following :  that  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke,  which  were  written  before  that  of  St. 
John,  already  contained  an  account  of  the  miraculous 
conception  J  and  therefore  St.  John  might  think  it 
wnnecefTary,  even  in  a  work  directed  againfl  Cerinthus, 
to  fay  any  thing  further  on  the  fubjefl. 

From  what  has  been  faid  in  this  feftion  we  may  infer, 
that  if  any  genuine  works  of  the  ancient  Gnoftics  could 
be  now  difcovered*^,  they  would  furnifh  an  excellent 
commentary  on  St.  John's  Gofpel,  efpecially  on  the 
fourteen  firft  verfes. 


«  See  the  Orient.  BIbl.  Vol,  IV.  p.  zn. 


SECT.  IV.  Of  St.  John's  Gofpel.  285 


SECT.    IV. 

St  John  wrote  aljo  to  confute  the  errors  of  the  SabianSy  or 
the  fe5l  which  ackno-ivledged  John  the  Baptiji  for  its 
founder. 

THE  preceding  fedion  is  the  refiilt  of  the  inquiries, 
which  had  been  inftituted  before  the  year  1777, 
when  the  third  edition  of  this  Introduftion  was  pub- 
lilhed:  but  fince  that  time  a  totally  new  light  has  been 
thrown  on  St.  John's  Gofpel.  That  the  Apoftle  had 
to  combat  v/ith  certain  perfons  who  afcribed  to  John 
the  Baptift  a  greater  authority,  than  to  Jefus,  appears 
from  his  declaration,  ch.  i.  8.  that  John  the  Baptift 
was  not  the  Light  itfelf,  and  that  he  only  bore  witnefs 
to  the  Light.  For,  unlefs  this  had  been  afferted  of 
John  the  Baptift,  it  would  have  been  unnecefiary  to 
aftert  the  contrary.  However  as  we  knew  Httle  or 
nothing  of  the  fe£l,  which  acknowledged  John  the 
Baptift  for  their  chief,  the  thought  did  not  occur  that 
St.  John  the  Evangehft  had  any  fuch  feft  in  view,  when 
he  wrote  his  Gofpel.  But  in  the  year  17 Ho  we  became 
acquainted  not  only  with  the  religion,  but  with  the 
religious  writings  of  this  ^cS:,  for  which  we  are  indebted 
to  profefTor  Norberg.  The  members  of  this  fed  are 
called  [-i>wc.  -'r^^,  that  is,  Difciples  of  John,  and 
fometimes  —j-^^,  Difciples,  alone  :  they  have  likewife 
the  name  of  ^*.*-o,,  or  Sabians,  which  fignifies  Bap- 
tifts".  The  firft  account,  which  profeiiTr  Norberg 
communicated,  was  given  in  a  Swedifti  Journal,  of 
which  I  publiftied  a  tranflation  in  the  Orientalifche 
Bibliothek,  Vol.  xv.  No.  245.  and  248,  and  made  an 
application  of  it,  though  at  that  time  with  great  cau- 
tion, to  St.  John's  Gofpel.  But  a  more  complete  ac- 
count was  foon  afterwards  communicated  by  profefTor 
Norberg  in  a  Laun  Diirertation,  entitled,  De  rergione 

et 

"  They  have  been  fometimes  called  H-.-.f^c^aTrljrJti. 


^S6  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  chap.  yU. 

et  lingua  Sabasorum,  which,  with  a  fpecimen  of  the 
rehgious  writings  of  this  fc6t,  was  printed  in  the  Com- 
mentationes  focietatis  regime  fcientiarum  Goettingenfis 
ad  annum  1780,  and  of  which  I  gave  a  review  in  the 
Orient.  Bib.  Vol.  XVII.  N°  261.  As  foon  as  this 
diflertation  was  publiflied,  the  obfcurity,  in  which  St. 
John's  Gofpel  had  been  involved,  was  at  once  diflipated  : 
and  I  made  therefore  no  fcruple  to  afTert  in  the  Orient. 
Bibl.  Vol.  XVIII.  p.  58.  that  St.  John's  Gofpel  was 
direfted  againft  the  fed,  which  took  its  name  from 
John  the  Baptift  -,  for  the  members  of  this  fed  not  only 
made  ufe  of  the  word  *  Light,*  &c.  but  contended  that 
John  the  Baptift  was  the  Light,  a  doflrine  combated 
by  our  Evangelift  °.  Nor  am  I  fmgular  at  prefent  in 
this  opinion :  for  it  has  been  adopted  by  Dr.  Walch  in 
his  treatife  on  the  Sabians  printed  in  the  Comment,  foe. 
reg.  fcient.  Goetdngenfis  ad  an.  178 1,  and  defended 
by  Dr.  Storr,  in  his  treatife  on  the  Evangelical  Hiftory 
and  Epiftles  of  St.  John,  publifhed  in  1786. 

At  the  time,  when  St.  John  the  Evangelift  wrote  his 
Gofpel  at  Ephefus,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  Sabians 
or  difciples  of  John  the  Baptift,  had  fpread  themfelves 
in  that  city  and  its  neighbourhoods  For  we  learn 
from  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  ch.  xviii.  24,  25.  that 
when  Apollos  came  to  Ephefus,  he  knew  only  the  bap- 
tifm  of  John,  dll  he  was  inftruded  in  Chriftianity  by 
Aquila  and  Prifcilla  :  and  ch.  xix.  i — 7.  We  find  an 
account  of  twelve  perfons  likewife  at  Ephefus,  who 
had  been  bapnzed  in  the  name  of  John  the  Baptift,  but 
were  afterwards  converted  to  Chriftianity,  and  baptized 
by  St.  Paul  in  the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift. 

If 

°  In  the  Epiflles  of  St.  John,  the  dodrines  of  this  fe£l  are  com- 
bated ftili  more  evidently. 

P  Though  it  is  not  probable  that  the  Sabians  of  the  firfl:  century 
agreed  in  all  refpefls  with  the  Sabians  of  the  prefent  age,  fince  every 
religious  focicty  rouft  alter  in  fome  mcafure  its  opinions  in  a  courfe  of 
feventeen  hundred  years,  yet  they  probably  agreed  in  the  principal 
and  diflinguifhing  dodrines. 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  John's  Gajpel.  aSy 

If  it  be  alked,  whether  the  Sabians,  or  the  fed: 
which  acknowledged  John  for  their  founder,  agreed  in 
their  opinions  with  the  Gnoflics,  I  anfwer  that  they 
certainly  did  in  many,  though  I  cannot  affirm  that  they 
did  in  all.  The  Sabians  of  the  prefent  age  have  ftill 
many  terms  in  ufe,  fuch  as  Light,  Fire,  &c.  which 
they  apply  in  the  fame  manner  as  the  Gnoftics  did: 
but  it  is  not  to  be  expedled,  after  a  lapfe  of  feventeen 
hundred  years,  that  the  modern  Sabians  fhould  retain 
all  the  terms,  which  were  ufed  in  the  firft  century, 
fmce  many  of  them  were  myfterious,  particularly  the 
term  *  Word.' 


SECT.     V. 

Of  the  tenets  maintained  hy  the  Gnojiics  and  the  Sabians ^  and 
the  manner  in  which  they  are  confuted  by  St.  John. 

THE  Gnoftics,  in  order  to  account  for  the  origin 
of  evil  in  the  world,  which  they  fuppofed  could 
not  proceed  from  an  all-wife  and  benevolent  Being, 
adopted  the  notion  that  the  world  was  created,  not  by 
the  fupreme  Deity,  but  by  a  Being  of  inferior  rank, 
which  they  called  Demiurgus.  In  refpedt  to  the  cha- 
radler  of  this  Being  they  were  not  unanimous,  for  fome 
confidered  him  as  an  evil  fpirit,  which  was  at  perpetual 
enmity  with  the  Supreme  Being,  while  others  afcribe 
to  him,  not  a  want  of  benevolence,  but  only  a  want  of 
knowledge,  which  prevented  him  from  feeing  the  evil 
confequences  of  the  arrangement,  which  he  adopted  in 
the  formation  of  the  world.  But  they  all  agreed  in 
reprefenting  the  Demiurgus,  as  the  God  of  the  Jews. 
Between  this  Demiurgus  and  the  fupreme,  invifiblc;, 
incomprehenfible  Being,  they  placed  an  order  of  ^ons, 
to  which  they  afligned  the  names  of  Only-begotten, 
Word,  Light,  Life,  &c. ;  but  they  were  not  unanimous 

in 


l8S  Of  ^t.  John's  Go/pel.  chap,  vit 

in  regard  to  the  rank,  which  was  to  be  afTigned  to  each. 
Thefe  ./©Qos  dwelt  with  God  in  the  higheft  and  the 
pureft  heaven,  which  the  Gnoftics  called  nx»i^wn/.«,  a 
term  which  I  will  not  attempt  to  tranflate,  as  I  know 
not  what  notion  the  Gnoftics  affixed  to  it.  One  of 
thefe  iEnos  was  Chrift,  who  united  himfelf  with  Jcfus 
at  his  baptifm,  but  departed  from  him  before  his  death. 
The  moral  tenets  of  the  Gnoftics  were  different  ac- 
cording to  the  different  fedts :  fome  were  of  a  gloomy 
and  melancholy  caft,  while  others  are  reprefented,  but 
probably  without  reafon,  as  favouring  licentioufnefs. 
Moft  of  the  Gnoftics  were  inimical  to  the  law  of  Mofes^ 
becaufe  they  believed  that  it  was  given  not  by  the 
Supreme  Being,  but  by  the  Demiurgus,  and  that  Chrift 
was  fent  into  the  world  to  redeem  us  from  the  God  of 
the  Jews.  But  Cerinthus  is  faid  to  have  been  favour-' 
able  to  fome  parts  of  the  Mofaic  law,  though  we  do  not 
cxadly  know  what  they  were  ^. 

The  plan  which  St.  John  adopted  to  confute  the 
tenets  of  the  Gnoftics  and  the  Sabians,  was,  firft  to  de- 
liver a  let  of  aphorifms,  as  counterpofitions  to  thefe 
tenets,  and  then  to  relate  fuch  fpeeches  and  miracles 
of  Chrift,  as  confirmed  the  truth  of  what  he  had  ad- 
vanced. We  muft  not  fuppofe  that  the  confutation 
of  the  Gnoftic  and  Sabian  errors  is  confined  to  the  four- 
teen fiift  verfes  of  St.  John's  Gofpel :  for  in  the  firft 
place  it  is  evident  that  many  of  Chrift's  fpeeches,  which 
occur  in  the  following  part  of  the  Gofpel,  were  fclecSted 
by  the  Evangelift  with  the  view  of  proving  the  politions 

laid 

s  Whoever  w'lfhes  to  have  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  tenets  of 
the  Gnoiiics  muftconfult  Molheim'b  Ecclefi.iflical  Hillory,  Beaufobre's 
Hiltoire  de  Manichee  ec  du  Manicheilme,  and  efpecially  Walch's 
Hiltory  of  Heretics,  in  which  laft  work  the  GnofHc  tenets  arc  not 
only  fully  delcribed,  but  fupported  by  the  necefi'ary  authorities.  A 
pofition  maintained  by  thefe  three  writers,  that  the  Gnoftic  philo- 
fophy  did  not  derive  its  origin  from  Chrillianiiy,  but  that  itcxilled  ia 
the  Eaft  Icng  before  the  birth  of  Chrift,  I  have  endeavoured  to  con- 
firm in  tie  feccnd  volume  of  the  Syntagma  commentationumj  by 
ihewing  tl  at  there  a.e  allufions  to  it  in  the  Septuiigiat. 


SECT,  V,  Of  St,  John's  Gcfpel.  289 

kid  down  in  thefe  fourteen  verfes :  and  fecondly,  the 
pofitions  themftlves  are  not  proofs,  but  merely  decla- 
rations made  by  the  Evangeliil.  It  is  true,  that  for  us 
Chriflians,  who  acknowledge  the  divine  authority  of 
St.  John,  his  bare  word  is  lufncient :  but  as  the  Apoftle 
had  to  combat  with  advcrfaries,  who  made  no  fuch 
acknowledgement,  the  only  method  of  convincing  them 
was  to  fupport  his  afiertion  by  the  authority  of  Chrift 
himfclf 

The  term  Acyoq^  as  I  have  already  obferved,  was 
taken  by  St.  John  from  the  fyftem  of  the  Gnoflics. 
He  has  ufed  it  to  denote  the  divine  natufe,  which  was 
united  to  the  man  Jefus,  and,  according  to  his  own 
expreffion,  became  Flelh.  Some  of  the  Gnoftics  placed 
the  ^  Word'  above  all  the  other  iEons,  and  next  to  the 
Supreme  Being:  but  Cerinthus  placed  the  'Only  be- 
gotten' firft,  and  then  the  *  Word ','  Now  St.  John 
lays  down  the  foUoAving  pofitions, 

r.  The  Word,  and  the  Only-begotten,  are  not  dif- 
ferent but  the  fame  perfon.  Ch.  i.  14.  *  We  beheld 
his  glory,  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father.' 
This  is  a  ftrong  pofition  againft  the  Gnoftics,  who 
ufually  afcribed  all  the  divine  qualities  to  the  Only- 
begotten, 

The  proofs  of  this  pofition  are^  the  tefcimony  of 
John  the  Baptid,  ch.  i.  18.  34.  iiu  2S^  3^'  the  con- 
verfarion  of  Chrift  with  Nicodemus,  ch.  iii.  16-18.  in 
which  Chrift  calls  himfelf  the  only-begotten  fon,  the 
fpeech  delivered  by  Chrift  to  the  Jews,  ch.  v.  17-47. 
and  other  paflages,  in  which  he  calls  God  his  Father. 

1.  The  Word  was  never  made,  but  exifted  from  the 
very  beginning,  ch.  i;  /. 

The  Gnoftics  granted  that  the  Word  exifted  before 
the   creation,    but  they  did  not  admit  that   the  Word 
exifted   from   all  eternity.     The  Supreme  Being,    ac- 
cording 

"■  Initium  quidem  efTe  monogenem  :  Logon  autem  verum  Cium 
Unigeniti.     Iren.  adv.  Hseref.  Lib.  IIL  cap.  xi. 

Vol.  Ill  T 


29®  Of  St.  John's  Gofpei.  chap,  vii* 

cording  to  their  tenets,  and  according  to  Cerinthus 
the  Only-begotten  Son  likevvife,  as  alio  the  matter  from 
which  the  world  was  formed,  were  prior  in  exiflence  to 
the  Word.  This  notion  is  contradifted  by  St.  John, 
who  aflerts  that  the  Word  exifted  from  all  eternity*. 

As  a  proof  of  this  pofition  may  be  alleged  perhaps 
what  Chrift  fays,  ch.  viii.  58.  though  I  confcfs  that, 
unlefs  a  particular  emphafis  be  laid  on  the  exprefTion 
*^  I  am,'  and  it  be  taken  in  the  fenfe  of  the  Hebrew 
J^in  'J{^>  though  it  proves  the  pre-exiftence  of  Chrifl, 
it  does  not  prove  his  eternal  exiflence.  Ch.  xvii.  5. 
appears  to  be  of  more  weight.  If  Chrift  ufed  the  word 
n^^J^'12  where  St.  John  has  mv  c.^yj^v^  ch.  viii.  2^. 
this  paiTage  might  likewife  be  produced^  but  both 
grammar  and  context  are  unfavourable. 

J.  The  Word  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  ch.  i, 

I,  ^. 

The  Gnoftlcs  muft  have  maintained  a  contrary  doc- 
trine, or  St.  John  in  confuting  their  tenets  would  not 
have  thought  it  neceilary  to  advance  this  pofition,  fmce 
God  is  omniprefcnt,  and  therefore  all  things  are  prefent 
with  him.  The  Gnoftics  affigned  what  they  called  the 
Pleroma^  for  the  refidence  of  the  Supreme  Being  and 
the  iEons.  Perhaps  Cerinthus,  or  fome  other  Gnoftic,, 
had  excluded  the  Word  from  the  Pleroma,  or  at  leaft 
had  aflerted  that  the  Word  was  not  there  from  the  very 
beginning. 

The 

»  According  to  Anquet'il,  the  doftrlne  of  the  Perfian  or  Zoroaf- 
trian  philofophy  was,  that  the  Word  exifted  before  Ormuzd,  and 
Ahriman  :  and  that  Time  by  means  of  the  Word  produced  Ormuzd 
and  Ahriman.  He  contends  likewife,  that  Time,  or  rather  Eternity, 
denoted,  in  the  Zoroaftrian  philofophy,  the  Supreme  Being.  Of  this 
faft  I  am  not  fully  convinced :  but  whether  he  is  right  in  this  point 
or  not,  it  is  probable  that  in  the  phrafe  iv  a.^y;n  r.v  0  ^070J,  the  word 
A^X^  ufed  by  St.  John  has  a  reference  to  tiie  unlimited  Time  of 
the  Eaftern  philofophy.  For  when  he  fays,  the  Word  was  in  the 
beginning,  he  means,  the  Word  was  from  eternity. 

*  What  they  meant  by  this  expreffion  it  is  difficult  to  determine. 


TjEct.  V,  Of  Sl  John's  Go/pel.  2gi 

The  proofs  of  this  pofition  are,  ch.  i.  i8.  iii.  13. 
31,  32.   vi.  23-  3S'  3^'  41-  42.  62.  vii.  28.   29.  xviii, 

5- 

4.  The  Word  was  God,  ch.  i.  i. 

The  cxprefiion  *  God'  mud  here  be  taken  in  its 
higheft  fenfe,  or  this  pofition  will  contain  nothing  con- 
trary to  the  do6trine  of  the  Gnofdcs.  For  they  ad^ 
initced  that  the  Word  was  an  ^on,  and  therefore  a 
Deity  in  the  lower  fenfe  of  the  word. 

The  proofs  of  this  pofition  are  contained  in  the 
fifth,  tenth,  (ver.  30.),  and  fourteenth  (ver.  7 — 11.) 
chapters. 

5.  The  Word  was  the  Creator  of  all  diings,  ch.  i. 

This  is  one  of  St.  John's  principal  pofitions  againft 
the  Gnoftics,  who  afferted,  that  the  world,  as  it  con- 
tains evil  mixed  with  good,  was  made  by  a  malevolent, 
and,  according  to  Cerinthus,  by  an  inferior  Being, 
who  knew  not  the  Supreme  Being".  The  affertion, 
that  the  Word  was  the  Creator  of  the  world,  is  equi- 
valent to  the  afferdon,  that  he  was  God  in  the  higheft 
poffible  fenfe.  In  whatever  form  or  manner  we  may 
think  of  God,  the  notion  of  Creator  is  infeparable 
from  the  notion  of  Supreme  Being.  We  argue  from 
the  creation  to  the  creator;  and  this  very  argument  is 
our  proof  of  the  exiftence  of  God. 

