cites them as what he read in, and learnt from, these anoμvoVεúμаσ тäν άлоσTóλwv, i. e. from these "Commentaries or Gos"pels of the apostles ;" i. e. from St. Matthew's Gospel, where those words only are to be found. Arg. IV. The Gospel of St. Matthew is canonical, because it is found among those which the churches of Syria received as such, and which they collected together, and translated as scripture in or near the apostle's time, Prop. XV. I shall only observe further, that the author of this excellent version of the New Testament into Syriac (or some one else) at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel has annexed the following testimony, which it will not be foreign to my purpose to transcribe: la;b Al;aa 1;91: JA: 12010; lagopeed joy sto ;ܦܠܣܛܝܢܝ i. e. The end of the Holy Gospel of the preaching of Matthew, which he preached in Hebrew in the land of Palestine. Thus I have endeavoured to establish the canonical authority of this Gospel of St. Matthew by various arguments. CHAP. IV. Other arguments to prove the genuine authority of St. Matthew's Gospel. Bartholomew took it to preach in his travels. Papias and Hegesippus give credit to it. The Manichees objection against this Gospel. Faustus's objection from St. Matthew's oblique way of speech (ix. 9.) considered and refuted. Other objections considered. BESIDES the preceding arguments, I have met with several other things, which seem to be no small proof of St. Matthew's Gospel being of genuine and canonical authority. These are, 1. That St. Bartholomew, who was one of our Saviour's twelve apostles, when he went forth to preach and propagate the Christian faith, took along with him the Gospel of St. Matthew; and particularly that he preached according to this Gospel among the Indians, and left it among them at his departure from them and that Pantænus afterwards, viz. in the second century, found this Gospel among them; this is related both by Eusebiusk, and Jerome1, and seems clearly to prove that St. * Hist. Eccl. lib. 5. c. 10. 1 Catal. Vir. Illustr. in Barthol. Pantæn. Matthew's Gospel met with a suitable reception, and was esteemed of the greatest authority even in the apostle's time. It may indeed be objected, that the Gospel which St. Bartholomew left among the Indians, is said by Eusebius to have been written in Hebrew letters, and that I have elsewhere m attempted to prove that this very Gospel was that of the Naza renes. To which I answer, that as I have endeavoured largely to prove, that St. Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Greek, so I easily allow there was a very early version of it made into Hebrew; and this as yet uninterpolated nor enlarged with the Nazarene additions, is what, I suppose, St. Bartholomew, who was a Jew, and preached (as the rest of the apostles at this time) principally to those of his own nation, did take along with him in his travels. 2. That Papias, who was according to Irenæus a disciple of John, and an acquaintance of Polycarp, intimates very clearly, that St. Matthew's Gospel was in common use in his time P. That Hegesippus 9, a writer of the second century, wrote some dissertations upon the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Gospel of St. Matthew, which the Nazarenes made use of. Now these dissertations were wrote either upon the supposition, that this Hebrew Gospel was the true one of St. Matthew, or that it was not; if we say the latter, it is then evident they must be wrote with design to vindicate the authority of St. Matthew's true Gospel against the Nazarenes' copy; if the former, the authority of St. Matthew will be also thereby established, because all the credit, which the Nazarene Gospel had or pretended to, even among themselves, was founded upon the supposition of its being St. Matthew's; which, though false, yet shews the high opinion the primitive Christians did entertain of that evangelist's writing. The only persons (as far as I know) among the ancients, who have made any objections against the authority of this m Vol. I. Part II. Ch. X. p. 154, 155. n Vindication of St. Matthew's Gospel against Mr. Whiston, ch. 17, 18, 19. • Adv. Hæres. lib. 5. c. 33. P Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 39. in fine; gunveure d'aurà (i. e. Evangelium Matthæi) ὡς ἠδύνατο ἕκαστος. q Ibid. lib. 4. c. 22. 66 Gospel, were the Manichees: the main and principal arguments which Faustus has made use of against it, are taken from the difficulties of the genealogy, ch. 1. But these fall not within my consideration, it being sufficient to my design to make it appear, that St. Matthew's Gospel was received as scripture by the primitive Christians: one thing only I would observe, which seems more nearly to affect its authority, viz. I that Faustus undertakes to prove that this Gospel was not written by St. Matthew, because of the oblique manner of expression (as it is called) which we meet with, Matt. ix. 9. And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he saith unto him, Follow me; and he arose and followed him: " Matthew," says Faustus, "did not write that Gospel, but some one else under "his name, as is plain by those very words of the pretended " Matthew; for who," says he, "writing concerning himself, "would say, he saw a MAN, and called HIM, and HE followed “him; and would not rather say, He saw