was written within the space of eight years after Christ's ascension, we might well conclude, that he wrote in Hebrew. But to me it seems, that we may be fully satisfied, that Matthew did not write within that space, nor so soon as fifteen years after our Lord's ascension, nor till some good while afterwards. St. James, residing at Jerusalem, writes an epistle about the year of Christ 60, as is supposed: it is addressed" to the twelve tribes scattered abroad;" and he writes in Greek, as is allowed. Why, then, should not St. Matthew use the same language? 2. There was very early a Greek gospel of St. Matthew. It is quoted, or referred to by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, not now to mention any others: none of whom intimate, that they made use of a translation. 2 с 3. Though many of the ancients say, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, they seem not to have fully believed it: for they have shown very little regard for the Hebrew edition of it. This has been particularly shown in the chapters of Origen, Eusebius of Cæsarea, and Jerom, the most likely of any of the ancients to make use of that edition, if they had been persuaded, that it was authentic and original. 4. There are not in our Greek gospel of St. Matthew, any marks of a translation: so said Mr. Wetstein in the passage just transcribed; and this observation was before made by us in the chapter of Papias. 5. There is no where any probable account, who translated this gospel into Greek. No particular translator was mentioned by Papias, as may be concluded from the accounts given of his books by Eusebius. Nor is any translator of this gospel named by Irenæus, Eusebius, or any of the writers of the first three centuries, that are come down to us. Nor is there any reason to think, that he was named in any other: forasmuch as no notice is taken of him by Eusebius, or Jerom, who saw many writings of ancients now lost, both catholics and heretics. Jerom having said, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, presently adds: Who afterwards translated him into Greek, is uncertain.' And all the accounts of a translator, since given, are too late to be credited, and are likewise very improbable. In the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, but not written till long after his time, it is said, That Matthew's gospel was translated into Greek by James, the first bishop of Jerusalem.' Which is very improbable. It would be more reasonable to imagine, that he translated it out of Greek into Hebrew. But as that is not said by the ancients, so neither have we reason to say it. Moreover, the same reasons, as one may think, which would induce James to make a Greek translation, should have induced Matthew to write in Greek. Nevertheless Dr. Mill has pitched upon that person for the translator, and formed an argument thereupon: which only serves to shew, that there is nothing, for which something may not be said by those, who indulge themselves in suppositions without ground. Theophylact informs us, that in his time it was said, that John translated this gospel inte Greek: but it was only a common report; and indeed it could be no more. However, out of a regard to such reports and testimonies, Mr. Lampe has very properly reckoned a translation of this gospel among the works falsely ascribed to St. John. 6. Once more, I apprehend, we may discern the origin of this opinion, that St. Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew. There was soon made a translation of his Greek gospel into Hebrew. We have seen proofs, that in very early days of Christianity there was a Hebrew gospel: and many, not examining it particularly, nor indeed being able to do it, for want of understanding the language, imagined that it was first written in Hebrew. Jerom expressly tells us, that' by a Vol. i. p. 573-574. c P. 569. с d Vol. i. Vol. ii. p. 390, 391. 