The  only  paffage  which  can  be  produced  as  a  proof 
of  the  pofition  here  laid  down  by  St.  John  is  ch.  v.  17. 
where  a  converfation  is  related  between  Chrift  and  the 
jews,  who  accufed  him  of  having  violated  the  fabbath, 
becaufe  he  had  performed  miracles  on  that  day.  To 
this  charge  Chrift  might  have  anfwered  that  the  per- 
formance of  a  miracle  was  no  more  a  violation  of  the 
fabbath  than  the  performance  of  religious  ceremonies : 

but 

J  Virtus  valde  feparata  et  diftans  ab  ea  prlnclpalitate,  quae  efl 
fuper  univerfa,  et  ignorans  eum  qui  eft  fuper  omnia  Deura.  Irensus 
adv.  Haeref.  Lib.  1,  c  26. 

T  2 


1^2  Of  St.  John's  Gojpet.  chAp.  w\\i 

but  he  anfwered  in  a  different  manner,  and  faid,  *  My 
Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work.'  The  word 
'  hitherto'  refers  to  the  time  when  God  ceafed  to  workj 
namely  on  the  firft  fabbath,  when  God  refted  after  he 
had  finifhed  the  w^ork  of  the  creation.  This  reft, 
which  Mofes  afcribes  to  the  Creator,  admits  of  no 
other  explanation,  than  that  he  ceafed  to  operate  im- 
mediately on  the  world,  and  that  he  left  nature  to  take 
the  courfe,  which  he  had  originally  directed.  Hence 
every  miracle,  which  is  a  deviation  from  the  courfe  of 
nature,  may  be  confidered  as  a  departure  from  the 
rule,  which  God  prefcribed  to  himfelf,  and  as  a  kind 
of  violation  of  the  firft  fabbath,  becaufe  a  miracle  im- 
plies God's  interference.  The  meaning  therefore  of 
Chrift's  anfwer  is  the  follov/ing.  '  God  himfelf  fome- 
times  breaketh  the  great  Sabbath,  of  which  your  fab- 
bath is  only  a  type.  After  he  had  finiftied  the  work 
of  the  creation,  he  refted  indeed  on  the  feventh  day ; 
yet  he  ftill  worketh,  and  I  work  with  him.'  Whoever 
fpeaks  in  this  manner,  and  defcribes  himfelf  as  breaking, 
with  God,  the  great  fabbath,  which  commenced'when  the 
creation  was  completed,  reprefents  himfelf  as  the  Creator 
of  heaven  and  earth,  who  refted  on  the  feventh  day. 

6.   In  the  Word  was  Life,  ch,  i.  4. 

The  Gnoftics  who  confidered  the  different  attributes 
or  operations  of  the  Deity  not  only  as  fo  many  feparate 
energies,  but  as  fo  many  feparate  perfons,  confidered 
Life  as  a  diftind  iEon  from  the  Word.  Without 
this  /Eon  the  world,,  they  faid,  would  be  in  a  ftate  of 
torpor  :  and  hence  they  called  it  not  only  Life,  but  the 
Mother  of  the  Living"^.     From   this  yEon  therefore 

might 

w  It  is  not  improbable  that  this  name  was  borrowed  by  the  Gnof- 
tics from  the  following  palfage  in  the  Septuagint,  Gen.  iii.  20.  Ka» 
tx«?.£7£»  A^uiA  TO  ovoi/.ci  TYiq  yviixtKoi;  avli),  TLur,,  o)«  jw»{iii^  <isa.i\u})  tui 
^uvi^i/.  Here  Zwjj  is  nothing  more  than  a  tranflation  of  tha  Hebrew- 
name  for  Eve :  but  the  Gnoflics  in  reading  this  paffage,  thought  on 
their  ^on  Zur,,  and  hence  perhaps  gave  it  likewife  the  title  of  f^wltfj 
wayli!}  Ti^n  ^uti0».     The  oriental  name  of  this  i£on  was  Barbelo,  or 

Biubero, 


jStCT.  V.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  29 j 

might  be  expected  the  refurredion  of  the  dead,  and 
eternal  life.  In  the  religious  books  of  the  Sabians  we 
meet  with  ]-^-^i  |j.iicj  that  is,  the  Difciple  of  Light, 
who  is  reprefented  as  a  perfon  of  the  greateft  eminence. 
In  oppofition  to  thefe  doftrinps  St.  John  afferts  that 
the  Word,  and  not  a  Being  diftind  from  the  Word, 
was  the  giver  of  life. 

The  proqfs  of  this  pofition  are  in  ch.  iii.  15 — 21. 
the  whole  of  the  fixth,  and  the  greateft  part  of  the 
eighth  chapter,  as  alfo  ch.  xiv,  6.  9.  19.  But  no  part 
pf  St.  John's  Gofpel  is  a  more  complete  proof  of  this 
pofition,  than  his  full  and  circumftantial  account  of 
the  refurre6tion  of  Lazarus,  which  the  other  Evange- 
Jifts  had  omitted.  Particular  attention  muft  be  paid  to 
ch.  xi.  23.  24.  which  is  a  very  decifive  palTage. 

7.  The  Word  was  the  Light  of  men,  which  lighteth 
every  man,  that  cometh  into  the  world,  ch,  i.  4.  9. 

In  the  Gnoftic  fyftem  Light,  as  well  as  Life,  was  a 
feparate  Being,  which  gave  intelligence  to  the  mind,  as 
Life  gave  vigour  and  motion  to  the  body*.  This  is 
denied  by  St.  John,  who  afTerts  that  the  Word  was 
the  Light,  that  is,  the  giver  of  light.  By  the  expref- 
fion,  *  light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into 
the  world,'  he  means  the  light  of  nature,  or  reafon : 
for  revelation  is  not  univerfal,  and  of  courfe  does  not 
light  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world. 

The  proofs  of  this  pofition  are  the  palTages  in  the 
eighth  and  ninth  chapters,  where  Chrift  calls  himfelf 
the  Light.  It  is  true  that  thefe  paflages  alone,  and 
without  reference  to  the  Gnoftic  fyftem,  do  not  ini- 
inediatsly  prove,    that  Chrift  v/as  the  giver  of  rcafun. 

Bur, 

Barbero,  which  Petavius  derives  from  ';?];a  11  (Son  of  the  Lord). 
But  this  etymology  conveys  neither  the  notion  of  Life  itfelf,  nor  of  the 
Author  of  Life:  and  moreover  makes  this  .■Eon  mafculine,  whereas 
it  is  reprefented  as  feminine.  Perhaps  the  name  was  originally  Bar- 
teloj  and  derived  joil:^  Z.;.o  (Daughter  of  God). 

*  The  Sabian  dottrine  of  Light  will  be  examined  in  the,  two  next 
articles. 


294  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  chap.  vir. 

But,  fince  the  Gnoftics  believed,  that  they  received 
their  rational  faculties  from  a  particular  iEon,  which 
they  called.  Light,  the  proof  that  the  Word  was  the 
Light,  was  fiifficient  to  fhew,  that  what  they  afcribed 
to  this  imaginary  iEon,  fhould  be  afcribed  to  the 
Word. 

8.   John  the  Baptift  was  not  that  Light,  ch.  i.  8. 

The  Sabians,  or  Difciples  of  John  the  Baptifl:,  call 
the  Baptifm  of  John,  at  this  very  day,  the  Baptifm  of 
Light,  and  affert  that  John  was  invefted  with  light 
and  raifed  to  the  higheft  pitch  of  glory.  It  is  difficult 
however  fully  to  comprehend  their  meaning.  In  ^he 
firft  place  they  defcribe  God  as  Light,  and  make  ufe 
of  expreffions,  v/hich,  if  taken  figuratively,  are  true^, 
and  are  very  fimilar  to  the  expreffions  ufed  by  our 
Evangelift  in  his  firft  Epiftlc.  But  they  likewife  fpeak 
of  a  Being  called  Light,  as  diftind  from  the  Supreme 
Being,  which  united  itfelf  with  John  the  Baptift,  at  the 
time  when  he  baptized  a  celcftial  Being,  which  appeared 
to  him  in  the  form  of  a  little  child.  I  will  not  atcempt 
to  develope  the  obfciire  and  confufcd  fyftem  of  the 
Sabians ;  butfince  feveral  parts  of  it  may  be  applied  as 
an  explanation  of  the  fourteen  firft  verfes  of  St.  John's 
Gofpel,  I  will  here  quote  from  their  religious  books  as 
much  as  is  neceflary  for  our  prefent  purpofe. 

*  In  the  name  of  the  great  Life,  the  firft  and  the  laft 
of  the  world,  the  glorious  Light,  more  glorious  than 
all  works.  I,  Apoftle  of  the  light  ^,  (l^cncji  |x,-*_l..*) 
am  come,  and  glorified  thee,  thou  King  of  Light'-, 
and  enlighten  the  hearts  of  darknefs  with  my  word. — 
I  am  the  Apoftle  of  the  Light,  whom  the  Lord  fent 
into  the  world,  the  true  Apoftle,  in  whom  there  is  no 

deceit. 


y  It  will  appear  from  what  follows,  that  by  the  expreHion  '  Apoltle 
of  the  Light '  is  meant  John  the  Baptilh 

*  In  oppofition   to   this,  Chrift  fays,  'Eyj  ai  eoo^aa-a,   etti  tijj  •yr.';^ 
Jphnxvii.  j^. 


sfCT.  V.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel,  2^^ 

deceit.  Whoever  receiveth  the  name  of  Light*,  will 
be  filled  with  Light. — Praifed  be  thou,  O  Lord,  with 
fincere  hearts,  thou  Lord  of  all  the  world,  thou  exalted 
King  of  Light,  God  of  truth,  pure  Splendor,  Forgiven, 
and  rrierciful  God.— His  Light  Ihineth  over  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  world,  who  ftand  before  him,  and 
worfhip,  and  acknowledge  himj  who  fhine  through 
his  brightnefs,  and  through  the  great  Light,  which 
dwelleth  over  them,  and  ftand  in  the  clouds  of  the 
Lightj  and  praiie  the  Sovereign  Lord^ — He  is  the 
exalted  King  of  Light,  from  whom  five  great  rays 
proceed;  the  firft  is  the  Light*",  the  fecond  is  the 
Iweet  Breath,  the  third  is  the  fweet  Voice^  the  fourth 
is  the  Word  of  the  mouth '^,  the  fifth  is  Beauty.  Thefe 
opened  their  mouths,  praifed  him  and  faid.  Thy  Glory 
is  from  the  Word,  from  the  Word  of  Athor;  he  has 
fet  apart  the  Apoftles,  who  ftand  before  thee,  and  praife 
thee,  and  fay.  He  is  a  Key  of  Light  in  his  kingdom, 
no  one  is  higher  than  he,  no  one  is  equal  to  him,  there 
is  no  one,  who  can  bear  to  behold  his  crown,  which 
falleth  not  from  the  head  of  the  King,  who  is  from  the 
beginning,  and  whofe  kingdom  lafteth  to  eternity.' 

That  which  now  follows,  relates  more  particularly  to 
John  the  Baptift. 

*  In  the  name  of  the  great  Light !  Thefe  are  the  laws 
of  John  the  Baptift.  When  he  baptized  in  the  Jordan 
pf  living  water  with  the  baptifm  of  Life,  and  pro- 
nounced 


'  That  is,  whofoever  receives  the  Light,  and  is  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Light; 

^  A  great  part  of  what  has  been  quoted  thus  far,  if  we  dedufl 
fonie  obfcurities,  contains  nothing  more,  than  what  the  Apoftle  St. 
John  himfelf  might  have   delivered,  and  really  has  delivered  in  his 

Epiftles. 

*  Here  we  find  a  Light,  which  is  not  God  himfelf,  but  proceeds 
from  him,  and  is  a  kind  of  Gnoftic  ^on,  or  emanation. 

^  The  expreflion  ufed  in  the  Syr iac  original  is,  |;£Qa!  \'f^'^ . 
Whether  this  expreffion  bears  any  analogy  to  the  Aoy©-,  I  muft  leave 
the  reader  to  determine. 

T4 


i^6  Of  St.  JohrCs  Go/pel.  chap.  vii. 

nounced  the  name  of  Life,  the  Difciple  ( f  Life 
(j..*^»  jjj^c)  came  to  him,  and  faid,  Arife,  John,  bap- 
tize me  with  thy  baptifm,  and  pronounce  over  me  the 
name,  which  thou  art  accuftomed  to  pronounce.  John 
faid  to  the  Difciple  of  Life,  I  am  fleepy,  come  tOr 
morrow,  and  I  will  baptize  thee.  When  the  Difciple 
of  Life  ftood  at  the  place  of  all  light  and  glory'',  he 
faid,  I  befeech  thee,  thou  fecond,  and  thou  third  Life, 
may  fleep  come  on  the  eyes  of  John  twelve  hours  by 
day,  and  twelve  hours  by  night,  full  four  and  twenty 
hours.  Lie  flept  then  day  and  night :  but  the  Difciple 
of  Life  laid  his  right  hand  on  the  eye  of  John,  and 
removed  the  fleep,  and  faid.  Peace  be  with  thee,  John  1 
John  faid  to  the  Difciple  of  Life,  Come  in  peace,  my 
child  !  The  Difciple  of  Life  faid,  Stretch  out  thy  arms, 
take  me,  and  baptize  me  with  thy  baptifm  of  life,  and 
pronounce  over  me  the  name,  which  thou  art  accuf- 
tomed  to  pronounce.  John  anfwered  to  the  Difciple 
of  Life,  That  cannot  be !  But  the  fcholars*^  of  John 
earneftly  requefted  him :  he  baptized  therefore  the 
Difciple  of  Life.  As  foon  as  the  Jordan  perceived 
the  Difciple  of  Life,  the  river  overflowed,  and  covered 
John  himfelf,  fo  that  he  could  not  lland.  The  luftre 
of  the  Difciple  of  Life  fhone  over  the  Jordan,  the 
Jordan  returned  within  its  banks,  and  John  flood  on 
dry  ground— John  faid  to  the  Difciple  of  Life,  Thou 
art  he,  in  whofe  name  I  have  baptized  with  tlie  baptifm 
of  life:  lay  thy  hand  on  me.  The  difcipleof  Lite  an- 
fwered, If  I  lay  my  hand  on  thee,  thou  canft  not -remain 
in  thy  body.     John  faid,  J  have  feen   thee :  I  will  not 

remait^ 

e  Is  this  a  Gnoftic  •?r^»^w/^^«  ? 

'  I  purpofely  ufe  here  the  word  '  fcholar'  inftead  of  *  difciple,' 
in  order  to  preferve  the  dillinftion.  which  is  made  in  the  religious 
documents  of  the  S.bians.  Where  I  have  ufed  the  word  *  difciple,' 
theSjiiac  word  \fi-.lo  is  ufed  in  the  original:  but  in  the  prefent 
place  j,_*lial»Z.  is  'ufed,  and  therefore  I  thought  it  necefEiry  to  adopt 
another  tertn  in  tranflating  this  nonfenfe,  which  is  a]moft  fufficient 
to  make  one's  head  giddy. 


sssGT.  V,  Of  St,  John's  Gojpeh  297 

remain  here :  exclude  me  not  from  the  place,  whence 
thou  camefl,  and  whither  thou  goeft.  Then  threw  the 
Angel  of  Light  the  covering  of  the  body  (1^^^!  j^coA) 
of  John  into  the  Jordan^,  wrapt  him  in  a  covering  of 
glory,  and  put  on  him  the  beautiful  turban  of  light. 
Upon  this,  the  Difciple  of  Life  went  away  from  John. 
When  Fetachil  faw  the  Difciple  of  Life,  he  arofe  from 
his  throne,  and  praifcd  him.  But  John  faid  to  Fetachil, 
The  return  (j-^iao-Z.)  of  Life  is  to  thee  and  to  thy 
father  Utro  (Wealth) ^  and  it  has  given  thee  commands 
and  fent  thee  hither.  The  Difciple  came  then  to  the 
outer  court  of  Abatur  the  fublimc  :  a  thoufand  times  a 
thoufand  lift  up  their  eyes  to  him',  and  ten  thoufand 
times  ten  thoufand  ftand  before  him.  When  Abatur 
faw  the  Difciple  of  Life,  he  arofe  from  his  throne". 
Four  men  of  peace,  the  living  Eye,  the  living  Name, 
the  living  Glory,  and  the  living  Light,  took  John  by 
the  hand,  led  him  to  the  place  of  Truth,  and  faid; 
Let  us  fee  a  man,  who  comes  from  the  earth,  a  juft 
and  upright  one.  Abatur,  the  ancient  clothed  fome  of 
them  with  glory,  others  with  light.  But  John  fhood 
at  the  place  of  all  glory  and  of  all  light,  and  faid,  I 
befeech  thee,  thou  firft  Life,  thou  fecond  Life,  and  thou 
third  Life,  that  to  the  place  of  Light,  where  I  Hand, 
may  come  all  honeft  and  upright  men,  who  are  written 
in  the  book  of  life,  and  are  baptized  with  pure  baptifm, 
over  whom  the  name  of  the  great  Life  has  been  pro- 
pounced.' 

9.  John 

e  Here  then  John  is  reprefented  as  deprived  of  his  natural  body, 
and  invefted  with  a  glorious  one,  in  Ihort  as  becoming  more  than  a 
■  human  being. 

^  Was  EX  Ty  'S!Kyipa>fACtTO(;  ocvri^  'aravTcc  i\ccQofji,iv,  John  1.  10.  intended 
as  an  antithefis  to  this  or  fome  other  fimilar  dream  of  an  imaginary 
being  called  Wealths 

^  Behold  him. 

^  Even  Abatur,  therefore,  who  was  much  fuperior  to  the  Demi- 
urgus  Fetachil,  is  reprefented  as  doing  homage  to  the  Difciple  of 
Jjife. 


^g^  Of  Si.  John's  GoJpeL  chap.  nu. 