ME, and called ME, " and I followed him ?" But nothing can be more weak than this sort of arguing, it being a thing undeniable, that this oblique way of writing is common in all sorts of historians, and that they very frequently do speak of themselves not in the first, but in the third person. It is common (says Austin in his answer to Faustus on this head) in secular or (what we call) profane histories. It is always done by Moses, and very frequently by our Saviour and his apostles. The many instances which that father produces, and which are every where to be met with, make it needless for me to produce any. He who has a mind may consult the many places in Moses's writings, where we find him speaking in the third person of himself, or in this oblique way of speech, viz. And the Lord said unto Moses, and Moses did such and such things; and besides these, the places both of the Old and New Testament referred to at the bottom of the paget. So that this argument will by no r August. contr. Faust. Manich. 1. 17. c. 1. Quis ergo de se ipso scribens dicat, Vidit hominem et vocavit eum, et secutus est eum, ac non potius dicat, Vidit me, et vocavit me, &c. August. contr. Faust. Manich. lib. 17. c. 4. t Gen. iv. 24. Num. xxiv. 3, 4. Jerem. xxviii. 5, 10, 15. Jonah i. 1. et per tot. Matt. viii. 20. xi. 19. xviii. 2. Luke xviii. 8. John v. 23, 25, &c. John xxi. 24. Vid. August. Tract. 61. in Joann. et Glass. Gram. Sacr. lib. iv. Tract. 2. Observ. 17. means prove what it is brought for, that Matthew did not write that Gospel which goes under his name. The German anabaptists of the last and preceding century (persons very different in their principles and practices from those who now go under that denomination among us) and those which were called the Servetians, or followers of Michael Servetus, among other of their whimsical opinions, denied the credit and authority of this Gospel. Their principal arguments are, (1.) That the author of the Gospel has misapplied many prophecies of the Old Testament to prove the divinity of Christ. (2.) That the true Gospel of St. Matthew was wrote in Hebrew, whereas this which we now have under his name seems originally to have been wrote in Greek “. To the first of these my design does not oblige me to give any answer; because all I undertake to prove is, that the Gospel was received as St. Matthew's, and of as great authority in the primitive church, without any respect to the several difficulties that may be in its contexture; though it were no difficult matter to shew the falsehood of their allegation. To the second it will be sufficient to answer, that I have elsewhere proved that St. Matthew's true Gospel was not originally written in Hebrew, and that it was a mistake in the fathers to assert that it was wrote in that language, there never having been any other Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, but what was a translation out of his original Greek, and afterwards interpolated by the Nazarenes, was made use of by them as the true Gospel of this evangelist. CHAP. V. Concerning the time of St. Matthew's writing his Gospel. of the latter proved to be more probable than that of the former; viz. that he wrote A. D. 41. and not A. D. 59. or 60. IT remains now that I say somewhat concerning the time, in u Sixt. Senens. Bibl. Sanct. 1. 7. de Evang. Matt. Hæres. p. 581. * Vindication of St. Matthew's Gos pel, ch. xvii. xviii. xix. See also of this work, Vol. I. Part II. Ch. XXIX. p. 268, &c. which it is most probable that St. Matthew's Gospel was written; and herein I find it difficult to come to any certainty, because of the disagreement there is between the ancients themselves, as to the matter. I shall first lay down the different opinions, and then observe what appears more probable. 66 1. The first is that of Irenæus y, who tells us, "that Mat"thew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, "and laying the foundations of a church there." Now as I have had occasion to observe in another place, though it is not certain when Peter was at Rome, yet Paul was there in the third year of Nero; i. e. in or about the year of Christ 59. or 60. as Eusebius relates in his Chronicon; and to this most chronologers z and writers of church-history agree a. 2. Eusebius in his Chronicon has placed the writing of St. Matthew's Gospel in the third of Caligula; i. e. eight years after Christ's ascension, or the year of Christ 41. Besides these two, I know none of the writers of the first centuries who have assigned any time, in which they suppose St. Matthew to have wrote: Nicephorus b indeed has without any reason asserted, that "it was wrote fifteen years after "Christ's ascension;" but he being so late a writer, (viz. of the ninth century,) his testimony can deserve no regard here. As to more modern writers, I find they generally credit and follow Eusebius in this matter; nor do I know any one besides the famous Jesuit Andradius, Chemnitius 4, and Dr. Mille, who have believed Irenæus in this matter. That which influenced the first of these to his opinion was, that he thereby was able the better to support the popish doctrine of the necessity of traditions, and the insufficiency of the scripture. For if the Christians were without any authentic history of Christ, and St. Matthew did not write till the time which Irenæus mentions; |