338. P. e Vol. ii. p. 551. Quis in Græcum transfuderit, incertum est. Papias de hoc nihil ab Aristone aut Joanne presbytero accepit, aut tradidit. Auctor Synopseos S. Scripturæ Jacobo fratri Domini diserte adscribit hanc versionem; Theophylactus, ex famâ duntaxat, Joanni Evangelista. Ego ad priorem illam sententiam, ceu magis verisimilem, accedo. Satis enim probabile est, Evangelium in Hebræorum usum linguâ ipsorum patria primum exaratum, ab ipsorum episcopo primario Jacobo, episcopo Hierosolymitano, in sermonem Græcum, per provincias, in quas dispersi erant ex gente istâ plurimi, Judæis pariter ac aliis in usu familiari, translatum fuisse, &c. Proleg. num. 66. many in his time the gospel according to the Hebrews was reckoned the true and authentie gospel of Matthew. To this Hebrew translation of St. Matthew's gospel, possibly, are owing divers things said by the ancients: as that Matthew published his gospel at Jerusalem, or in Judea, for the Jewish believers, and at their request, before he went abroad to other people: I say, I do suspect the truth of these, and some other like things, said of St. Matthew, and his gospel: all which may have had their rise from the Hebrew edition of his gospel, which they imagined to be the original. For I think, that St. Matthew's, and all the other gospels were written, and intended, for believers of all nations. His gospel was written for the Jews, but not for them only, but for Gentiles also: as manifestly appears from the gospel itself, or the things contained in it. 2 b I am also ready to say, with Mr. Basnage, that I do not know where it was published, whether in Judea, or somewhere else. But as I think the Nazarene gospel to be St. Matthew's gospel translated from Greek, with the addition of some other things, taken from the other gospels, and from tradition: so I reckon, that the gospel of Matthew, written in Greek, was the gospel which came first into their hands, and which they gladly received, and made use of it. I say again, the notion of St. Matthew's writing in Hebrew, probably had its rise from the Hebrew edition of his gospel. For allowing that date of his gospel which to me appears most probable, I cannot conceive the reason, why Matthew should write in Hebrew any more than any of the other evangelists. For it may be reckoned highly probable, or even certain, that he understood Greek, before he was called by Christ to be an apostle. Whilst a publican, he would have frequent occasions both to write and speak Greek; and could not discharge his office without understanding that language. This Hebrew gospel may likewise have been the cause, why so many ancient christian writers say, that Matthew wrote first. This may be true: but I do not think it was said upon the ground of any certain knowledge, or good information. I apprehend it not to be easy to say, which gospel was first written; for all the first three gospels were written about the same time: and St. Luke's, for any thing that I know, may have been written first; which was the opinion of Mr. Basnage. CHAP. VI. Of the Time when the Apostles left Judea to go and preach the Gospel in other Countries. As many ancient christian writers, whom we have lately quoted, say, that St. Matthew, having preached some while in Judea, was desired by the believers, there to leave with them in writing, before he went away, a history of what he had taught by word of mouth: this may not be an improper place to inquire, how long it was after the ascension of Jesus, before Matthew, and the other apostles left Judea, to go abroad into foreign countries. And first of all, we will observe some remarkable passages of ancient writers, relating to this matter. And then, secondly, we will consider what light the book of the Acts may afford upon this subject. Clement of Alexandria, about 194, quotes from a work, entitled the Preaching of Peter, this passage: Therefore Peter says, that the Lord said to the apostles; if any Israelite will Annum tamen perinde atque locum, ubi a Matthæo conditum est, in incerto esse, facile patimur. Ann. 64. num. xii. b Distinguendum enim inter hoc evangelium, quale initio fuit, et illud, quale paullatim fiebat, Nazaræis varia addentibus.... Primitus nihil habuit, nisi quod in Græco nunc legimus.... Porro Nazaraei pluscula suis locis interseruerunt, quæ ab Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris fando accepissent. G. J. Voss. De Geneal. J. C. cap. ii, num. i. c Ann. 60. num. 31. * Δια τετο φησιν ὁ Πετρος ειρηκεναι τον κύριον τοις αποτόλοις Εαν μεν εν τις θελησῃ το Ισραηλ μετανοησαι [forte μετανοη σας] δια το ονοματος με πίσευειν εις τον θεόν, αφέθησονται αυτῷ άμαρτίαι. Μετα δώδεκα ετη εξέλθετε εις κόσμον, μη τις EITTY, OUR Nαuey. Clem. Str. 1. 