9.  John  the  Baptift  was  a  mere  man.  Ver.  6. 

It  appears  from  what  has  been  laid  in  the  preceding- 
article,  that  the  Sabians  confidered  John  the  Baptift  as 
a  being  of  a  higher  orderj  who  laid  afide  the  covering 
of  humanity  in  the  river  Jordan^  and  was  inverted  with  a 
clothing  of  light, 

10.  John  the  Baptift  was  not  the  Light,  but  was  fent 
to  bear  witnefs  of  the  Light.  Ver.  %. 

The  Sabians,  or  difciples  of  John  the  Baptift,  are  at 
pre  fent  of  different  opinions  with  refpeft  to  the  cha- 
rafter  of  Jefusj  for  fome  paflages  in  their  religious 
■writings  condemn  him  as  an  impoftor,  and  as  a  perfon 
who  was  guilty  of  ingratitude  toward  John  the  Baptift. 
But  this  opinion  was  not  maintained  by  the  Sabians  of 
the  firft  century,  at  leaft  not  by  thofe  againft  whom  St. 
John  the  EvangeUft  wrote  his  Gofpel :  nor  was  it 
maintained  by  the  members  of  this  feci,  of  whom  we 
find  an  account  in  the  Afts  of  the  Apoftlcs.  Accord- 
ing to  Profefibr  Norberg,  when  the  Sabians  of  the  pre- 
fent  age  are  afked  their  opinion  concerning  Jefus  Chrift^ 
they  anfwer  as  follows.  '  We  neither  believe  in  Chrift, 
nor  dift)elieve  in  him :  and  thofe,  who  believe  in  hinij^ 
we  neither  condemn,  nor  approve.  But  this  we  believe, 
that  whoever  believeth  in  the  Light  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  baptifm  of  John,  his  foul  will  after  death  be  par- 
taker of  the  Light :  but  if  he  believeth  not,  his  foul 
will  be  partaker  of  puniftiment^'  They  likewife  fay : 
*  Our  do6lrines  are  more  ancient  than  the  Chriftian : 
thefe  were  not  known  to  John,  and  John  is  our 
mafter"".' 

The  proof  of  the  pofition  laid  down  in  this  article 
the  Evangelift  has  given,  ch.  i.  15,  16.  19 — 52.  iii. 
o^ — J 6,  V.  ';i^';^ — 36.  In  the  laft  mentioned  paffage, 
ver.  ■7,^.  the  Evangelift  mentions  an  expreflion  ufed  by 
Chrift  concerning  John  the  Baptift,  'Estate?  -av  0  Xvyjoq  0 
v.ono^ivo<;  xtxi   (pacivuy.     Here  it  muft   be  obferved   that 

the 

J  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vpl.  XV.  p.  148. 
»  Ibid,  p.  149. 


jii&cT.  y.  Of  St.  John's  Gofpel.  29^ 

the  word  Au;)^vos  is  by  no  means  equivalent  to  ^wc :  for 
the  latter  figniries  Light  itfelF,  but  the  former  correfponds 
to  the  Hebrew  word  "1^,  and  denotes  only  a  light,  \\\ 
the  fenfe  in  which  we  ufe  the  term  wax- light.  When 
therefore  John  the  Baptift  is  called  a  light,  or  a  lumi- 
nary^ it  is  evident  that  this  luminary,  which  flione  only 
for  a  time,  and  only  to  a  fingle  nation,  is  reprcfented  as 
infinitely  inferior  to  Ghrifl-,  who  calls  himfelf  '  The 
Light  of  the  World.' 

11.  The  Light  was  in  the  world.  Ver.  10. 

This  is*  a  counterpofition  againfl:  the  Gnoftic  or 
Oriental  dodrine,  which  made  matter  the  region  of 
darknefs,  and  the  caufe  of  evil;  and  placed  the  region 
of  Light  without  the  limits  of  the  vifible  world.  The 
Gnoftics  thereibre  maintained,  that  the  Light  was  not 
in  the  world. 

12.  The  world  was  made  by  him,  and  the  world 
knew  him  not.  Ver.  10. 

This  is  directed  againfl  that  tenet  of  the  Gnoftics, 
according  to  which  the  world  was  made,  not  by  the 
Supreme,  but  by  an  inferior  Being,  which  they  called 
Fetachil,  who,  they  fay,  rifes  from  his  feat,  when  the 
pifciple  of  Light  approaches. 

13.  The  fifth  verfe  contains  a  pofition  fimilar  to  the 
preceding ;  but  I  do  not  fully  comprehend  its  tendency, 
becaufe  I  neither  know  what  tenet  it  was  intended  to 
confute,  nor  underftand  exaftly  the  force  of  the  word 
v-anXoc^i.  Did  St.  John  mean  to  fay,  ^  The  Light 
jfhone  in  the  dark  world,  and  communicated  to  the 
human  race  inextinguifhable  fparks  of  reafon :  and  the 
darknefs  could  not  prevent  or  impede  it  r"  Or  did 
he  mean  to  combat  a  tenet  fimilar  to  that  of  the 
Manich^ans,  according  to  which  the  pardcles  of  Light 
were  abforbed  by  dark  and  fin-producing  matter, 
and  to  fay,  *  The  Light  did  not  unite  itfelf  with  dark- 
nefs ?' 

14.  He  came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him 
not.  Ver,  II. 

Here 


300  Of  St.  John's  Gofpl.  chap,  vii. 

Here  the  Jews  are  called  the  chofen  people  of  the 
Light,  in  oppofition  to  the  Gnoftics,  who  affcrted  that 
the  God  of  the  Jews  was  an  inferior  and  malevolent 
Being.  As  proofs  of  this  pofition,  we  cannot  groduce 
any  paflages,  in  which  the  Jews  are  faid  in  exprefs 
terms  to  have  been  the  chofen  people  of  the  Light ; 
but  there  are  many  paflages  which  prove  that  the  God 
of  the  Jews,  who  fent  Mofes,  v;.as  the  true  God,  and 
father  of  Jefus  Chrift.  See  ch.  iv.  12.  v.  39.  46.  47. 
viii.  54. 

15.  This  eminent  perfon,  hitherto  called  Word, 
light,  Life,  did  not  merely  accompany  the  man  Jefus 
during  a  certain  period,  but  really  and  truly  became 
man.   Ver.  14. 

Here  St.  John  combats  that  tenet  of  the  Gnoftics, 
according  to  which  the  iEon  Chrift  alTociated  itfelf  with 
the  man  Jefus  at  his  baptifm,  but  left  him  before  his 
death.  The  Gnoftics  denied  that  the  eternal  Son  of 
God  took  man's  nature,  and  became  flelh,  becaufe  they 
confidered  Matter  as  the  origin  of  Evil,  and  incompa- 
tible with  Good. 

All  the  palTages  of  St.  John's  Gofpel,  in  which  the 
man  Jefus,  fpeaking  in  the  firft  perfon,  aflerts  of  him- 
felf  what  cannot  be  attributed  to  any  human  Being,  for 
inftance,  that  he  was  in  Heaven,  that  he  exifted  before 
Abraham,  ch.  viii.  58.  are  proofs  of  the  pofition  laid 
down  in  this  article. 

16.  Chrift  was  full  of  Grace  and  Truth,  ch.  i.  14. 
In  the  Gnoftic  fyftem,  Grace  and  Truth  were  two 

^ons:  but  St.  John  alTerts  that  they  were  only  two 
qualities  belonging  to  Chrift.  Further,  as  Chrift  is  here 
faid  to  be  full  of  grace,  and  in  ver.  17.  the  law  of 
Mofes  is  oppofed  to  the  grace  of  Chrift,  it  follows 
that  the  former  is  fuperfeded  by  the  latter.  Hence  this 
pofition  is  likewife  a  counterpofition  againft  Cerinthus 
in  particular,  who  wilhed  to  retain  at  leaft  fome  parts  of 
the  Mofaic  law. 

The 


SECT.  V.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel  301 

The  principal  proofs  are  contained  in  ch.  iv.  19 — 26. 
in  ch.  V.  8.  (where  Chrifl  comrrjanded  a  fick  perfon, 
whom  he  had  reftored  to  health,  to  take  away  with 
him  his  bed,  though  it  was  on  a  fabbath  day,)  and  in 
the  fixth  chapter.  In  the  difcourfe  delivered  in  this 
chapter,  Chrifl  fays  to  the  Jews,  who  were  going  up 
to  Jerufalem  to  celebrate  the  feaft  of  the  palTover,  that 
his  flefh  and  blood  was  the  food  which  giveth  life : 
and  as  fome  took  offence  at  this  faying,  becaufe  it 
feemed  to  imply  the  inefficacy  of  the  Paffover,  he 
anfwered  '  It  is  the  fpirit  (that  is,  the  fpirit  of  the  law) 
which  quickeneth,  the  flefh  profiteth  nothing :  the 
words,  that  I  fpeak  unto  you,  they  are  fpirit,  and 
they  are  life".'  The  flory  of  the  adulterefs,  ch.  viii. 
I — -If.  feems  likewife  to  be  a  proof  of  this  article. 
By  the  law  of  Mofes,  a  woman  taken  in  adultery 
was  to  be  put  to  death :  but  in  this  inftance  Chrifl 
interfered,  and  the  fentence  was  not  executed. 

17.  Through  faith,  and  not  through  birth  or  paren- 
tage, we  become  the  fons  of  God.  Ver.  12,  13. 

To  what  tenet  of  the  Gnoflics  this  doftrine  was 
oppofed  I  am  unable  to  fay,  as  our  accounts  of  their 
fyflem  are  very  imperfe6l.  But,  fince  we  know  that 
Cerinthus,  who  in  many  refpefts  differed  from  other 
Gnoflics,  was  attached  to  fome  parts  of  the  Mofaic 
law,  it  is  not  improbable  that  he  confidered  the  Jews 
as  having,  in  confequence  of  their  birth,  a  prior  claim 
to  the  favour  of  God. — The  proofs  of  the  pofition  laid 
dov/n  in  this  article  are  contained  in  that  part  of  Chrift's 
difcourfe  with  Nicodemus,  which  relates  to  regene- 
ration, and  in  the  account  of  the  converfion  of  the 
Samaritans. 

Thefe  are  the  pofitions  which  St.  John  has  laid  down 
in  exprefs  terms.  But  whoever  is  acquainted  with  the 
dcdlrine  of  the  Gnoflics  will  perceive,  that  there  are 

other 

^  See  the  explanation,  which  I  have  given  of  this  pafTage,  in  the 
firft  fec^ion  of  my  Typical  Theology,  and  the  pafiage  there  quoted 
from  Philo, 


302  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  chap,  vii, 

other  parts  of  St.  John's  Gofpel,  in  which  the  Evan- 
gelift  had  the  Gnoftics  in  view;  efpecially  the  four- 
teenth, fifteenth,  and  fixteenth  chapters,  which  contain 
the  promifes  of  Chrifl;  refpecfting  the  affiftance,  which 
the  Apoftles  were  to  receive  from  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
The  Gnoftics  accufed  the  Apoftles  of  having  mifunder- 
ftood  the  meaning  of  Chriil,  and  of  having  forgotten 
many  of  his  cio6lrines :  moreover  they  afferted,  that 
the  words  of  Chrift  alone  were  authority,  and  that  the 
do6lrines  delivered  by  the  Apoftles  were  no  more  ex- 
empt from  the  danger  of  error,  than  the  theological 
opinions  of  other  writers.  The  notion  of  the  Gnoftics 
could  not  be  better  confuted,  than  by  a  relation  of 
thofe  fpeeches  of  Chrift,  in  which  he  promifed  them,, 
that  the  Holy  Ghoft  would  remind  them  of  what  they 
had  already  heard,  and  reveal  to  them  truths,  which 
he  himfelf  could  not  communicate,  on  account  of  their 
prefent  inability  to  comprehend  them.  Further,  as 
the  Gnoftics  admitted  the  perfonality  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  and  confidered  him  as  an  7£on  diftindt  from 
Chrift,  it  is  evident  that  St.  John,  who  no  where  fays 
that  the  word  was  the  Holy  Ghoft,  but  on  the  con- 
trary has  recorded  fpeeches  of  Chrift,  in  which  he  is 
reprefented  as  a  diftinft  perfon,  intended  to  fupport 
the  doftrine  relative  to  the  perfonality  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft. 

Laftly,  the  paflages  v/hich  occur  in  the  fourteenth,  fif- 
teenth, and  fixteenth  chapters  relative  to  the  union  of 
the  Chriftian  Church,  and  the  command  of  love  and 
charity,  were  directed  againft  thofe,  who  endeavoured 
to  introduce  divifions  in  the  church,  and  to  promote 
the  perfecution  of  the  faithful. 


S  E  C  T. 


stcT,  vL  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  303 


SECT.     VI. 

St.  John  had  read  the  three  firft  Gofpels  before  he  wrote 

his  own. 

I  HAVE  already  mentioned  in  the  fecond  fecflioil 
of  this  chapter,  that  according  to  a  pafTage  in  the 
Ecclefiaftical  hiftory  of  Eufebius,  St*  John  had  read 
the  three  firft  Gofpels,  and  fupplied  what  his  predecef- 
fors  had  omitted.  Eufebius  however  has  not  mentioned 
it  as  an  indifputable  hiflorical  fa6t,  but  introduces  ic 
with  the  word  qxna-i  (they  fay),  and  confequently  has 
only  given  it  as  a  report.     The  paflage  is  as  follows, 

Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  III.  cap.  24.  USf]  ^  M(x,^y.^  y.xi  Aajca  " 
T«i/  KccT  aJla?  i\joi.yyiXiUv  tjii/  mSotriv  ZTiTTQir\^ivuvy  looxvvriv 
fao"*,  rou  ZTccvJa  ^^ovov  aypocpco  y.i^pri[x£uov  Knovy^oili^  tsA©^ 
Kxi  £7rt  mu  ypa.(pny  hAOeji/,  roix(r^£  X.^f*"  ''^''J'^S'-  Tuv  ztoo- 
ccvocy^oifcvlav  tpioov  it;  rffavlaq  ri^n  nxi  eig  avlov  S^mSi^o^ivwv, 
7.71  oSi^cc(T^(x,i  [.<,sv  (p«(rH',  a7\n^n(x.(;  avjoi^  £7^{Jtx«oIu^»](r«^7«J 
ju.onii'  ^s  a^cc  XsiTTia-^xi  tvi  y^a(p-»)  mu  nii^i  ruv  iv  -uyptjoloig  y.Xi 
x«t'  KpyjiV  m  iir]pvyiJ.cilo;  octto  th  XpifH  zTETTpa.yf/.Bvu}/  ^ir\yri<TiU, 

But  though  Eufebius  delivers  this  account  only  as  a 
report,  and  that  part  of  it  which  relates  to  the  motive, 
by  which  St.  John  was  induced  to  write  his  Gofpel,  is 
not  quite  accurate,  we  muft  not  therefore  conclude 
that  the  whole  was  devoid  of  foundation.  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  an  author  of  great  importance  on  the  pre- 
fent  queftion,  fmce  he  wrote  only  a  hundred  years  after 
St.  John,  has  likewife  afferted  that  our  Evangelifl:  had 
fecn  the  three  firft  Gofpels :  but  here  again,  the  motive 
which  Clement  affigns  for  the  compofition  of  St.  John's 
Gofpel,  is  liable  to  objedion.      His  words  are  %    tov 

»  Of  vSt.    Matthew's   Gofpel  Eufebius   had  fpoken  immediately 
before. 

"  This  palTage  from  the  works  of  Clement  is  quoted  by  Eufebius^ 
Hift.  Ecclef  Lib.  VI.  cap.  14. 


304  •  Of  St.  'John's  Gofpel.  chap,  vj/.- 

f/.n!loi  lwix.vvnv  iir^cclo]/  arvui^oi/lx  o\i  roc  (TUf/.o^iiix  iv  rot?  evxy- 
ytAjetf  §i§YiKu\ff.ij  zTcoloxTVivlci  vno  ruv  y]/uoiy.uv,  zj-uiVfActle 
^io(popviPjs>ix  tn"i'£U|u.«7i;<ov  zroi-nG-oci  eytx-yyiXioi/.  Now  that 
St.  John's  objed:  was  to  write  an  ivxyyiXiov  -nn/fu/^altxoi/, 
becaufe  his  prcdeceffors  had  written  only  ivxyyiXiac 
<rco/xa]jKa,  I  think  not  very  probable,  becaufe  there  are 
many  parts  of  St.  John's  Gofpel,  which  likewifc  come 
under  the  latter  defcription;  for  inftance,  his  accounts 
of  the  cure  of  dileafes,  and  of  the  reftoration  of  a 
dead  perfon.  If  Clement  had  faiid  that  the  three  firft 
Gofpels  contained  chiefly  points  of  morality,  but  that 
of  St.  John  articles  of  faith,  his  affertion  would  have 
been  more  credible. 

It  appears  then  thdt  we  have  no  indifputable  hifto- 
rical  evidence  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that  the  three 
firft  Goipels  were  known  to  St.  John.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  as  it  is  incredible  that  three  Gofpels  written 
before  that  of  St.  John  fhould  have  remained  unknown 
to  him,  wc  may  fafely  conclude  that  the  faft  is  true, 
notwithflanding  the  weaknefs  of  our  hiftorical  evidence. 
Befides  there  are  Internal  marks  in  St,  John's  Gofpel, 
which  imply  that  the  author  was  not  only  acquainted 
with  the  contents  of  the  three  firft  Gofpels,  but  that  he 
prefuppofed  the  fame  of  his  readers.  Dr.  Semler  indeed 
4ias  endeavoured  to  fliew,  and.  likewife  from  internal 
marks,  that  St.  John  was  not  acquainted  with  the 
Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke, 
For  this  purpofe  he  has  quoted  ch.  xx.  30.  where  St. 
John  fays,  ^  And  many  other  iigns  truly  did  Jcfus  in 
the  prefence  of  his  difciples,  which  are  not  written  in 
this  book.'  Hence  Dr.  Semler  argues,  that,  as  St.  John 
Ipeaks  only  of  his  own  Gofpel,  and  is  totally  filent 
with  refpecfl  to  any  other,  the  other  Goipels  were  un- 
known to  him.  But  the  inference  is  .without  foun- 
dation; for  a  writer  may  be  well  acquainted  with  the 
works  of  his  predeceiTors,  and  yet  not  mention  them. 
In  the  Preface  to  my  Dogmatical  Theology,  though  it 
confifts  of  not  lefs  than  ten  pages,  I  have  not  mentioned 
the  name  of  a  fingle  writer  on  this  fubjed,  my  principal 

object 


5ECT.  VI.  Of  Sl  John's  Go/pel.  305 

obje6t  having  been  to  explain  to  the  reader  the  purport 
of  my  own  book :  yet  I  hope  that  no  reader  would 
conclude  from  this  filence  that  I  have  never  feen  the 
fyftcms  of  Quenftedt  and  Baumgartcn. 

Whoever  turns  to  the  Table  of  Contents  to  the  four 
Gofpels,  vvhich  I  have  given  abo^e,  in  ch.  ii.  fed.  7.  and 
obferves  the  many  important  accounts,  which  are  given 
by  the  three  firft  Evangelifts,  but  are  wholly  omitted 
by  St.  John,  will  perceive  that  fiich  omiffions  are  in- 
explicable on  any  other  fuppofition,  than  that  St.  John 
was  well  aflured,  that  his  readers  had  already  a  know- 
ledge of  thofe  accounts  from  the  three  firft  Evano-difts. 
As  the  fubje(5l  is  of  fome  importance,  I  will  mention  a 
few  examples  P.     In  the  above-mentioned  Table,  N°.  42. 
the  reftoration  of  Jairus's  daughter,  to  which  St.  John 
was  eye-wicnefs,   in  company   with   St.  Peter  and  St. 
James',  cmd  to  the  exclufion  of  all  the  other  Apoftles. 
The  relation  of  this  miracle  might  very  properly  have 
accompanied    that    of   the    refurreflion    of    Lazarus. 
No.  16.  the  election  of  the  twelve  Apoftles ;    though 
St.  John  has  afterwards  devoted  almoit  four  chapters, 
from   the   fourteenth  to  the  feventeenth  inclufively,  to 
the  defcription  of  the  privileges  of  the  Apoftles,  and 
the  promifcs   made    to    them.     N°.  46.    the    queflion 
propofed  to  Jefus  by  John  the  Baptifl,  whether  he  was 
the    Meflias,    with    the    anfwer    to    John's    queflion : 
though  the  anfwer  would  have  been  very  fuitable  to 
the   purport  of  St.  John's  Gofpel.      N°.  51.    the    be- 
heading of  John  the   Baptift;  though  our  Evangelifl 
was   once    his    difciple,    and    has    introduced    into    his 
Gofpel  many  parts  of  John's  hiftory,  v.'hich  promoted 
the  object,  for  which  he  wrote.     N°.  6 2.  the  transfi- 
guration of  Jefus,  though  St.  John  was  eye-witnefs  to 
it,  and  no   other  Apoftle,    except   St.  Peter  and   St. 

James, 

p  1  do  not  quote  St.  John's  omifTion  of  the  fermon  on  the  mount, 
as  an  Inftance,  becaufe  he  might  have  omitted  it,  on  account  of  its 
being  unintelligible  to  readers,  who  were  not  acquainted  with  the 
Pharifaic  dodrines. 

Vol.  III.  U 


^o6  Of  St.  John^s  Gofpel.  chap,  vii* 

James.  Further,  the  very  important  difcourles  deli- 
vered by  Chrift,  N°.  98 — 107.  Nor  has  he  mentioned 
the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  fupper,  in  which  every 
Chriftian  is  particularly  interefted,  though  he  had  re- 
lated, in  ch.  xiii.  the  lefs  important  ceremony  of  Chrift's 
walhing  the  feet  of  his  difciples.  The  afcenfion  likewife 
he  has  palled  over  in  total  filence,  though  he  had  men- 
tioned, ch.  vi.  62.  XX.  17.  two  declarations  made  by 
Chrift  at  different  times,  that  he  fliould  afcend  into 
heaven,  and  confequently  had  prepared  the  reader  to 
exped  an  account  of  the  event's  taking  place. 

Other  examples  may  be  produced,  which  are  ftill 
more  decifive,  than  the  preceding ;  for  they  relate  not 
only  to  material  fafts,  which  St.  John  has  omitted,  but 
to  fafts,  which  mult  necelTarily  be  known  before  his 
Gofpel  can  be  intelligible.  Such  fads  St.  John  would 
certainly  not  have  omitted,  unlefs  he  had  known  that 
his  readers  were  already  acquainted  with  them  :  for  he 
is  more  plain  and  pcrfpicuous  in  his  narrative,  than  any 
other  writer  either  of  the  Old  or  of  the  New  Teftament. 
Of  this  kind  the  following  are  examples. 

Ch.  i.  15.  '  This  is  he  of  whom  I  fpake,  he  that 
cometh  after  me  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he  was 
before  me,'  prefuppofcs  a  reader,  who  had  already  learnt 
from  the  other  EvangeHits,  that  John  the  Baptifl:,  the 
hiftory  of  whofe  miniftry  is  entirely  omitted  by  our 
Evangelift,  had  made  this  declaration. 

He  has  no  where  related  that  Chrift  was  baptized  by 
John,  or  that  at  Chrift's  baptifm  the  Holy  Ghoft  de- 
scended upon  him  in  the  fhape  of  a  dove.  Yet,  ch.  i. 
^2 — 34.  he  introduces  John  the  Baptift,  as  faying  fome 
time  after  Chrift's  baptifm,  '  J  knew  him  not,  but  he 
that  fent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  fame  faid  unto 
me.  Upon  whom  thou  flialt  fee  the  Spirit  defcending 
and  remaining  on  him,  the  fame  is  he  which  baptizeth 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft :  and  I  faw  and  bare  record  that 
this  is  the  Son  of  God.'  Our  Evangelift  therefore 
muft  have  known  that  his  readers  were  already  ac- 
quainted with  the  circumftances  of  Chrift's  baptifm,  or 

he 


SECT.  VI.  Of  St.  John's  GoJpeL  307 

he  would  not  have  alluded  to  them,  without  having  firft 
delated  them. 

Ch.  iii.  24.  '  For  John  was  not  yet  caft  into  prifon,' 
evidently  implies  that  the  reader  was  already  acquainted 
with  this  faft.  Yet  our  Evangelift  has  not  related  the 
hiftory  of  John's  imprifonment,  and  therefore  he  muft 
have  known  that  the  faft  had  been  already  related  by 
his  predecefibrs.  The  example  is  the  more  remarkable, 
as  St.  John  wrote  his  Gofpel,  not  in  Judaea,  where  the 
circumftances  of  the  Baptifl's  imprifonment  were  known 
by  report,  but  in  Afia  Minor,  where  they  could  not 
have  been  generally  known,  except  from  written  ac- 
counts. In  ch.  iv,  I — 4.  the  place,  to  which  the  hiftory 
of  John's  imprifonment  properly  belongs,  our  Evan- 
gelift, though  he  is  filent  in  regard  to  this  fubjeft,  relates 
Chrift's  journey  into  Galilee,  which  according  to  the 
accounts  of  the  other  Evangelifts  muft  have  taken  place 
foon  after  John's  imprifonment,  and  he  is  moreover 
very  circumftantial  in  relating  that  Chrift  travelled  at 
that  time  through  Samaria,  a  route  not  ufually  taken  by 
the  Jews,  but  which  Chrift  probably  chofe,  in  order  to 
avoid  going  through  Per£ea,  becaufe  Herod  the  tetrarch, 
who  had  commanded  John  to  be  imprifoned,  was  then 
in  that  country. 

Ch.  iv.  43,  44,  45.  '  Now  after  two  days  he  de- 
parted thence  and  went  into  Galilee,  for  Jefus  himfelf 
teftified  that  a  prophet  hath  no  honour  in  his  own 
country.  Then,  when  he  was  come  into  Galilee,  the 
Galileans  received  him,  &c.'  would  be  unintelligible, 
unlefs  we  knew  from  the  other  EvangeHfts,  that  Naza- 
reth in  Galilee  was  the  place  where  Chrift  was  educated, 
and  was  therefore  called  his  country :  that  when  he 
returned  to  this  city  as  a  prophet  and  worker  of  mira- 
cles, the  inhabitants  not  only  rejcded  him,  but  at- 
tempted to  caft  him  down  from  the  brow  of  the  hill, 
on  which  the  city  was  built :  that  on  this  occafion 
Chrift  obferved,  that  a  prophet  hath  no  honour  in  his 
own  country,  that  he  therefore  avoided  all  future  con- 
nection with   Nazareth,  and   confined   himfelf  to   the 

u  2  other 


3o8  Of  St.  John's  Gofpel.  chap,  vij, 

other  cities  of  Galilee.  Whoever  has  acquired  a  know- 
ledse  of  thefe  fa6ls  from  the  three  firft  Evano-elifts  will 
find  that  St.  John's  relation  is  perfe£tly  intelligible, 
and  will  perceive  that  he  has  done  nothing  more  than 
interweave  a  well  known  faying  of  Chrift  with  the 
account  of  his  journey  through  Samaria  into  Galilee. 
But  without  a  knowledge  of  thefe  fa6ls,  our  Evangelift, 
though  remarkable  for  perfpicuity,  mull  appear  to  be 
enigmatical. 

Ch.  y.  2)S'  '  ^^  ^^^  ^  burning  and  a  fhining  light, 
and  ye  were  willing  for  a  feafon  to  rejoice  in  his  light,* 
is  a  fentence  which  being  delivered  in  the  paft  time, 
implies  that  John  the  Baptift,  to  whom  the  fubjecl 
relates,  was  no  longer  alive.  But  our  Evangelift  has  no 
where  given  an  account  of  his  death :  confequently  he 
prefuppofed  that  this  faft  was  already  known. 

The  whole  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gofpel 
is  employed  in  defcribing  what  Chrift  did  in  Jerufalem : 
yet  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  next  chapter,  the  fcene 
is  fuddenly  and  unexpefledly  changed  to  Galilee  and  the 
fea  of  Tiberias.  *  After  thefe  things  Jefus  went  over 
the  fea  of  Galilee,  which  is  the  fea  of  Tiberias.'  Now 
fuch  a  fudden  tranfition  from  Jerufalem  to  the  fea  of 
Tiberias  is  inexplicable  on  any  other  fiippofition,  than 
that  St.  John  knew,  that  his  readers  were  already  ac- 
quainted with  Chrift's  return  to  Galilee,  and  confequently 
that  he  had  left  Jerufalem. 

Ch.  xii.  1 6.  '  Thefe  things  (namely,  that  Chrift  rode 
into  Jerufalem  on  an  afs,  &c.)  underftood  not  his  difciples 
at  the  firft:  but  when  Jefus  was  glorified,  then  remem- 
bered they  that  thefe  things  were  written  of  him,  and 
that  they  had  done  tbeje  things  unto  him'  But  what  the 
Apoftles  had  done  St.  John  had  not  related  :  confe- 
quently he  prefuppofed  the  knowledge  of  it  from  the 
other  Evangelifts ;  namely,  that  the  Apoftles,  at  the 
command  of  Chrift,  had  brought  to  him  an  afs,  which 
they  found  tied  by  the  road  fide. 

Ch.  XV.  10.   *  Remember  the  word  that  I  faid  unto 
you,  the  fervant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord,  &c.'  im- 
plies 


SECT.  VI.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  ^09 

plies  that 'the  reader  had  been  already  informed  of  what 
Chrift  had  faid :  but  this  is  recorded  only  by  the  other 
Evangelifls,  and  not  by  St.  John. 

The  preceding  examples  are  confined  to  the  compafs 
of  only  fifteen  chapters :  and  if  we  examine  St.  John's 
account  of  the  fufi^erings  and  death  of  Chrift,  we  fhall 
find  the  inference  deduced  from  thefe  premifes  very 
Itrongly  confirmed.  No  part  of  Chrift's  hiftory  is 
more  circumfl-antially  defcribed  by  St.  John,  than  the 
laft  week  of  his  life,  probably  becaufe  the  Evangelift 
himfelf  was  prefent  at  every  tranfaftion  of  it.  Yet  on 
the  other  hand  he  has  omitted  many  material  circum- 
fbances,  which  arc  recorded  by  the  other  Evangelifts. 
In  his  account  of  Peter's  denial  of  Chrift  he  mentions 
ch.  xviii.  15,  16.  that  Peter  followed  Chrift  into  the 
houfe  of  the  high  prieft,  and  ver.  26,  27.  relates,  that 
a  kinfman  of  the  fervant,  whofe  ear  Peter  had  cut  off, 
afked  him  if  he  were  not  with  Jefus  in  the  garden,  to 
which  Peter  anfwered  in  the  negative,  and  that  then 
the  cock  crew.  Here  St.  John  clofes  his  account  of 
Peter's  denial  of  Chrift,  and  leaves  it  therefore  un- 
finilhed,  though  he  certainly  knew  all  the  other  cir- 
cumftances,  and  moft  probably  better  than  Peter  him- 
felf, who  was  during  the  whole  time  in  a  ftate  of 
anxiety.  We  muft  conclude  then,  that  St.  John 
thought  it  unnecelTary  to  relate  the  other  circumftances, 
as  they  had  been  already  related  by  the  other  Evan- 
gelifts, 

Of  all  that  Chrift  faid  and  did,  when  he  ftood  before 
Caiaphas,  who,  according  to  St.  John  himfelf,  was 
properly  the  high  prieft  for  that  year,  the  Evangelift 
has  not  related  a  fingle  fyllable.  He  mentions  merely, 
ch.  xviii.  24.,  that  Chrift  was  conduced  to  Caiaphas, 
and  ver.  28.  that  he  was  thence  conduced  to  Pilate, 
but  fays  nothing  either  of  accufation,  or  fentence.  He 
has  even  omitted  the  account  of  the  falfe  witnefTcs, 
though  in  ch.  ii.  20,  21.  he  had  prepared  his  readers 
to  expe<ft  it.  All  thefe  fads  therefore  he  concluded 
were  already  known  to  his  readers. 

u  1  From 


3IO  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  chap.  vii. 

From  the  twentieth  and  twenty- firft  chapters  I  quote 
no  examples,  becaufe  I  have  already  given  them  in  my 
Hiftory  of  the  Relurredion.  I  will  only  obferve  that 
he  has  not  related  the  command,  which  Chrilt  gave  to 
his  difciples  after  his  refurredion,  to  go  into  Galilee; 
but  as  in  ch.  xxi.  i.  the  fcene  is  fuddenly  changed 
from  Jerufalem  to  the  fea  of  Tiberias,  he  muft  have 
fuppofed  that  his  readers  were  already  acquainted  with 
this  command.  Laftly,  Chrift's  prophecy  of  the  de- 
ftrudlion  of  Jerufalem  is  no  where  related  by  St.  John : 
yet  in  ch.  xxi.  22.  it  is  implied. 


SECT.     VII. 

Of  St.  John's  mode  of  narration. 

AFTER  what  has  been  faid  in  the  foregoing  feclion, 
it  will  not  be  difficult  to  afllgn  the  reafon,  why 
St.  John  has  fometimes  more,  and  fometimes  lefs  than 
the  other  Evangelifts.  He  has  omitted  the  greateft 
part  of  what  his  predeceffors  had  already  related,  and 
for  no  other  reafon,  than  becaufe  he  thought  it  un- 
neceffary,  except  where  he  was  influenced  by  particular 
motives,  to  repeat  what  was  already  on  record.  His 
lilence  therefore  in  refpedl  to  the  numerous  fads,  which 
are  found  in  the  other  Gofpels,  cannot  be  ufed  as  an 
argument  to  weaken  the  credibility  of  thofc  facls :  or 
we  muft  deny  that  Chrifl  was  ever  born,  and  that  John 
the  Bapti^  was  beheaded.  On  the  contrary  St.  John's 
lilence  may  rather  be  confidered  as  a  proof,  that  the 
favSts,  which  the  other  Evangelifts  have  recorded,  and 
he  has  left  unnoticed,  are  really  true  :  for  if  their  ac- 
counts had  been  inaccurate,  he  would  probably  have 
corre6led  them. 

However,  there  is  an  omifTion  of  a  certain  kind  in 
St.  John's  Gofpel,  which  deferves  pardcular  attention, 
namely,  the  omiffion  of  the  demoniacs.     In  not  a  fmgle 

inftance 


SECT.  VII.  Of  St.  John's  Gojpel.  311 

inilance  has  St.  John  related  the  cafting  out  of  a  devil, 
either  where  accounts  of  this  kind  have  been  given  in 
the  other  Gofpels,  or  where  they  have  not''.  Yet  at 
Ephefus,  where  St.  John  wrote  his  Gofpel,  we  find 
from  Afts  xix.  12  — 17.  not  only  that  evil  fpir its  were 
expelled  by  St.  Paul,  but  that  Jewifh  exorcifls  in  that 
city  attempted  to  do  the  fame,  though  the  event  by 
no  means  anfwered  their  expeftations.  The  queftion 
therefore  is :  Did  St.  John  omit  all  fuch  hiftories  by 
mere  accident,  or  did  he  omit  them  by  defign  ?  Perhaps 
he  believed  that  perfons  faid  to  be  pofTelTed  with  devils 
had  in  reality  no  concern  with  evil  fpirits,  but  were 
merely  afflid:ed  with  fome  natural  diforderj  and  men- 
tioned them  therefore,  neither  under  the  name  of  de- 
moniacs, left  the  term  fhould  be  literally  underftood, 
nor  under  any  name  exprefiive  of  a  natural  diforder, 
becaufe  he  was  unwilling,  in  a  matter,  which  had  no 
efTential  influence  on  the  Chriftian  docflrine,  to  con- 
tradi6t  a  commonly  received  opinion.  The  only  place, 
where  I  could  wifh  that  he  had  faid  fomething  on  this 
fubjed,  is  that,  in  v/hich  the  other  Evangehfts  have 
related  the  expullion  of  a  devil,  who  called  himfelf 
Legion ',  becaufe  it  is  almoil  the  only  inilance  on 
which  the  reality  of  diabolical  poflelTion  can  be 
grounded". 

Where  St.  John  has  related  fa6ls,  which  are  likewife 
related  by  the  other  Evangelifts,  of  which  the  examples 
may  be  feen  in  the  above-mentioned  Table  to  the  four 
Gofpels,  it  is  generally  in  one  of  the  three  following 
cafes. 

I.  Either  the  fa6l  was  neceflary  as  an  introdu6lion 
to  fomething  important,  which  he  was  going  to  relate, 
as  for  inilance  his  account  of  the  five  thoufand  men, 

ch. 

1  See  Timmermann  de  Dcemoniacis. 
'  See  No.  39.  of  thp  Table  to  che  four  Gofpels, 
-■  See  my  Dogmatic  Theology,  fedt.  98,  or  rather  the  New  Orient. 
Bibl.  Vol.  III.  p.  i77_i8o. 

u  4 


312  Of  St.  John's  GoJpeL  chap.  vii. 

ch.  vi.  whom  Chrift  fed  with  five  barley  loaves,  a  fad, 
which  was  abfolutejy  neceflary  to  be  knov^n,  or  the 
very  important  difcourfes  of  Chrift,  which  were  deli- 
vered after  the  performance  of  that  miracle,  could  not 
have  been  fully  underftood.  St.  John  therefore  has 
related  the  faft,  though  it  liad  been  already  recorded 
by  the  other  Evangelifts,  and  has  moreover  augmented, 
and  apparently  improved  their  narration. 