6. p. 636. Conf. Cav. H. L. T. I...5. et Grabe Spic. T. I. p. 67. ⚫ repent, and believe in God through my name, his sins shall be forgiven. After twelve years go ye out into the world, that none may say: we have not heard.' The next passage is that of Apollonius, undoubtedly, in part cotemporary with Clement, and placed by Cave at the year 192, by me at 211, as near the time of his writing against the Montanists. Moreover, says Eusebius, he relates as from tradition, that our Saviour commanded his apostles, not to depart from Jerusalem for the space of twelve years.' Which passage has been already cited in this work. b By these two passages Cave was induced to think, that for twelve years after Christ's ascension the apostles did not depart from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Supposing our Saviour to have been crucified, and to have ascended to heaven in the year 29 of the vulgar æra, which was a common opinion of the ancients, these twelve years ended in the year 41. Supposing those great events to have happened in the year 33, which is a common opinion of learned moderns, those twelve years would reach to the year 45. Beside those two passages alleged by Cave, and other learned men, I shall take notice of some others also. Origen says in general, That when the Jews did not receive the word, the apostles went to the Gentiles.' e Chrysostom in a homily upon Acts xi. 19, and what follows, speaks to this purpose. They heard that Samaria had received the word, and they sent Peter and John. They heard what had happened at Antioch, and they sent Barnabas; for that was at a great distance. And it was not fit, that the apostles should go so far as yet, lest they should have been esteemed deserters, and thought to have fled from their own people. But it then became necessary for them to separate, [or go from thence] when the Jews showed themselves to be incurable.' f . Afterwards he coming In the Paschal Chronicle are these expressions, speaking of Paul. to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and finding there Peter and the rest of the apostles, with James the Lord's brother, the apostles send an epistle to Antioch in Syria, establishing their church. And Paul and Barnabas carry the epistle to Antioch, as the Acts. By this it appears, that the apostles then wrote their catholic epistles before their dispersion.' Such are the passages of ancient writers, which must be reckoned to be of some weight. Let us now observe the history in the Acts. And it seems to me, there is reason to conclude, that the apostles stayed in Judea, till after the council at Jerusalem, of which an account is given in the xvth chapter of that book. For St. Luke does continually speak of the apostles, as being at Jerusalem, or near it. Acts viii. i; "And at that time, there was a great persecution against the church, which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.' One of those persons, who then left Jerusalem, was Philip the deacon and evangelist: who went to Samaria, and preached Christ unto them, and with good effect. Whereupon, at ver. 14, "Now when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." This needs no comment. Here is proof, that when the rest of the disciples were scattered abroad, Peter and John, and the other apostles, were still at Jerusalem. In Acts ix. 26-30, is St. Luke's account of Paul's coming to Jerusalem, after his conver sion: where he says, that "the disciples were afraid of him....But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles." St. Paul, speaking of the same journey, Gal. i. 18, 19, says: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Here we find, that at: this time, three years after his conversion, Paul saw two apostles only, Peter and James. But H. E. 1. 5. cap. 18. p. 136. b Vol. i. p. 480. Hist. Lit. T. i. p. 5. et. 13. .... d · μη παραδεξαμένων Ιεδαίων τον λόγον, απεληλύθεσαν 85 T . In Matth. T. i. p. 225. E. Huet. • Πολυ γαρ το διάσημα, και εκ εδει τις αποςολος τέως χωρίσθηναι εκειθεν, ινα μη νομίσθωσιν είναι φυγάδες, και τας αυτών πεφευγέναι τοτε αναγκαίως χορίζονται, οτε λοιπον ανιατα έχειν εδοκει τα κατ' αυτές. In Act. hom. 25. tom. ix. p. 202, 203. * Μετέπειτα ελθών εις Ιεροσολυμα μετα Βαρνάβα, και εύρων Πετρον και τες λοιπες απόςολος άμα Ιακωβῳ τῳ αδελφώ το κύριε, γράφουσιν επισολήν οι απότολοι εις Αντιόχειαν της Σύριας, θεμελιώντες την αυτών εκκλησίαν, και διακονεσι την επισολήν εις Αντιοχειαν αυτος Παύλος και Βαρναβας, ὡς δηλεσιν αἱ Πράξεις. Εκ τετε δεικνυται, ότι και τας καθολικας αυτών οι αποςολος τότε γράφεσιν, προ της διασπορας αυτών. Chr. Pasch. p. 233. B. C. St. Luke's words, as seems to me, imply, that all the apostles were then at Jerusalem, though to Jerusalem, he saw no other apostles but Peter and James. Gal. i. 19. Beza well observes we are quite uncertain on what occasion the rest were then absent from Jerusalem. Had they been there, though