2.  Or  at  other  times  he  was  induced  to  repeat  fa6ls 
already  contained  in  the  other  Gofpcls,  bccaufe  feveral 
circumflances,  which  he  thought  necefTary  to  be  known, 
had  been  omitted.  The  fupper  at  Bethany,  the  unc- 
tion^ of  Chrifl  by  Mary,  and  Chrift's  entry  into  Jeru- 
falem,  related  by  St.  John  in  the  twelfth  chapter,  had 
been  already  related  by  the  other  Evangelifts:  but  then 
St.  John  has  added  the  following  very  important  cir- 
cumflances. Firft,  Lazarus,  on  whofe  refloration  to. 
life  the  other  Evangehfts  had  been  purpofely  filent, 
fits  at  table  with  Chrift,  and  by  bearing  witnefs  in 
perfon  to  the  truth  of  his  reftoration,  contributed  in  a 
great  degree  to  the  glory  of  Chrift's  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerufalem".  Secondly,  Judas  Ifcariot  was  the 
firft  who  cenfured  the  un6lion  of  Chrift,  and  it  was  he 
who  occafioned  the  other  difciples  to  do  the  fame'*'. 
Hence  we  fee  the  reafon,  why  Chrift's  anfwer  affcded 
him  in  pardcular,  and  Vv'hat  confirmed  him  in  his 
refolution  to  betray  his  mafter.  The  other  Evangelifts 
make  mention  of  the  treachery  of  Judas,  at  the  fame 
time  that  they  give  an  account  of  the  ftipper  in  Bethany. 
But  they  have  not  fhewn  the  connection,  or  explained, 
how  the  one  was  the  immediate  effed  of  the  other  : 
whereas,  we  clearly  perceive  from  St.  John's  account 

the 


*  St.  John  after  ra^Jy  has  ufed  the  epithet  wirt'i'iSj  which  had  beei-^ 
ufed  by  St.  Mark.  This  is  an  additional  argument  in  favour  of  the 
opinion  that  St,  John  had  read  St.  Mark's  Gpfpel  in  particular, 
for  this  very  unufual  wo|d  occurs  in  no  other  part  of  t^e  Nevif 
Teftament. 

"  See  ver.  i,  2.  j;,  18.  ^  Ver.  4,  5, 


SECT.  VI L  Of  St.  John's  Gojpel.  '^i^ 

the  chain  of  thought  and  the  fprings  of  aftion  in  this 
unhappy  man,  who,  though  a  traitor  to  Chrift,  is  a 
flrong  witnefs  to  the  truth  of  Chriftianity.  In  ch.  xx. 
I — 1 8.  which  has  been  faid  to  be  contradiftory  to  the 
accounts  given  by  the  other  Evangelifts,  St.  John  takes 
for  granted,  that  what  they  had  related  in  general  terms 
of  the  women,  who  went  to  vifit  the  fepulchre,  was 
already  known,  and  adds  a  fpecial  account  of  what  was 
feen  in  particular  by  Mary  Magdalene,  who  went  alone 
very  early  to  the  fepulchre.  A  full  and  diflind:  expla- 
nation of  this  matter  would  be  too  prolix  for  the  prefent 
place  :  1  refer  therefore  the  reader  to  my  Hiflory  of  the 
Refurre6lion. 

I  have  obferved  feveral  other  examples,  in  which 
St.  John  has  explained  the  accounts  of  the  other  Evan- 
gelifts. Whoever  reads  what  St.  Matthew  has  related, 
ch.  iv.  11:  '■  When  J'efus  h^d  heard  that  John  was  caft 
into  prifon,  he  departed  into  Galilee,*  without  any 
further  knowledge  of  the  fituadon  of  affairs  at  that 
tim.e,  will  think  it  perhaps  extraordinary,  that  the 
imprifonment  of  John  the  Baptift  fhould  have  induced 
Chrift  to  return  to  Galilee,  when  the  very  perfon  at 
whofe  command  John  had  been  imprifoned,  was  te- 
trarch  of  Galilee.  But  St.  John,  ch.  i.  i — 4.  has  ex- 
plained this  matter ;  for  after  having  related  that 
Chrift  could  not  tarry  in  Judtea  on  account  of  the 
Pharifees,  he  adds,  that  Chrift  was  obliged  to  go 
through  Samaria,  (eJ'h  h  aviou  J^jE^p^fo-Oai  J^ia  tv?  Tafjt.a~ 
^na?).  It  is  true  that  he  has  not  affigned  the  reafon 
Avhy  Chrift  was  obliged  to  go  through  Samaria:  but 
this  we  learn,  from  Jofephus,  who  relates  that  when 
John  v/as  caft  into  prifon  Herod  was  at  Machxrus  in 
Penea.  St.  John's  account  therefore,  though  not  fully 
icxplcnatory  of  the  relation  of  the  other  Evangelifts,  is 
inftrudtive  at  leaft  for  thofe  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  hifto.ry  of  thofe  times.  St.  Matthew,  ch.  xxviii. 
46 — 49.  and  St.  Mark,  ch.  xv.  34 — 2^,  relate  that 
p,fter  Chrift  had  exclaimed,  Eli,  Eli,  lama  fabachthani, 
vinegar  was   brought  him  to   drink.      Now   between 

Chrift's 


JT4  Q/*  ^^'  John's  Go/pel.  chap,  vh: 

ChFift's  exclamation  and  the  offering  of  vinegar  to  him, 
•we  fee  no  immediate  connection  :  but  St.  John  has 
explained  this  matter  by  adding,  ch.  xix.  28.  that 
Chriftfaid,  *  I  thirft.' 

3.  St.  John  appears  to  have  corrected,  though  in  a 
very  delicate  manner,  the  accounts  given  by  his  pre- 
deceffors.  If  the  reading  nhhov  av  XaQnv  avlov,  ch.  vi. 
21.  is  the  genuine  reading,  and  the  conjedlural  emen- 
dation>  which  I  propofed,  VoL  II.  ch.  x.  fed.  4.  of 
this  Introdu6tiony  be  not  admiffible,  St.  John  has 
tacitly  corrected  the  relation  of  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark.  For,  according  both  to  St.  Matthew  and  to 
St.  Mark,  Chrift  adlually  entered  the  fliip,  in  which 
the  difciples  were  * :  but  St.  John  fays  only,  that  they 
intended  to  take  Chrift  into  the  (hip,  but  that  the  fhip 
was  fuddenly  at  the  place  of  its  deftination,  fo  that 
they  had  not  time  to  put  their  deGgn  in  execution. 
Further,  the  account  given  in  St,  Matthev/'s  Gofpel^ 
(whether  it  proceeded  from  St.  Matthew  himfelf,  or 
was  a  very  early  addition,  I  will  not  determine)  of  St. 
Peter's  leaping  into  the  fea,  to  meet  Chrift  before  he 
arrived  at  the  fhip,  of  his  danger  of  linking,  of  his 
being  refcued  by  Chrift,  and  of  their  entering  together 
into  the  fhjp,  appears  by  the  different  relation  of  St. 
John  to  have  been  delicately  fet  afide.  St.  Mark  like- 
wife,  though  he  derived  information  from  St.  Peter 
himfelf,  fays  nothing  of  this  tranfaftion. —  Ch.  xix.  39, 
40.  where  St.  John  relates  that  Nicodemus  and  Jofeph 
embalmed  the  body  of  Jefus  on  the  Friday  evening, 
before  it  was  depofited  in  the  fepulchre,  does  not  hair- 
monize  with  the  account  of  St.  Mark,  ch.  xvi.  i. 
and  of  St.  Luke,  ch.  xxiii.  ^6.  xxiv.  i.  that  the 
women  after  Chrift 's  interment  purchafed  fpices  in 
order  to  embalm  his  body  on  the  Sunday  morning. 
I  have  attempted  indeed  in  my  Hiftory  of  the  Refur- 
redion  ^  to  reconcile  the  contradidlion :  but  I  have  not 

been 

*  See  N®.  53.  in  the  Table  to  the  four  Gofpels. 
y  Ch,  xiv.  28—32.  ^  P.  99-r~ioi. 


s-ECT.  vri.  Of  St.  John's  Gofpel.  315 

been  able  to  do  it  in  a  manner  fatisfaftory  either  to 
myfeif,  or  to  any   other  impartial    inquirer  into  truth, 
I  confider  it  therefore  as  a  tacit  corre6lion  of  the   ac- 
count  given  by   the    two  Evangelifts,    who  were  not 
eye-witnefles,  and  that  St.  John  intended  to  fay,  though 
he   has  exprelTed  himfelf  in  a  more  delicate  manner, 
what   the   following   words  imply.     '  Other   hiftorians 
had  been  informed  of  the  embalming  of  Jefus,  but  the 
account  which  they  have  given  is  not  perfeftly  exa6t. 
The  women  went   early    on    Sunday  morningj  not  to 
embalm  Jefus,  but  merely  to  vifit  the  fepulchre:  for  he 
had  been  already  embalmed  by  Jofeph  and  Nicodemus/ 
If  it   be  true  that  there  are  paflages  in  St.  John's 
Gofpel,  which  are  at  variance  with  the  accounts  given 
by  the  other  Evangelifts^  we  cannot  hefitate  to  give  the 
preference  to  St.  John,  who,  of  the  facred  hiftorians, 
wrote  laft,  who  was  eye-witnefs  to  almoft  all  the  fa6ts 
which  he  has   recorded,  who  appears  to  have  had  an 
excellent  memory,  and  paid  attention  to  the  moft  mi- 
nute circumftances.     Perhaps  fome  perfons  will  think 
that  this  mode  of  reafoning  is  an  infringement  on  the 
infpiration,  not  only  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke,  who 
were  not  Apoftles,  but  even  on  that  of  St.  Matthew. 
Let  however  this  matter  be  as  it  will,  the  truth  of  the 
Chriftian  religion  itfelf  will  not  in  the  leaft  be  affefted. 
The  cafe  is  exadlly  parallel  to  the  following.     An  hif- 
torian  of  the  prefent  age,  of  whofe   general  accuracy 
and  fidelity  we  have  no  reafon  to  doubt,  gives  in  his 
narrative  the   defcription  of  an   engagement:    and  an 
officer,  who  was  prefent  in  the  engagement,  revifes  this 
defcription,  and  communicates  additions  and  corre6lions. 


SECT. 


?i6  Of  St.  John's  Gofpel,  chap,  vii, 

SECT.    VIII. 

Of  the  peculiarities  of  St.  John's  Greek  Jiyle, 

ST.  JOHN'S  ftyle  is  better  and  more  fiuent  tharn 
that  of  the  other  Evangchfts :-  and  it  Teems  as  if  he 
had  acquired  a  facility  and  tafte  in  the  Greek  language 
from  his  long  refidence  at  Ephefus.  His  narrative  is 
very  perfpicuous  ;  and  in  order  to  promote  perfpicuity, 
the  fame  word  is  fometimes  repeated,  though  perhaps 
the  advanced  age  in  which  St,  John  wrote,  had  fome 
influence,  fiqce  he  is  always  inclined  to  repetitions. 

He  never  fpeaks  of  himfelf  in  the  firft  perfon,  but 
ufes  a  periphrafis,  fuch  as,  *  the  difciple  whom  Jefus 
loved,'  or  '  the  difciple  who  leaned  on  the  bread  of 
Jefus.'  This  again  is  to  be  attributed  to  his  long 
connexion  Vv^ith  the  Greeks,  to  whom  the  egotifm  of 
the  firfb  perfon  was  ofFenfive.  To  the  fame  caufe  muft 
be  afcribed  likewife  the  variation  af  his  expreffions,  and 
the  ufe  of  fynonyms,  where  he  has  occafion  in  the 
fame  place  to  fpeak  more  than  once  of  the  fame  thing. 
Thus  in  ch.  xxi.  15,  16,  17.  he  ufes  ayaTrav  and  (piXny, 
^o(7}isiv  and  zToifj.ani>n]/,  -w^oQixla  and  a^n«.  In  ch.  viii.  46. 
aiJ.(x,p^.icc  is  equivalent  to  ^i-o^oq,  and  cannot  denote  *  fin* 
in  general,  as  is  evident  from  the  context :  this  word 
was  ufed  by  St.  John  to  avoid  the  repetition  of  \\^ivSo<; 
"which  occurs  in  the  44th  verfe.  In  the  fame  chapter, 
ver  51.  the  thought  '  he  fhall  never  die'  is  exprefled 
by  B-MOilov  s  /j-yt  3-sw^riavi  £»?  rov  aiuvoc ;  but  in  the  next 
verfe  it  is  expreffed  in  a  different  manner  by  a  i^ri  yvj- 
c^loii  ^oci^xla  n?  Toi/  onwac.  Some  commentators  have 
thought  this  too  artificial,  while  others  have  imagined 
that  the  expreffions  were  not  lynonymous,  and  have 
endeavoured  to  point  out  a  peculiar  emphafis  :  but  in 
fa6l  they  are  nothing  more  than  various  modes  of 
expreffing  the  fame  thing,  -according  to  the  pra^ice  of 
good  Greek  writers.     With  a  view  to  a  fim,ilar  variation 

St. 


SECT.  viir.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  317 

St.  John  has  iifed  EIMI,  ch.  vii.  34.  in  the  fenfe  of  eo, 
which  in  the  common  printed  editions  is  accented,  not 
iTui  but  £iy.)y  and  thus  abfurdly  converted  into  the 
ienfe  o(  fum.  That  St.  John  by  onOT  ELMI  ETHy 
ch.  vii.  34.  intended  to  fignify  *  Whither  I  go,'  and 
not  ^  Where  I  am,'  is  evident  not  only  from  the  con- 
text, which  requires  a  verb  of  motion,  becaufe  u/Afif  3 
ovi>a(T^£  iX^etv  immediately  follows,  but  likewife  from  the 
parallel  palTage,  ch.  viii.  21.  where  Chrift  fays  the  very 
iame  thing,  only  in  different  words,  otth  E-yw  vn-ayu, 
v[jf.eig  a  (?uva(r6£  iK^siv.  If  it  be  afked,  why  St.  John  did 
not  ufe  the  verb  vrrayu  in  ch.  vii.  34.  as  well  as  in 
ch.  viii.  21.  I  anfwer,  becaufe  in  the  former  inftance 
he  had  already  ufed  vTrayu  in  the  preceding  verfe,  and 
for  that  reafon  he  exchanged  it  for  the  lefs  ufual  word 
E(,ai  in  the  fenfe  eo. 

A  peculiarity  in  St.  John's  mode  of  writing  is  the 
commencement  of  a  claufe  with  the  word  which  had 
been  ufed  in  the  preceding:    for  inftance,    ch.   i.    i. 

0    Xoyogy    Jtai    o    Xoyoq — nv    zr^og    tov    ^iov,    kxi    0   -S'jof.      A 

fimilar  repetition  may  be  feen  in  ver.  3,  4.  7,  8.  10,  11. 
of  the  fame  chapter.  In  ch.  xx.  11.  is  KXai^a-a.  s^w*  ui 
Hv  ExAaici/ :  and  in  ch.  xxi.  i  — 17.  are  repetitions  of  the 
fame  kind.  This  mode  of  writina;  is  fometimes  cen~ 
fured  by  grammarians,  but  as  St.  John  has  applied  it, 
the  effe6l  is  by  no  means  difagreeable.  We  meet  with 
another  inftance  in  his  firft  Epiftle,  ch.  iii.  i.  according 
to  the  reading  of  many  good  authorities,  ivx.  rsx^a  3-jsj 

KAi?9cojtx£v    ()taj    icuev^.      Ver.     2.    ayuTrrfloiy     vvv    TiKi/x    S'ca 

fo-jtAfi/.  Another  peculiarity  in  St.  John's  ftyle  is  the 
frequent  ufe  of  the  pronoun  syw,  where  there  is  no 
emphafis,  and  therefore-  where  it  was  unnecefTary  in  the 
Greek  language  :  for  inftance  in  the  above-mentioned 
example,  iya  vn-otyuy  '  I  go,'  as  in  the  modern  Euro- 
pean languages.  Whoever  turns  to  Schmid's  con- 
cordance will  find  a  fufficient  number  of  examples  to 
prove  the  truth  of  this  aflertion.  In  fome  cafes  indeed, 
as  in  ch.  i.  20.  one  might  fuppofe  that  he  meant  to  lay 

a  par- 


3i8  Of  Si.  John's  Go/pel.  chap.  yU^ 

a   particular  flrels  on  the  pronoun  E<yw,    but  it  really 
occurs  too  often,  to  admit  this  fuppofition. 

In  St.  John's  Epiftles  we  meet  with  many  examples 
of  a  fimilar  kind  to  thofe,  which  I  have  quoted  from 
his  Gofpel :  but  the  ftyle  of  the  latter  is  better  and 
more  perfpicuous,  than  that  of  the  former.  The  con- 
jun6lion  xxi,  for  inftance,  occurs  fo  frequently  in  his 
Epiftles,  that  it  is  fometimes  difficult  to  tranflate  it : 
but  in  his  Gofpel  he  has  ufed  it  more  fparingly. 
Hence  it  is  not  unreafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  he  wrote 
his  Gofpel  much  later  than  his  Epiftles,  and  after  he 
had  improved  his  Greek  ftyle  by  his  long  refidence  in 
Ephefus.  Of  the  Apocalypfe,  which  is  written  in  a 
totally  different  ftyle  both  from  the  Gofpel  and  the 
Epiftles  of  St.  John,  I  ftiall  treat  at  large  in  a  fubfequeni 
chapter. 


SECT.    IX. 

Of  the  I  aft  Chapter  of  St.  John's  Gofpel. 

THE  laft  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gofpel  may  be  con^ 
lidered  as  a  fupplement,  which  was  added  princi- 
pally with  the  view  of  giving  the  reader  fome  account 
of  the  author.  Some  of  the  early  Chriftians  had  im- 
bibed the  notion,  that  St.  John  the  Evangelift  would 
live  till  the  day  of  judgement,  a  notion  to  which  a 
falfe  interpretation  of  a  faying  of  Chrift,  and  the  great 
age  which  the  Evangelift  aftually  attained,  had  given 
rife*.  For  this  reafon  St.  John  has  related  at  full 
length,  in  the  laft  chapter,  the  converfation  which  took 
place  between  Chrift,  St.  Peter  and  himfelf  after  the 

refur- 

»  See  Fabrlcii  Cod.  Apocryph.  Tom.  I.  p-  533.  Not.  x. 


SECT.  IX.  Of  St.  John^s  Go/pel.  319 

refurreftion :  and  has  fhewn  In  what  connexion,  and 
in  what  fenfe  Chrift  faid  of  St.  John,  '  If  I  will  that  he 
tarry  till  1  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ?' 

Grotius,  and  feveral  other  critics,  have  contended 
that  the  lad  chapter  was  added,  not  by  St.  John  him- 
felf,  but  by  fome  other  perfon  or  perfons,  and  probably 
by  the  elders  at  Ephefus,  after  St.  John's  deceafe. 
Their  principal  argument  is  founded  on  ver.  24.  '  This 
is  the  difciple  which  tefhifieth  of  thefe  things,  and  wrote 
thefe  things :  and  we  know  that  his  teftimony  is  true.' 
But,  as  this  inference  is  not  fupported  by  the  teftimony 
of  the  ancients,  I  do  not  think  it  admiflible.  The  ftyle 
of  the  whole  of  the  twenty-firft  chapter  is  exaftly  the 
fame,  as  that  of  the  reft  of  the  Gofpel''.  And  as  to 
the  24th  verfe  in  particular,  I  can  fee  no  reafon  for 
fuppofing  that  even  that  alone  is  an  addition :  for  the 
phrafe,  *  We  know  that  his  teftimony  is  true,'  is  no- 
thing more  than  a  figure  of  rhetoric,  called  Communication 
and  exprefles  the  fame  as,  *  Every  Chriftian  knows, 
that  his  teftimony  is  true.'  Befides,  if  this  addition 
had  been  made  by  the  Ephefian  elders,  they  would 
probably  have  inferted  their  names :  for  the  teftimony 
of  ^  We  know,'  made  by  unknown  perfons,  could  add 
no  authority  to  St.  John's  Gofpel. 

'■^  See  my  Hiftory  of  the  Refurreftion,  p.  295,  296. 


SECT. 


J20  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel.  chap,  vrr. 


SECT.    X. 

Of  ihe  time  ivheriy  ayid  the 'place  where ^  St.  John's  Gofpel 
'ivas  written. 

THAT  the  latter  part  of  St.  John's  life  was  fpent 
principally  at  Ephefus,  appears  from  what  is  re- 
lated by  Eufebius  in  the  third  book  of  his  Ecclefiafticai 
Hiftory,  ch.  23.  It  is  like  wife  the  generally  received 
opinion  that  he  wrote  his  Gofpel  there :  and  though, 
ftriftly  fpeaking,  we  can  produce  no  hiftorical  evidence 
in  its  favour  (for  neither  the  fubfcription  to  St.  John's 
Gofpel  in  the  Syriac  verfion,  nor  any  other  fubfcription 
of  the  fame  kind  is  entided  to  the  name  of  evidence), 
yet  the  fad  is  liighly  probable  in  itfelf,  fmce  it  is  rea- 
fonable  to  fuppofe,  that  he  wrote  where  he  refided„ 
And  as  the  Greek  language  was  fpoken  in  great  purity 
at  Ephefus,  and  the  dodrines  which  he  has  combated, 
prevailed  in  that  city,  the  opinion  that  St.  John  wrote 
his  Gofpel  at  Ephefus  agrees  bodi  with  its  ftyle  and  its 
contents. 

That  he  wrote  later  than  the  three  other  Evangelifls 
is  alfo  the  general  opinion :  and  I  have  endeavoured  in 
a  preceding  feftion  to  confirm  it  by  internal  arguments. 
Dr.  Semler  however  contends  that  St.  John  wrote  be- 
fore the  other  three  Evangelifts,  and  argues  in  fupport 
of  this  opinion  from  the  three  following  paffiiges,  ch.  j. 
6.  vi.  7.  37.  But  I  am  wholly  unable  to  difcover  in 
thefe  places  any  marks  whatfoever  of  an  early  compo- 
fition  :  and  the  reader  perhaps  on  examining  them  will 
fuppofe,  that  I  have  made  a  miftake  in  the  quotations. 
I  muft  refer  him  therefore  to  Dr.  Semler's  own  notes 
to  thefe  paffages,  in  his  Paraphrafis  in  Evangelium 
Johannis. 

To  the  arguments,  which  I  produced  in  the  fixth 
feftion  of  this  chapter,  to  fhew  that  St.  John  wrote 
later  than  the  other  three  Evangeliftsj  may  be  added 

the 


Sect.  X.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel  321' 

the  following  ;  which,  I  think,  renders  it  highly  probable 
that  St.  John  wrote  his  Gofpel  only  a  fhort  time  before 
the  deftruftion  of  Jerufalem,   if  not  after  that  event ; 
that   is,    either  fhortly  before,    or  after  the  year  70. 
None  of  the  three   firft  Evangelills  has  mentioned  the 
name  of  the  Apoille,  who  cut  off  the  ear  of  the  High 
Prieft's  fervant,  when  Chrift  was  betrayed  by  Judas  : 
but  St.  John  has  openly  related  that  this   Apoftle  was 
St.  Peter.     Now  the  three  firft  Evangelifts  afted  with 
great  propriety  in   not   mentioning  St.   Peter's  name, 
becaufe  it  would  have  afforded  the  Jews  an  opportunity 
of  accufing  him.      Unlefs  therefore  we  fuppofe  that 
St.   John    adled    with    lefs    prudence    than    the   other 
Evangelifts,  we  muft  conclude  that  St.  Peter  was  dead, 
when  St.  John  wrote    his    Gofpel,    and  therefore   that 
there  was  no  further  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  an 
open  avowal  of  the  faft.      Befides,  in  ch.  xxi.  18,  19. 
St.  John  having  mentioned  the  following  prophecy  of 
Chrift  refpe6ling  St.  Peter,  '  When  thou  fhalt  be  old, 
thou  {halt  ftretch  forth  thy  hand,  and  another  fhall  gird 
thee,  and  carry  thee  whither  thou  wouldeft  not,'  ex- 
plains this  prophecy  by  adding,  ^  This  fpakc  he,  figni- 
fying   by  what  death  he  (namely  Peter)  ftiould  glorify 
God.'     St.  Peter  therefore  muft  have  already  fuffered 
martyrdom,  or  St.  John  would  not  have  been  able  to 
make  the  application.     Now  the  death  of  St.  Peter  is 
referred  to  the  year  67  :  confequently  St.  John's  Goipel 
was  written  later  than  that  period. 

Another  argument  for  the  late  compofition  of  St. 
John's  Gofpel  may  be  derived  from  the  fluency  of  the 
language  in  which  it  is  written.  St.  John  remained  in 
Jerufalem  long  after  the  death  of  Chrift,  as  appears 
from  the  Afts  of  the  Apoftles  and  the  Epiftlc  to  the 
Galatians.  Nor  was  he  arrived  at  Ephefus  when  St. 
Paul  took  leave  of  the  elders  of  that  city  for  the  laft 
time*,  or  his  name  would  not  have  been  pafled  over  in 
filence.     Further,  he  was  not  arrived  at  Ephefus,  when 

St. 
*■  "  Adls.  XX.  17—38. 

Vol.  Ill,  X 


322  Of  St,  John^s  GofpeU  chap.  vii. 

St.  Paul  wrote  his  Epiftle  to  the  Ephefians,  during  his- 
imprifonment,  or  St.  John's  name  would  have  been 
mentioned  in  that  Epiftle.  St.  John's  refidence  in 
Ephefus  therefore  cannot  have  commenced  long  before 
the  death  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul :  and  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  the  hoftilities,  which  began  about  that 
period  between  the  Jews  and  the  Romans,  induced 
him  to  leave  his  native  country,  agreeably  to  the  com- 
mand of  Chrift,  when  he  foretold  the  deftruftion  of 
Jerufalem.  But  if  St.  John  arrived  fo  late  at  Ephefus, 
his  Gofpel  muft  have  been  written  many  years  later : 
for  as  he  was  born  and  educated  in  Paleftine,  he  could 
not  have  acquired  that  fluency  of  language,  which  is 
difplayed  in  his  Gofpel,  except  by  a  long  refidence  in 
a  Greek  city.  According  to  the  preceding  ftatement, 
St.  John  muft  have  been  nearly  fixty  years  old,  when 
he  came  to  Ephefus :  and  therefore  we  muft  admire  his 
ability  in  forming  fo  good  a  ftyle  at  f©  great  an  age. 
It  is  true  that  his  language  is  not  that  of  a  native  Greek  : 
yet  it  is  perfeftly  free  from  the  ftiffncfs  and  formality  of 
a  fchool  exercife. 

There  is  a  fingle  paflage  in  St.  John's  Gofpel,  from 
which  feveral  critics  have  inferred,  that  it  was  written 
before  the  deftrudion  of  Jerufalem.  In  ch.  v.  i.  St. 
John  fays,  *  There  is  at  Jerufalem  by  the  fheep-gatc 
a  pool,  which  is  called  in  the  Hebrew  tongue  Bethefda, 
having  five  porches.'  Hence  it  is  inferred  thdt  Jeru- 
falem was  ftill  ftanding,  when  he  wrote  this  paflage : 
for  if  Jerufalem  had  lain  at  that  time  in  ruins,  it  is 
argued,  that  St.  John  would  not  have  faid,  *  There  is 
at  Jerufalem,  &c.'  but  *  There  was  at  Jerufalem,  &c.' 
And  this  argument  is  corroborated  by  the  cireumftance, 
that  though  this  pafTage  has  many  various  readings, 
the  Greek  MSS.  are  unanimous  in  refpedl  to  the  reading 
Eri  Sij  not  one  having  been  hitherto  difcovered  which 
reads  Hv  Si,  But  this  argument  appears  to  me  at  pre- 
fcnt  to  be  lefs  decifive,  than  I  once  thought  it.  It 
is  founded  wholly  on  the  fingle  word  £r»  j  but  authors 
do  not  always  weigh  their  words  with  fo  much  cxaft- 

nefs> 


5ZCT.  X.  Of  St.  JohrCs  GofpeU  323 

hefs,  as  that  £r»  alone  fhould  warrant  the  inference* 
Befides,  as  the  fubjeft  of  difcourfe  was  the  pool  Bethefda, 
which  could  not  have  been  deflroyed  in  the  conflagra- 
tion of  Jerufalem,  St.  John,  even  after  the  deftrudion 
of  that  city,  might  fpeak  in  the  prefent  tenfe,  with 
equal,  and  perhaps  flill  greater  propriety,  than  in  the 
paft.  It  will  be  objefted  perhaps  that  St.  John  adds 
'  having  five  porches*  {-nrivn  roug  sp^^ao-a),  and  that  if 
the  pool  exifted  after  Jerufalem  was  deflroyed,  flill 
thefe  porches  could  not  have  remained.  Now  I  grant 
that  zjsvTt  foxg  zsoiXai  t^sa-ocj  with  the  addition  of  ssa.Xon, 
would  be  a  more  fuitable  expreffion  in  a  work  written 
after  thofe  porches  had  ceafed  to  exift :  but  even  the 
mofl  corredb  writers  are  fometimes  deficient  in  precifion. 
I  am  flill  therefore  of  opinion  that  St.  John  wrote  his 
Gofpel  after  the  deftruflion  of  Jerufalem,  though  not 
in  fo  very  advanced  an  age  as  fome  have  fuppofed, 
becaufe  the  fluency  of  language  then  ceafes.  But  as  his 
Gofpel  abounds  with  repetitions  introduced  for  the  fake 
of  perfpicuity,  and  repetitions  of  this  kind  are  peculiar 
to  men  in  years,  St.  John  appears,  when  he  wrote  his 
Gofpel,  to  have  arrived  at  that  flage  of  life,  which 
precedes  the  infirmities  of  old  age. 

Lardner,  in  his  Supplement  to  the  Credibility  of  the 
Gofpel  Hiflory,  Vol.  I.  ch.  ix.  §  7,  8.  has  flated  the 
various  opinions  both  of  ancient  and  modern  writers 
relative  to  the  time  when  St.  John's  Gofpel  was  written ; 
to  whom  I  refer  the  reader  for  further  information  on 
this  fubjed.  Lardner's  own  opinion,  which  he  delivers 
§  9.  Is,  that  It  was  written  about  the  year  68,  and  con- 
fequently  before  the  dellru6llon  of  Jerufalem.  His 
firft  argument  in  favour  of  this  early  date  is  grounded 
on  the  occafion  of  St.  John's  writing  his  Gofpel  men- 
tioned by  the  ancients,  namely,  the  bringing  the  other 
three  Gofpels  to  him,  and  his  obfervlng  their  deficiency. 
Hence  Lardner  argues,  *  Their  Gofpels  were  foon 
brought  to  -him :  and  If  he  thought  fit  to  confirm 
them,  or  to  write  any  thing  by  way  of  fupplement,  he 
would  do  it  in  a  fhort  time.     The  firfl  three  Gofpels 

X  2  very 


5^4  Q^  ^^'  J°^^'^  Gofpel.  CHAP.  vir. 

very  probably  were  written  and  publilhed  before  the  end 
of  the  year  64,  or  in  6^  at  the  furtheft.  If  they  were 
brought  to  St.  John  in  G^y  or  66y  he  would  not  defer 
more,  or  much  more,  than  a  year,  or  two,  to  publiih 
the  hiftory  of  Jefus,  and  make  the  account  complete.' 
But  this  argument  rells  on  a  very  unliable  foundation : 
for  I  have  already  fhewn,  that  though  St,  John  has 
completed  th^  accounts  of  his  predecefTors,  his  obje(5t 
was,  not  merely  to  add  a  fupplement  to  the  other  three 
Gofpels,  but  to  confute  the  tenets  of  the  Gnoftics  and 
the  Sabians.  And  even  if  St.  John's  only  motive  had 
been  to  fupply  the  deficiencies  of  the  three  firft  Gofpels, 
ilill  I  can  fee  no  neceffity  for  fuppofing,  that  he  would 
therefore  have  written  his  Gofpel  within  a  year  or  two 
after  he  had  feen  thofe  of  his  predecefTors.  Lardner's 
other  arguments  have  not  convinced  me  more  than  the 
preceding  :  I  fhall  therefore  not  quote  them,  but  requeft 
the  reader  to  examine  them  for  himfelf  Yet,  though  I 
think  not  Lardner's  arguments  fatisfaflory,  and  the 
year  in  which  St.  John  wrote  his  Gofpel,  ftill  appears 
to  me  uncertain,  yet  I  will  not  aflert  that  Lardner's 
conclufion  is  falfe. 


SECT.     XI. 

Of  the  Heretics,  who  rejeSied  St.  John's  GofpeL 

LAMPE,  in  his  learned  Prolegomena  to  St.  John's 
Gofpel*^,  has  treated  at  full  length  of  the  heretics 
who  rejected  it :  though  I  fear,  that  he  has  acquitted 
feveral  of  this  charge,  to  whom  it  may  be  juftly  laid. 
However,  their  opinions  are  of  very  little  importance, 
'Mpcciiiliy  as  mod  of  them  allowed  that  St.  John  was 

the 

*  Lib.  II.  cap.  X. 


SECT.  XI.  Of  St.  John's  Go/pel,  ^'^S 

the  author,  and  rejeded  it  on  no  other  ground,  than 
that  the  Evangeliil  had  delivered  in  it  erroneous  doc- 
trines. But  in  this  refped  they  were  inconfiftent  with 
themfelves  :  for' to  admit,  that  St.  John  had  the  gift 
of  miracles,  and  that  he  had  received  full  powers,  as 
an  Apoflle  of  Jefus  Chrift,  the  Son  of  God,  whofe 
miracles  they  likewife  admitted,  and  yet  to  alTert  that 
St.  John  delivered  erroneous  do£trines,  is  a  dired  con- 
tradi(5tion.  The  Alogi  went  a  ilep  further,  and  denied 
that  St.  John  was  the  author  of  the  Gofpel  afcribed  to 
him.  This  aflertion  they  grounded,  not  on  external 
evidence,  nor  on  hiftorical  teftimony,  but  merely  on  the: 
contents  of  the  Gofpel,  which,  they  faid,  contradid;ed 
the  three  other  Gofpels,  and  therefore  could  not  have 
been  written  by  a  divine  Apoftle.  They  particularly 
obje<5ted  to  the  term  Aoyo?,  which  no  man,  they  faid, 
would  have  ufed  to  denote  a  perfon,  except  one  who 
had  imbibed  the  philofophy,  which  was  adopted  by 
Cerinthus.  Hence  they  argued  that  the  Gofpel,  which 
bore  the  name  of  St.  John,  ought  rather  to  be  afcribed 
to  Cerinthus,  than  to  one  of  the  Apoftles.  But  this 
argument  proves  nothing :  for,  whoever  undertook  to 
confute  the  errors  of  Cerinthus,  was  under  the  ncceffity 
of  retaining  the  terminology  of  his  adycrfary. 


xj  CHAP. 


J 26  The  A5ls  of  the  Jpojiles.         chap.  viii, 

CHAP,     VIII. 

OF    THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES, 

SECT.    I. 

Of  the  Author  of  the  A£is  of  the  ApoJileSj  and  the  time 
when  this  book  was  written. 

AS  this  book  belongs  to  the  hiftorlcal  writings  of 
the  New  Teftament,  I  treat  of  it  immediately 
after  the  Gofpels,  agreeably  to  the  order  in  which  it  is 
placed  in  our  common  editions  of  the  Greek  Teftament, 
though  in  ancient  manufcripts  and  ancient  verfions  it 
is  very  frequently  placed  after  the  Epiftles  of  St.  Paul, 
becaufe  it  is  neceflary  to  a  right  underftanding  of  them. 
It  appears  from  the  very  firft  fentence  in  the  A6ts  of 
the  Apoftles,  that  it  was  a  continuation  of  St.  Luke's 
Gofpel,  and  that  it  was  written  by  the  fame  author. 
This  is  likewife  aflferted  by  the  moft  ancient  ecclefiaftical 
writers,  whofe  teftimony  I  think  it  unneceflary  to  quote, 
as  the  queftion  admits  of  no  doubt, .  and  Lardner  has 
already  given  a  fufficient  number  of  quotations  on  this 
fubjeft.  Whether  the  interval  which  elapfed  between 
the  compofition  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  and  his  feconci 
work  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  was  confiderable  or  not, 
it  is  at  prefent  impoflible  to  determine.  Nor  are  we 
able  to  decide,  whether  both  books  were  written  in  the 
fame  or  different  places :  for  though  each  of  them  was 
dedicated  to  Theophilus,  we  cannot  aflcrt  that  either 
of  them  was  written  in  the  fame  place,  in  which  Theo- 
philus refided.  That  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles  were 
written  at  Alexandria  is  ftill  lefs  probable,  than  that 
St.  Luke's  Gofpel  was  written  there :  and  if  it  be 
allowable  to  fubftitute  conjedlure,  where  we  are  forfakeq 
by  hiftorical  evidence,  I  would  rather  fuppofe  that  the 

Ads 


SECT.  II.  The  A£fs  of  the  Apojiles.  327 

A6l:s  were  written  in  Rome,  at  which  place  St  Luke 
mentions  his  arrival,  in  company  with  St.  Paul,  fhortly 
before  the  clofe  of  the  book '.  Further,  as  it  is  conti- 
nued to  the  end  of  the  fecond  year  of  St.  Paul's  impri- 
fonment,  it  could  not  have  been  written  before  the  year 
63  :  nor  do  I  think  it  probable  that  it  was  written  after 
that  year,  for  St.  Luke  would  then  have  related  fome 
further  particulars  relative  to  St.  Paul,  or  would  at 
leaft  have  mentioned  the  event  of  his  imprifonment, 
in  which  the  Chriftian  reader  was  highly  interefted. 
St.  Luke's  long  attendance  on  St.  Paul,  and  his  having 
been  himfelf  eye-witnefs  to  fo  many  of  the  fafts  which 
he  has  recorded,  render  him  a  moll  reipeftable  and 
credible  hiftorian.  His  medical  knowledge  enabled 
him,  both  to  form  a  proper  judgment  of  the  mira- 
culous cures,  which  were  performed  by  St.  Paul,  and 
to  give  an  accurate  and  authentic  detail  of  them.  But 
he  himfelf  does  not  appear  to  have  poflefled  the  power 
of  healing  by  fupernatural  means :  at  leail,  we  have 
no  inftances  of  it  on  record,  and  when  the  father  of 
Publius  and  other  iick  perfons  (A6ls  xxviii.  8,  9.)  were 
fuddenly  cured,  they  were  reftored  to  health,  not  by 
St.  Luke,  but  by  the  prayers  of  St.  Paul. 