Paul stayed but about a fortnight, he would no doubt have seen them.' Nevertheless the solution of this difficulty appears to me very easy. The apostles were now all at Jerusalem, or near it: but they lived privately, because it was a time of persecution. The great persecution against the church, which began with the death of Stephen, was not yet over; the apostles therefore could not appear abroad without danger: and it was sufficient, that they spoke to Paul, and received him by Peter and James; which I take to be the true import of St. Luke's expression: "But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles." After Peter had been at the house of Cornelius, it is said, Acts xi. 1," And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea, heard, that the Gentiles also had received the word." Another proof, that all the apostles, or most of them, were still at Jerusalem. But I do not suppose, that the apostles, like many other of the Jewish believers, were offended at what Peter had done. Or, if they were at first somewhat offended, they were soon, and easily satisfied, and were very willing to testify their approbation of Peter's conduct. From the twelfth chapter of the Acts we know, that James son of Zebedee, and brother of John, and Peter, were at Jerusalem, in the year 44, or thereabout, near the end of the reign of Herod Agrippa: the former of whom was beheaded, and the other imprisoned. And at ver. 17, is mention made of another James, supposed to be the Lord's brother, and always resident at Jerusalem. From the account of the council of Jerusalem, and of the occasion of it, all the apostles appear to have been then in Judea, and at Jerusalem, or in its neighbourhood. Acts xv. 2; When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined, that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders about this question." Ver. 4, "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and or even' the apostles and elders............ Ver. 6." And the apostles and elders came together, that is, met in council,' for to consider of this matter."...Ver. 22. "Then pleased it the apostles, and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch."...Ver. 23. "And they wrote letters by them after this manner: the apostles, and elders, and brethren send greeting."...Ver. 33. And after they had tarried there a space," that is, at " Antioch, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. وو In all these places the apostles must intend all the apostles, or the apostles in general: for how can the expression be understood otherwise? If it should be said, that the apostles might be at the council at Jerusalem, though several of them had been before in other countries, I think, that would be said without ground and reason. It does not appear, that the apostles were sent to, invited, or called in from abroad, to attend this council: but the Christians at Antioch supposed, or rather knew, that the apostles were at Jerusalem, and therefore directly sent thither to them. Indeed none of the apostles are expressly named as speakers in the debates of the council, beside Peter and James: but all the rest may have been there. So upon divers other occasions in the gospels, and at the beginning of the Acts, Peter only spake, though all the rest were present. In Gal. ii. 8, 9, 10, St. Paul giving an account of a journey to Jerusalem, supposed to be the same with this to the council, speaks of conferences, which he had with three, namely, James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars. Here is one more mentioned as present at Jerusalem, beside the two before taken notice of. And there must have been others beside these three, who seemed to be pillars, or were the most eminent. a The first time that we meet with the mention of any one of the twelve, as being out of Judea, is that in Gal. ii. 11, after this council, as is generally allowed, when Peter was at Antioch. It is very observable, Acts xi. 19-22, when " tidings came to the ears of the church at Jerusalem," that many Gentiles had been converted at Antioch by some of those who • Theodoret has a like argument: Εξ ὧν ῥᾳδιον κατιδειν, ὡς εδεπω καταλελοίπει την Ιεδαίαν ὁ θειος αποςολος Ιωαννης. Theodr. Pr. in ep. ad Eph. Tom. III. p. 290. were scattered abroad by the persecution, "they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as Antioch." None of the apostles went, not so much as one, to accompany him. And afterwards ch. xiii. 1-3, in the account of the extraordinary mission of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch to Cyprus, and other parts, there is no mention made of any apostle, as present at Antioch; and it is plain, there was not one there. All these considerations induce me to think, that none of the twelve apostles left Judea to teach either Jews or Gentiles in other countries until after this council. Having now, as I apprehend, shown this to be very probable, I shall mention some remarks; whereby there may be an opportunity for answering objections, though several have been already obviated. 