SECT.    II. 


Qf  the  ohje5i  which  St.  Luke  had  in  view,  in  writing  the 
JSfs  of  the  Jpofiks, 

IT  is  obvious,  that  St.  Luke  did  not  intend  to  write 
a  general  hiftory  of  the  Chriftian  church,  during  the 
firft  thirty  years  after  Chrift's  afcenfion  :  for  he  has 
almoft  wholly  omitted  what  pafled  among  the  Chriftians 

in 

•  Afts  xxviii.  16. 
X4 


328  The  A^s  of  the  Apftles.  chap.  viii. 

in  Jerufalem  after  the  converfion  of  St.  Paul,  though 
the  other  Apoftles  continued  for  fome  time  in  Paleftine. 
Before  St.  Luke  wrote  the  A6ls,  the  younger  James  had 
been  ftoned  to  death  by  the  Jews,  and  the  Jewifh  con- 
verts to  Chriftianity  had  fufFered  fo  fevere  a  perfecution, 
that  they  began  to  waver  in  their  faith,  on  which  oc- 
cafion  St.  Pau]  judged  it  nece0ary  to  write  his  Epiftle 
to  the  Hebrews.     Thefe  were  fa6ts,  which  an  hiftorian, 
who  defigned  to  write  a  general  account  of  the  Chriftian 
church,  could  not  have  pafTed  over  in  filence.     Fur- 
ther,   St.  Luke   has  not  defcribed  the  propagation  of 
Chriftianity  either  in  Egypt,  or  in  the  countries  which 
bordered  on  the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  though  at 
EdefTa  the  king  himfelf  had  become  an  early   convert 
to  the  Chriftian  religion.     Nor  has  he  mentioned  St. 
Paul's  journey  into  Arabia,  or  the  ftate  of  Chriftianity 
in  Babylon,  though  it  appears  from  the  firft  Epiftle  of 
^t,  Peter  ^,  that  a  Chriftian  community  exifted  in  that 
city.     Here  the  queftion  occurs :  Were  the  Chriftians 
in  thefe  countries  converts  from  the  Jewifti  religion  ^, 
and  was  St.  Luke's  principal  attention  directed  to  the 
converfion  of  the  Gentiles  ?    Or  was  he  filent  on   the 
propagadon  of  Chriftianity  in  the  Eaft,  and  in  Egypt, 
becaufe  he  had  no  knowledge  of  what  was  tranfacfled 
there  ?    He  is  equally  filent  on  the  foundation  of  the 
Chriftian  community  in  Rome,  though  it  was  in  a  very 
flourifhing  ftate   before  St.  Paul's   arrival  in  that  city, 
and  had  already  received  an  Epiftle  from  the  Apoftle. 
There  are  other  omiiTions  in  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles, 
which  we  can  hardly  afcribe  to  a  want  of  knowledge  in 
the  author :  for,  as  St.  Luke  was  many  years  the  con- 
ftant  companion   of  St.  Paul,   he   was    certainly     well 
acquainted  with  St.  Paul's  general  hiftory.     Yet  he  has 
omitted  many   material  tranfa6lions  in  the  life  of  the 
Apoftle,  of  which  Lardner  has  fele6led  feveral  remark- 
able 
Ch.  V.  £3. 

5  This  however  cannot  be  faid  of  the  king,  who  refided  at  Edefla : 
for  he  was  an  Armenian. 


SECT.  II.  The  Aofs  of  the  Apojlks.  329 

able  inftances\  In  one  refpe^l  however  Lardner  is 
miftaken  :  for  he  fuppofes  that  St.  Luke  accompanied 
St.  Paul  to  Corinth,  whereas,  I  have  Ihcwn  in  a 
preceding  fedion,  that  St.  Luke  flaid  behind  at  Phi- 
iippi.  But  St.  Luke  was  probably  informed  by  St. 
Paul  of  what  was  done  in  his  abfence  :  and  fince  he 
has  related  many  things  performed  by  St.  Paul  before 
they  again  joined  company,  and  has  even  recorded  the 
fpeech  delivered  at  Athens  ^,  at  which  he  was  no  more 
prdenc,  than  at  St.  Paul's  tranfa6tions  in  Corinth,  we 
muft  conclude,  that  his  filence  did  not  always  proceed 
from  a  want  of  knowledge  of  the  fafts,  which  he  has 
omitted.  He  has  no  where  alluded  to  any  one  of 
St.  Paul's  Epillles :  he  has  palTed  over  feveral  perfecu- 
tions,  which  the  Apoftle  underwent "  :  he  has  taken  no 
notice  of  feveral  voyages  made  by  St.  Paul,  in  which 
he  thrice  fuffered  Ihipwreck,  long  before  the  Ihipwreck, 
which  happened  on  the  voyage  to  Italy :  nor  has  he 
given  an  account  of  the  great  danger,  from  which  the 
Apoftle  had  been  delivered  by  Aquila  and  Prifcilla, 
whofe  generous  conduct  entitled  them  to  the  thanks 
of  every  Chriftian  community '.  It  is  true  that  thefe 
fa6ls  appear  to  have  taken  place  during  that  period 
which  belongs  to  Acls  xvii.  i. — xx.  5,  6.  when  St. 
Luke  was  abfent  from  St.  Paul  "* :  yet  as  we  cannot 
fuppofe  that  they  remained  totally  unknown  to  him, 
we  may  at  leaft  deduce  this  inference,  that  it  was  not 
St.  Luke's  intention  to  write  a  complete  narrative  of 
St.  Paul's  tranfa6lions.  Of  his  own  hiftory  he  has  faid 
very  little  :  and  of  what  he  did  at  Philippi  during  the 
abfence  of  St.  Paul  he  has  faid  nothing.  This  filence 
we  may  afcribe  to  his  modefty,  which  never  fuffered 
him  to  appear  as  a  principal  perfon.  Of  the  contro- 
verfies,  which  took  place  relative  to  the  queftion,  whe- 
ther 

*»  Supplement,  Vol.  I.  ch.  viil.  feft.  9. 

*  Ads  xvii.  *  See  2  Cor.  xi. 

*  Rom.  xvi.  3,  4,  "»  See  above,  Ch,  vi,  feft.  3. 


53®  l^s  -^^s  of  the  Apfiles.         chap,  viii; 

ther  the  Lcvitlcal  law  ought  to  be  retained,  or  not,  he 
has  mentioned  fome,  but  not  all :  for  inftance,  he  has 
omitted  the  controverfy  on  this  fubje<5b,  which  created 
fo  much  confiifion  among  the  Galatians.  Of  the  here- 
tical opinions,  which  diftradled  the  Chriftian  church, 
and  to  which  St.  Paul  alludes  in  his  Epiftle,  he  has 
given  no  account :  nor  has  he  mentioned  even  the 
Gnoftics,  though  they  were  not  unknown  to  St.  Paul, 
when  he  wrote  his  firft  Epiftle  to  Timothy. 

It  appears  from  the  preceding  paragraph,  that  St. 
Luke's  objed  in  writing  the  book,  which  is  called  the 
Afts  of  the  Apoftles,  was  to  deliver  neither  a  general 
hiftory  of  the  propagation  of  Chriftianity,  nor  a  com- 
plete hiftory  of  St.  Paul  in  particular.  He  feems  to 
have  had  a  two-fold  objeft  in  view,  namely  : 

1.  To  relate  in  what  manner  the  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  were  communicated  on  the  day  of  Pentecoft,  and 
the  fubfequent  miracles  performed  by  the  Apoftles,  by 
which  the  truth  of  Chriftianity  was  confirmed.  An 
authentic  account  of  this  matter  was  abfolutely  necef- 
fary,  becaufe  Chrift  had  fo  often  alTured  his  difciples, 
that  they  ftiould  receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  Unbelievers 
therefore,  whether  Jews  or  Heathens,  might  have  made 
objedions  to  our  religion,  if  it  had  not  been  fhewn, 
that  Chrift's  declaration  was  really  fulfilled. 

2.  To  deliver  fuch  accounts,  as  proved  the  claim 
of  the  Gentiles  to  admiflion  into  the  church  of  Chrift, 
a  claim  difputed  by  the  Jews,  efpecially  at  the  time, 
when  St.  Luke  wrote  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles.  And 
it  was  this  very  circumftance,  which  excited  the  hatred 
of  the  Jews  againft  St.  Paul,  and  occafioned  his  impri- 
fonment  in  Rome,  with  which  St.  Luke  clofes  his 
hiftory.  Hence  we  fee  the  reafon,  why  he  relates, 
ch.  viii.  the  converfion  of  the  Samaritans,  and  ch.  x.  xi. 
the  ftory  of  Cornelius,  whom  St.  Peter  (to  whofe 
authority  the  adverfaries  of  St.  Paul  had  appealed  in 
favour  of  circumcifion")  baptized,  though  he  was  not 

of 
•  See  Gatat.  ii.  6— 2i. 


SECT.  III.  The  A5ls  of  the  Apftles,  331 

of  the  circumcifion.  Hence  alfo  St.  Luke  relates  the 
determination  of  the  firft  council  in  Jerufalem  relative 
to  the  Levitical  law :  and  for  the  fame  reafon  he  is  more 
diffufe  in  his  account  of  St.  Paul's  converfion,  and  St. 
Paul's  preaching  the  Gofpel  to  the  Gentiles,  than  on  any- 
other  fubje6t.  It  is  true  that  the  whole  relation,  which 
St.  Luke  has  given,  ch.  xii.  has  no  connexion  with  the 
converfion  of  the  Gentiles :  but  during  the  period,  to 
which  that  chapter  relates,  St.  Paul  himfelf  was  prefent 
at  Jerufalem  %  and  it  is  probable  for  that  reafon,  that 
St.  Luke  has  introduced  it. 

Before  I  conclude  this  fedlion,  I  mull  mention  another 
opinion,  which  occurs  to  me,  reladve  to  St.  Luke's 
plan  in  writing  the  Afts  of  the  Apoftles.  Perhaps  his 
intendon  was  to  record  only  thofe  fadts,  which  he  had 
cither  feen  himfelf,  or  heard  from  eye-witnefles.  When 
I  confider  his  total  filence  in  refped  to  the  early  pro- 
pagation of  Chriftianity  at  Edefla,  I  think  this  opinion 
l^ot  improbable. 


SECT.    III.. 

Of  St.  Luke's  fiyle,  and  his  mode  of  narration, 

THOUGH  St.  Luke  has  omitted  many  material 
parts  of  ecclefiaftical  hiftory,  in  the  firft  thirty- 
years  after  the  afcenfion,  yet  he  is  very  circumilantial 
and  perfpicuous  in  thofe  parts,  which  he  has  related. 
At  the  fame  time,  he  has  no  where  exhaufted  his  fub- 
jcd: :  for  wherever  he  has  occafion  to  introduce  what 
he  had  related  before,  the  relation  is  always  accom- 
panied with  fome  new  circumftances.  Examples  of 
this  kind  are  the  converfion  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  bap- 
tifm  of  Cornelius,  which  he  himfelf  relates  firft  as  an 
hiftorianj  and  afterwards  introduces  in  the  Ipeeches  of 

St. 
*  See  Ails  xi.  30.  xii,  25, 


^ji  The  Acls  of  the  Apjtles.         chap.  viri. 

St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  This  variation  is  fo  far  from 
being  a  blemilli,  that  it  may  rather  be  confidered  as  an 
ornament :  for  a  repetition  of  the  fame  ftory,  with  the 
Very  fame  circumftances,  is  neither  entertaining  nor 
inftructive.  But  feveral  tranfcribers  and  editors  have 
fuppofed, .  that  wherever  they  oblcrved  a  circumflance 
kfs  in  one  place  than  in  the  other,  there  was  in  that 
place  a  real  defect,  and  have  accordingly  interpolated 
out  of  the  latter  into  the  former.  Thus,  in  ch.  ix." 
where  St.  Luke  gives  his  own  account  of  St.  Paul's 
converfion,  an  interpolation  has  been  made  from 
ch*  xxvi.  where  St.  Paul  himfelf  defcribes  his  conver- 
fion '' :  and  hence  the  three  relations  of  this  facl  in  the 
Acfts  of  the  Apoftles  refemble  each  other  in  our  modern 
printed  editions,  much  m.ore  than  in  the  ancient  ma- 
nufcripts. 

In  defcribing  St.  Paul's  fhipwreck,  he  appears  to  have 
ufed  the  Greek  technical  terms  of  navigation  ;  fome  of 
•which  we  find  it  difficult  to  underftand,  through  want  of 
fufficient  knowledge  of  this  fubject. 

In  general  St.  Luke's  flyle  in  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles 
is  much  purer  than  that  of  moft  other  books  of  the 
New  Teftament,  efpecially  in  the  fpeeches  delivered  by 
St.  Paul  at  Athens  and  before  the  Roman  governors, 
which  contain  palTages  fuperior  to  any  thing  even  in  the 
Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  though  the  language  of  this 
Epiftle  is  preferable  in  other  refpedls  to  that  of  any 
other  book  in  the  New  Teftament.  But  the  Acfts  of 
the  Apoftles  are  by  no  means  free  from  Hebraifms : 
and  even  in  the  pureft  parts,  which  are  the  fpeeches 
of  St.  Paul,  we  ftill  find  the  language  of  a  native 
Jew. 

It  deferves  particularly  to  be  remarked  that  St.  Luke 
has  well  fupported  the  charatSter  of  each  perfon,  whom 
he  has  introduced  as  delivering  a  public  harangue, 
and  has  very  faithfully  and  happily  prefcrved  the  manner 

of 

p  See  what  was  fald  on  this  example  in  the  fecond  volume  of  this 
Introdiufcion,  ch.  xii.  fed.  3, 


SECT.  III.  The  ABs  of  the  Apoftles,  33^5 

of  fpeaking,  ^vlnch  was  peculiar  to  each  of  his  orators. 
The  fpeeches  of  St.  Peter  are  recorded  by  St.  Luke 
with  the  fame  fimplicity  as  that  in  which  they  were 
delivered,  and  they  are  devoid  of  all  thofe  ornaments, 
which  we  ufually  find  in  the  orations  of  the  Greeks  and. 
Romans  ^  The  fpeeches  of  St.  Paul,  which  were  de- 
livered before  a  Jewifli  aflembly,  are  not  very  different 
in  their  manner  from  thofe  of  St.  Peter :  and  they  are 
wholly  difllmilar  to  thofe,  which  the  fame  Apoftle  de- 
livered before  an  heathen  audience,  efpecially  in  A<5ls 
xiii.  16 — 4r.  where  St.  Paul  introduces  the  principal 
fubje6l  of  his  difcourie  by  a  long  periphrafis,  which 
would  have  been  neither  inftructive  nor  entertaining  in 
any  other  place,  than  a  Jewifh  fynagogue.  The  fpeech 
delivered  by  the  martyr  Stephen,  in  the  feventh  chapter 
of  the  A6ts  is  again  of  a  different  defcription.  It  is  3 
learned  difcourfe,  pronounced  by  a  fpeaker,  who  was 
totally  unacquainted  with  the  art  of  oratory.  Stephen 
fpake  without  any  preparation,  and  though  he  had 
certainly  a  particular  objecl  in  view,  to  which  the 
feveral  parts  of  his  difcourfe  were  dire6led,  yet  it  \% 
difficult  to  difcover  this  objed;,  becaufe  his  materials 
are  not  regularly  difpofed.  It  is  true,  that  he  was  in- 
terrupted, and  was  prevented  from  finilhing  his  ha- 
rangue :  but  an  orator,  who  is  accuftomed  to  fpeak  in 
public,  and  has  learnt  methodical  arrangement,  will 
difcover  even  at  the  commencement  of  his  oration 
the  purport  of  his  difcourfe.  In  Stephen's  fpeech' 
we  meet  with  numerous  digrelTions,  and  literary  re- 
marks, of  which  we  cannot  perceive  the  tendency. 
For  inflance,  he   has  a  remark,  which  is  at  variance 

with 

*i  In  the  firft  volume  of  this  Introdufllon,  ch.  v.  feft.  3.  I  have 
obferved,  that  St.  Luke,  in  the  relation  of  public  fpeeches,  has  fre- 
quently departed  from  the  words  of  the  Septuagint,  where  the  fpeaker 
had  quoted  paflages  from  the  Old  Teftament.  To  the  examples^ 
which  1  there  quoted,  may  be  added  Afts  ii,  17.  19.  In  thefe  in- 
ftances  St.  Luke  has  fliewn  his  judgement,  in  not  tranfcribing  literally 
from  the  Septuagint  pafiages,  which  the  fpeaker  could  have  quotsii 
only  from  memory. 


334  ^^^  ^^^  of  the  Apjtles,         chap.  viii. 

with  the  Hebrew  text,  and  favours  another  reading,  or 
if  not,  it  favours  a  myftical  expofition  of  the  common 
reading,  that  Abraham  did  not  depart  from  Haran,  till 
after  his  father's  death  :  and  he  differs  from  the  Seventy 
•in  interpreting  HD'tJ^p  not  by  *■  lambs,'  but  by  '  a  filver 
coin.'  The  fame  character  appears  throughout  the  whole 
of  Stephen's  difcourfe  :  but  a  more  minute  examination 
of  it  would  be  foreign  to  the  prefent  purpofe. 

Since  then  the  various  fpeakers,  who  are  introduced 
in  the  Afts  of  the  Apoftles,  uniformly  preferve  their 
proper  characters,  St.  Luke  muft  have  received  very 
accurate  information.  Yet  many  of  thefe  fpeeches 
were  delivered,  not  in  the  Greek  language,  as  they  are 
recorded  by  St.  Luke,  but  in  Chaldee,  the  language  of 
Palefline.  Nor  is  it  probable,  that  any  of  the  perfons, 
who  were  prefent  at  the  time,  when  they  were  delivered, 
committed  them  to  writing,  if  we  except  the  fpeech 
of  Stephen.  My  reafon  for  thinking  it  probable 
that  St.  Luke  had  a  copy  of  Stephen's  Ipeech,  is, 
that  it  contains  fome  miftakes  of  memory,  and  fome 
inaccurate  expofitions,  which  St.  Luke  himfelf  muft 
have  known  to  be  fuch,  but  which  he  retained,  becaufc 
he  found  them  in  his  copy.  Perhaps  this  copy  was 
delivered  to  him  by  St.  Paul,  who  was  not  only  prefent 
at  Stephen's  fpeech,  but  was  at  that  time  a  zealous 
adverfary  of  the  Chriftians ;  and  being  at  the  fame 
time  learned  in  the  law,  was  able  as  well  as  wiUing 
to  deted  whatever  miftakes  might  be  made  by  the 
Ipeakcr. 