1. There was a fitness in it. It was very proper, and even expedient, that the apostles should stay a good while in Judea, to assert and confirm the truth of Christ's resurrection by teaching, and by miraculous works, and do their utmost to bring the Jewish people to faith in Jesus as the Christ. 2. As this was fit, it is likely, that they had received some command from Christ himself, or some direction from the Holy Ghost to stay thus long in Judea. 3. There were considerations that would incline them to it, and induce them to do what was fit to be done, and was agreeable to the mind of Christ. One was the difficulty of preaching the gospel in foreign countries. This would induce them to stay in Judea till the circumstances of things facilitated their farther progress, or called them to it. Another thing was their affection for the Jewish people, their countrymen, especially those of Judea, with whom they had been brought up, and among whom they dwelt, together with a persuasion of the great value of the blessing of the gospel. This last consideration, I apprehend, would induce them to labour in Judea, with earnest desires, and some hopes of bringing all, or however many, to faith in Jesus. This influenced Paul also to a great degree, and for a good while. Nor was he without hopes of persuading his brethren and countrymen to what appeared to himself very certain and evident: so he says in his speech to the people at Jerusalem. Acts xxii. 17-20. He assures them, that whilst he was worshipping at Jerusalem, in the temple, he had a trance or ecstasy: that he there saw Christ, who said to him, "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.". Paul pleaded, that they must needs pay a regard to his testimony, who was well known to have been for some while very zealous in opposing his followers, and was now convinced and persuaded. But the Lord said unto him, Depart; for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.' This trance, or vision, seems to have happened in the year 44, after that Paul had preached at Antioch with great success among Gentiles. Nevertheless he had an earnest desire to make one attempt more among the Jews of Judea, where was the body of that people: and if they could have been persuaded, many abroad would follow their example. And it required an express and repeated order from Jesus Christ, in vision, to induce him to lay aside that design, and to proceed to preach to Gentiles in remote parts. It is a most affectionate concern, which he expresses for the Jewish people in divers places of the epistle to the Romans, written so late as the year 58. ch. ix. 1-5; x. 1, 2; xi. 4; “if by any means," says he, "I may provoke them to emulation which are my flesh, and might save some of them." Nor can it be questioned, that the like sentiments prevailed in the other apostles. If it needs any proof, let St. Peter's discourses at the beginning of the book of the Acts be consulted, particularly ch. ii. 38-40, iii. 22-26; not to refer to any other. 4. There were many advantages attending the stay of the apostles in Judea. Many more Jews were by this means converted, than otherwise there would have been. St. Luke says, Acts iv. 4, that "the number of the men was five thousand." But when Paul came to Jerusalem some years afterwards, James says to him, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousand of Jews there are which believe," ch. xxi. 20. And it is very likely, that the Jewish believers had better, and freer principles, than otherwise they would have had. They were, it is true, for observing the law themselves, ver. 20: but they agreed, that the Gentiles were under no such obligations, ver. 25. Farther, by this means every step taken in planting the Christian religion, and spreading the gospel in the world, had the sanction of all the apostles, and of the whole church of Jerusalem. Upon occasion of the persecution at Jerusalem, many were "scattered abroad, who went |