Laftly,  the  fpeeches  delivered  by  St.  Paul  before 
aftemblies,  which  were  accuftomed  to  Grecian  oratory, 
are  of  a  totally  different  defcription  from  any  of  the 
preceding.  It  is  true,  that  they  are  neither  adorned 
with  the  flowers  of  rhetoric,  nor  are  even  exempt  from 
fuch  expreflions  as  betray  a  native  Jew  :  but  the  lan- 
guage is  pointed  and  energetic,  and  the  materials  arc 
not  only  well  felefted,  but  judicioufly  arranged.  The 
fpeech  which  St.  Paul  delivered  at  Athens,  and  the  two 
which  he  held  before  the  Roman  governors  of  Judasa, 

are 


SECT.  IV,  The  A5ls  of  the  Apfiles.  335 

are  proofs  of  this  aflertion.  Yet  St.  Luke  appears  to 
have  given  only  an  abftra6l,  and  not  the  whole  of  St. 
Paul's  fpeeches :  for  the  Apoftle  in  the  defence,  which 
he  made  before  Felix,  muft  certainly  have  faid  more 
than  is  recorded  by  St.  Luke,  ch.  xxiv.  12,  13.  unlefs 
we  fuppofe  that  he  merely  denied  the  charge,  which  had 
been  laid  to  him,  without  confuting  it.  However  he  has 
certainly  fhewn  great  judgement  in  thefe  abftradts  :  for, 
if  he  has  not  always  retained  the  very  words  of  St.  Paul, 
he  has  adopted  fuch  as  well  fuited  the  polifhed  audi- 
ence, before  which  the  Apoftle  Ipake. 


SECT.    IV. 

Chronology  of  the  A^s  of  the  Apfiles, 

IT  is  evident  that  St.  Luke  wrote  the  A6ls  of  the 
Apoftles  with  a  tolerable  ftridl  attention  to  chrono- 
logical order :  but  he  has  not  annexed  a  date  to  any 
one  of  his  fafts,  though  in  one  inftance  he  had  done 
it  in  his  Gofpel'.  Ancient  writers  in  general  were  lefs 
attentive  to  this  fubjeft,  than  modern  authors :  and  in 
fome  cafes  perhaps  St.  Luke  did  not  exaftly  know  in 
what  year  the  events  happened.  However  there  are 
feveral  parts  of  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  in  which  ec- 
clefiaftical  hiftory  is  combined  with  political  fa<5bs,  o£ 
which  we  know  the  dates :  and  therefore  I  will  endea- 
vour to  determine  fuch  as  can  be  fettled  with  any  pre- 
cifion,  becaufe  an  acquaintance  with  the  chronology 
of  the  A(5ts  of  the  Apoftles  will  not  only  contribute  to 
the  underftanding  of  the  book  itfelf,  but  will  aflift  us  in 
fixing  the  year,  in  which  many  of  St,  Paul's  Epiftles 
were  written. 

I  take 
'  Ch,  iii,  I,  z: 


J3^  ?'^^  ^^s  f>f  i^s  Apojiles.         CHAP.  vrir. 

I  take  for  granted  that  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftfes 

33     commence  with  the  year  22>  ^^  ^^e  Chriftian  era'. 

In  the  calculation  of  this  era  I  follow  Ufher,  and 

do  not  enter  at  prefent  into  any  minute  inquiries  on 

this  fubjcc^. 

I.  The  fir jl  Epochy  after  the  commencement  of 
the  book,  is  at  ch.  xi.  29,  30. :  for  what  happened 
between  the  firft  Pentecoft  after  Chrift's  afcenfion 
and  this  period,  is  without  any  marks  of  chrono- 
44  logy.  But  at  ch.  xi.  29,  30.  we  have  a  date  :  for 
the  famine  which  took  place  in  the  time  of  Claudius 
Csefar,  and  which  induced  the  difciples  at  Antioch 
to  fend  rehef  to  their  brethren  in  Judsa,  happened 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Claudius's  reign,  that  is,  in 
the  year  44  of  the  Chriftian  era'. 
44  1.  Second  Epoch.  Herod  Agrippa  dies  foon  after 
he  had  put  to  death  the  Apoftle  St.  James:  and 
about  that  time  St.  Paul  and  St.  Barnabas  return 
from  Jerufalem  to  Antioch.  Ch.  xii.  21 — 25. 
This  is  ftill  in  the  year  44. 

3.  Third  Epoch.  Ch.  xviii.  2.  Shortly  after  the 
banifhment  of  the  Jews  from  Italy  by  Claudius 
Ceefar,  St.  Paul  arrives  at  Corinth.  Commentators 
affix  the  date  54  to  this  event :  but  it  is  uncertain, 
for  Suetonius,  the  only  hiftorian  v/ho  has  noticed 
this  baniihment  of  the  Jews,  mentions  it  without 
date.  For  that  reafon  I  place  no  date  in  the 
fnargin. 

4.  Fourth 

^  For  the  convenience  of  the  reader  I  place  this  as  well  as  the 
following  dates  in  the  margin. 

*  I  have  already  obferved  that  I  follow  Ufher,  without  entering 
into  any  minute  inquiries  in  refpeft  to  the  Chriftian  era.  If  this  is 
calculated  wrong,  the  following  dates  muft  be  altered  accordingly. 
Whoever  has  fufficient  ability  and  leifure  for  the  undertaking  would 
contribute  to  the  explanation  of  the  A£ls  of  the  Apoftles  by  cakti- 
lating  thefe  Epochs  with  ftill  greater  precifion.  But  conjefture  mull 
be  difcarded^  and  fift?  only  admitted  as  proofs. 


SECT.  IV.  The  A5ls  of  the  Apofiles.  337 

4.  Fourth  Epoch.  St.  Paul  comes  to  Jerufalem, 
where  lie  is  imprifoned  by  the  Jews,  not  long 
after  the  difturbances  which  were  excited  by  the 
Egyptian.  Ch.  xxi.  37 — 39.  This  impiifon- 
ment  of  St.  Paul  happened  in  the  year  60,  for  it  60 
was  two  years  before  Felix  quitted  his  government 

of  Jud^a.     Ch,  xxiii,  16.  xxiv.  27. 

5.  Fifth  Epoch.  Two  years  afiier  the  commence- 
ment of  St.   Paul's    imprifonment,    Feftus  is  ap-     62 
pointed  governor  of  Judcea.  Ch.  xxiv.  27.  xxv.  i* 

From  this  period  the  chronology  of  the  A6ls  of  the 
Apoftles  is  clear.  St.  Paul  is  fent  prifoner  to  Rome  in 
the  autumn  of  the  fame  year  in  which  Feflus  arrived 
in  Juda3a :  he  fuffers  fliipwreck,  pafles  the  winter  in 
Malta,  and  arrives  in  Rome  in  the  following  year, 
that  is,  in  6^.     Ch.  xxvi.  xxvii.  xxviii. 

The  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles  clofe  with  the  end  of  the 
fecond  year  of  St.  Paul's  imprifonment  in  Rome :  con- 
fequently,  in  the  year  6^.     Ch.  xxviii.  30. 

To  the  events  which  happened  between  the  epochs 
22  and  34,  and  between  44  and  60,  it  is  difficult  to 
affign  any  determinate  year :  and  all  that  we  can  po- 
fitively  fay  of  thefe  events,  is  that  they  happened  in  . 
thofe  intervals.  It  is  true  that  chronologers  have 
made  the  attempt:  but  none  of  them  has  met  with, 
fuccefs,  not  even  the  truly  eminent  Ufher.  Unfor- 
tunately, the  two  mofh  important  years,  that  of  St. 
Paul's  converfion,  and  that  of  the  tirft  council  in  Je- 
ruHilem,  are  the  moft  difficult  to  be  determined :  for 
neither  St.  Paul's  converfion,  nor  the  council  in  Jeru- 
falem, is  combined  with  any  political  fad,  by  means 
of  which  the  date  might  be  dil'covered.  Ufher  places 
St.  Paul's  converfion  in  the  year  2S^  others  in  38  :  buc 
we  cannot  pofitively  alTert  either  the  one  or  the  other. 

But  though  we  cannot  arrive  at  abfolute  certainty 
we  can  form  in  fome  cafes  a  probable  conjefture.  For 
inftance,  St.  Stephen  hardly  fuffered  martyrdom  before 
Pilate  was  recalled  from  the  government  of  Judea,  for 

Vol.  III.  Y  under 


33^  The  A5fs  of  the  Apjlles,  chap.  viii. 

under  Pilate  the  Jews  had  not  the  power  of  inflidting 
capital  piinifhments,  Now,  according  to  Ufher,  the  year, 
in  which  Pilate  was  recalled,  was  the  '^G^'^  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  era.  St.  Stephen's  martyrdom  therefore  probably- 
happened  after  36.  If  this  be  true,  St.  Paul's  con- 
verfion  muft  have  happened  likewife  after  2^^  and 
therefore  35  is  too  early  a  date.  But  how  long  after 
36,  whether  in  38,  as  feme  fay,  I  cannot  determine. 
Neither  date  agrees  with  the  Epiftle  to  the  Galatians". 

In  what  manner  the  chapters  iii.  iv.  v.  vi.  are  to  be 
arranged  between  2Z  "^^^  3^,  I  cannot  determine:  for 
what  chronologers  have  faid  is  here  conjefture,  and 
not  calculation.  The  fame  uncertainty  prevails  in  re- 
ipeft  to  ch.  viii.  and  x.  :  for  we  can  affirm  nothing 
more,  than  that  the  one  muft  placed  before,  the 
other  after  ';i^(i.  We  are  likewife  in  the  dark  Vv'ith  reipedt 
to  ch.  xiii.  xiv.  and  feveral  other  chapters.  Of  ch.  xvi. 
we  may  aflert,  that  it  belongs  to  a  period  at  leaft  fix 
years  prior  to  the  fourth  epoch  or  the  year  60 :  for  a 
year  and  an  half  at  Corinth,  three  years  at  Ephefus,  and 
the  time  fpent  on  feveral  journies,  can  hardly  be  prefled 
into  a  fmaller  compafs,  than  that  of  fix  years.  To 
ch.  xvi,  therefore  the  lateft  date,  which  can  be  afllgned, 
is  54:  and  it  is  not  impoffible  that  a  ftill  earlier  date 
ihould  be  afllgned  to  it. 

Wherever  I  fliall  have  occafion  to  fpeak,  in  the  foL 
lowing  chapters  of  this  Introdu6lion,  of  the  dates  to  be 
annexed  to  St.  Paul's  Epiftles,  I  muft  beg  to  be  un- 
derftood  as  delivering  not  my  own  opinion,  except 
where  I  explain  myfelf  more  fully,  but  the  opinion  of 
others.  The  moft  proper  dates  for  St.  Paul's  Epiftles 
are  references  to  the  refpeflive  parts  of  the  Adls  of  the 
Apofties, 

«  SeeCh.XL  feft.  i. 


CHAPt 


CHAP.  IX.      Study  of  Jofephus  recommended,  jjo 


CHAP.    IX. 

THE  STUDY  OF  JOSEPHUS  RECOMMENDED  AS  THE 
BEST  MEANS  OF  UNDERSTANDING  THE  HISTORICAL 
BOOKS    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

BEFORE  I  conclude  my  account  of  the  hlftorlcal 
books  of  the  New  Teftament,  I  muft  particularly 
recommend  a  diligent  ftudy  of  the  works  of  Jofephus, 
from  the  beginning  of  Herod's  reign  to  the  end  of  the 
Jewifli  Antiquities.  Ottius  and  Krebs,  men  of  real 
learning,  have  fet  a  very  laudable  example,  in  feledling 
palTages  from  Jofephus,  with  a  view  of  illuflrating  the 
New  Teftament :  yet,  what  is  very  extraordinary,  this 
author  is  in  general  neglefted,  though  he  really  furnifhes 
the  very  beft  commentary  on  the  Gofpels  and  the  A6ls. 
I  will  fele6l  only  one  example  in  proof  of  this  afiertion  j 
but  this  example  is  of  great  importance,  becaufe  not 
only  a  perplexed  paflage  in  the  New  Teftament  will  be 
explained,  but  a  difficulty  relative  to  a  point  of  morality 
will  be  removed. 

In  the  third  chapter  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  where  the 
baptifm  of  John  is  defcribed,  the  Evangelift  fays,  ver.  14., 

Etttjawtuv    (J'e    auTov    01    f^(X,Tivo[Aii/oiy    XiyouTig'    koh    n[ji.ug    t» 

zjoimofAtv ;  to  which  queftion  John  the  Baptift  anlwered, 

MrioiVK    ^ix(r£t(Tr,Tiy    (AVih     (rvxo(pa.urri<TviTi'    nxt    apxiKx^i    roig 

c\|/wj'»oi?  v[A.uv.  In  this  palTage,  the  word  f^aT£vo[ji.svot  is 
vjfually  rendered  *  foldiers,'  as  if  there  were  no  difference 
between  the  participle  s-^anvofAivoi  and  the  noun  rf  anwraj. 
Grotius  fuppofes  that  St.  Luke  meant  folditrs,  who 
Ipent  the  greateft  part  of  their  lives  in  garrilbn,  and 
did  not  take  the  field,  except  on  the  greateft  emergen- 
cies. But  f^xTivofAivoi  evidently  denotes  *  foldiers  ac- 
tually on  fervice,'  or  *  foldiers  adually  engaged  in  war.* 
Now  it  appears  from  the  relation. of  Jofephus  (Antiq. 
xviii.  5.)  that  Herod  the  tetrarch  of  Galilee  was  en- 
gaged in  a  war  with  his  father-in-law  Aretas,  a  petty 
king  in  Arabia  Petraea,  at  the  very  time,  in  which 

Y  2  John 


34<^  ^tudy  of  Jofephus  recommended.      chap.  ix. 

John  was  preaching  in  the  wildtrnefs.  Machierus,  a 
fortrefs  fituated  on  a  hill,  not  far  from  the  eaftern 
Ihore  of  the  Dead  fea,  on  the  confines  of  the  two 
countries,  was  the  place,  in  which  John  was  imprifoned, 
and  afterwards  beheaded.  The  army  of  Herod,  then 
on  its  march  from  Galilee,  pafled  through  the  country, 
in  which  John  baptized:  and  hence  we  difcover  that 
thefe  f^«T£uoja£i/oi  were  foldiers  of  Herod  the  tetrarch, 
who  were  marching  to  battle  againft  Aretas.  Further 
it  is  highly  probable,  that  they  were  not  native  Jews, 
but  foreigners  taken  into  Herod's  pay.  As  early  as  the 
time  of  John  Hyrcanus,  the  Jews  had  foreigners  in 
their  fervice"^,  who  gradually  increafed  to  fuch  a 
degree  as  to  fuperfede  the  natives  of  the  country. 
At  leaO:,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  account  given 
by  Jofephus,  of  the  funeral  procelFion  of  Herod 
the  Great,  the  army  of  this  Jewifli  fovereign  confifted 
wholly  of  foreigners.  For  at  the  funeral  of  Herod  the 
Great,  according  to  Jofephus",  the  whole  army  was 
drawn  up  in  military  parade,  and  confifted,  i'*  of  the 
life-guard^',  2^'^  of  Thracians,  3*"^  of  Germans,  4"^'^ 
of  Galatians.  If  we  may  argue  from  Herod  the  Great 
to  his  fon  Herod  Antipas,  the  army  of  the  latter  con- 
fided likewife  of  foreigners. 

So  far  in  regard  to  the  queftion,  who  thefe  rf-xlfuo- 
|WE^oJ  were.  With  refpeft  to  John's  anfwcr  it  muft  be 
obferved,  that  though  Herod  Antipas  was  engaged  in 
an  unjuft  war,  the  Baptift  who  had  fufficient  courage 
to  reprove  Herod  himfelf,  did  not  fay  to  the  foldiers 
that  it  was  their  duty  to  examine  the  juftice  of  a  war, 
before  they  marched  to  battle,  but  cautioned  them  only 
in  general  terms  againft  rapine  and  violence,  adding 
that  they  fhould  be  content  with  their  wages. 

Many 

^  Jofeph.  Antiq.  Lib.  XIII.  cap.  8.  fed.  4.  cap.  13.  fed:.  5. 
cap.  16.  feft.  2. 

^  Antiq.  xvir.  8.  3. 

y  The  life-guard  certainly  confifted  of  foreigners :  for  Herod  the 
Great  would  not  have  intruiled  the  protedion  of  his  perfon  to  troops 
of  Jewifh  origin. 


CHAP.  IX.      Study  of  Jojephus  recommended.  341 

Many  other  examples  might  be  produced,  of  a 
fimilar  defcription  with  the  preceding,  and  for  that 
reafon  every  man  who  would  underftand  the  Gofpels 
and  the  Adis,  fhould  fludy  the  works  of  Jofephus, 
efpecially  thofe  books,  which  I  have  mentioned  above. 
I  am  perfuaded,  that  if  they  were  made  the  fubjeft  of 
public  leftures  in  our  univerfities,  the  theological  ftu- 
dent  would  reap  much  greater  benefit,  than  from  all 
the  lectures  on  polemical  divinity,  of  which  the  greateft 
part  of  the  clergy  can  make  little  or  no  ufe.  It  were 
likewife  to  be  wifhed,  that  fome  one,  who  has  abilities 
for  the  undertaking,  would  make  a  good  and  fluent 
tranflation  of  them,  for  the  benefit  of  thofe,  who  are 
unable  to  read  the  original,  and  accompany  the  tranf- 
lation with  fuch  notes,  as  are  neceflary  to  make  it  in- 
telligible to  the  unlearned. 


END    OF    VOL.    III.    PART    1. 


(Printed  by  Bye  and  Law,  St.  John's  Square,  Clerkenwell.] 


Theological  S,W'"J7;?in  I'll  ll'i'I  Ml 


1    1012  01117  8110 


DATE  DUE 

'^Ui^  -  '  ' 

"^'^ 

1 

GAYLORD           #3523PI       Printed  in  USA 

w.^* 


% 


■s^ 


*» 

^ 


r^t  . 


-    \ 

J^*!!*^      ^ 


:5tK 


'3W,.  3       ■^^ 


•'■^.^ 


*   r 

^ 


^.♦••u;^  c 


l-.*^ 


v..  .li 


*'*^*i 


r*--j-'^-^ 


i>* 


^r'-r-