« 前へ次へ »
of Levi; and this affords us the highest evidence, that Matthew and Levi were the same person. It is strange indeed that Heracleon and Origen should fall into such a mistake; but this is very rationally accounted for by Cotelerius a and Mr. Dodwell "; to whom, together with Dr. Whitby's Cremarks on this opinion of Grotius, I refer the reader, who has a mind to examine farther into this matter.
The two names of this Evangelist, as also that of his father (viz. Alpheus, Mark ii. 14.), evince him to have been origi. nally a Jew (it being certain that the Romans very frequently put the natives of the conquered provinces into such offices, under the principal officers who were generally Romans), although I obferve, that in two antient manuscripts which Cotelerius (in Constit. Apostol. l. 2. c. 63.) has published out of the French King's library, Numb. 1789 and 1026, which recite the country and parents of the twelve Apostles, there is the following account of Matthew, Ματθαίος ο και Λευίς, τελώνης το επιτήδευμα, εκ πατρός Ρέκε, μητρός δε Χαιρoθείας, από της Γαλιλαίας, 1. e. Matthew, called alfo Levi, a publican, whose father was Rucus, and mother Chærotheia, born in Galilee ; both which are plainly Gentile names.
After he was called to be an Apostle, he continued in that office till our Saviour's ascension in Judea; and if there be any credit to be given to the accounts of the antients, he continued there eight years afterward; whither he then went is not certain: Ruffind affirms that he went into Ethiopia, and in this he is followed by the writers of succeeding ages, Socrates, Simeon Metaphrastes, Abdias Babylonicus, &c. which last has given us a very particular account of his preaching, miracles, and success in the conversion of multitudes there; his building a church there (viz. at Nadabbar, the capital city), and calling it the Resurrection, because the raising of the fon of King Æglippus from the dead was the occasion of it. He preached Christ in Hierapolis, a city of Syria, and suffered
* Annot. in Constit. Apoft. 1.8. c. 22:
b Differt, I. in Iren. §. 24,
also Dr. Mill on Mark ii. 14.
d Hift. Eccl. l. 1. c. 9.
e Vid. Abdiæ Hiftor. Certam, Apostol. l. 7. per tot.
martyrdom there, according to a Greek manuscript under the name of Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre (who lived in the beginning of the fourth century), which was transcribed by Mr. Dodwell, and by him given to Dr. Cave, who has published it with a Latin Version, and some Notes upon its"; though, according to the common editions of the Synopsis of Dorotheus, he died a natural death, and was buried with great honour at Hierapolis, a city of Parthia b; and this, viz. his dying without martyrdom, is plainly intimated in the passage of Heracleon above cited out of Clemens Alexandrinus. I have nothing farther to add under this 'head, but that which the Father last cited tells us of. St. Matthew's great temperance and abstemiousness, viz. that he eat no Alesh, but that his usual food was acorns, feeds, and herbs"; and that, according to Dr. Lightfoot “, there is mention of him in the Talmud Bab. Sanhedr. fol. 43. 1. The Rabbins say, that Jesus had five disciples,
.viz מתאי נקאי נצר זבוני ותודה which are there called by them
Matthai (or Matthew), Nakai, Nezer, and Boni, and Thodah. These (they say there) were all punished with death. By these five disciples Dr. Lightfoot supposes they meant those disciples who were most conversant in Judea, viz. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel there, Peter, James, John, and Jude ,
The cause or occasion of St. Matthew's writing his Gora pel is generally agreed upon by the antient writers, who have made any mention of the matter, viz. that he wrote it at 7erufalem for the sake of the convert Jews, who desired him to write it, when he was about to travel to the Gentile coun. tries, to preach the Gospel. So Origen f; “ The first Gospel “ was written by Matthew, first a publican, then an Apoftle u of Jesus Christ, and published among the converted Jews in
Hift. Lit. vol. i. p. 114, & 121.
o Doroth. de vit. ac mort. Prophet. et Apostol. Biblioth. Patr. vol. vii. ad voc. Matth.
c Pædagog. 1. 2. c. 1. p. 148. Eteppetwv, xai cixpodpówv, xai aaχάνων, άνευ κρεών μετελάμβανεν.
Hor. Hebr. in Matth. ix.g.
According to Abdias Babylonicus, lib. 7. cap. 14. he was run through the back in the Temple at Nadabbar in Ethiopia, by a foldier, by the order of the King Hyrtacus, whose marriage with Iphigenia, his brother's Daughter, St. Matthew opposed, she being a Nun.
** Expofit. in Matth. apud Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. 1. 6. 6. 25.
« Hebrew.” Eusebius is more particulara; he tells us, “ That « the Apostles were not much inclined to write books. « That Paul wrote only a few lhort Epistles.---That of all
our Lord's disciples Matthew and John only have left us 6 any written memoirs, and it is said, they were compelled by « some fort of necessity to write what they did; for Matthew “having first preached to the Hebrews, when he determined « to travel into other countries, published his Gospel in the " language of his country, and left it with them to supply the " want of his own presence among them.” To the fame purpose Jerome b; “ Matthew, surnamed Levi, was the first who “ published a Gospel, and that in Judea, in the Hebrew lan“guage, principally for the sake of those Jews who were con“ verted, and did not regard the truth of the Gospel (but ob« served the Law also), though the Law, as being but a fhao dow, was abolished.”
CHA P. II. St. Matthew's Gospel of Canonical Authority. It is in all the
antient Catalogues of Sacred Books. It is cited by the prio mitive Fathers; viz. feven times in the Epistle of Barnabas, twice in the first Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, eight times in the Fragment of the second, eight times in the Shepherd of Hermas, fix times in Polycarp's small Epistle to the Philippians, twice in a Fragment of his ReSponfiones, and seven times in the Lesser Epistles of Ignatius.
LTAVING given some account of the Author of this Gof11 pel, I proceed now to establish its authority, which I hope will be effectually done by the following arguments.
ARG. I. St. Matthew's Gospel is of Canonical authority, because it is in all the Catalogues of Canonical books which we
a Hift. Ecclef. 1. 3. C. 24.
b Præf. in Comm. in Matth.
have among the writings of the primitive Christians. Prop. IV. These Catalogues, viz, that of Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyrill, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazi. anzen, Philastrius, Jerome, Ruffin, Austin, the third Council of Carthage, and the author of the books under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, I have collected them, Vol. I. Part I. Ch. VIII. and there referred to the several places where these Catalogues at large are to be found, and in every one of them the Gospel of St. Matthew is enumerated. .Arg. II. The Gospel of St. Matthew is Canonical, becaufe it is cited as Scripture in the writings of the primitive Christian Fathers. Prop. V.. ..
I have observed, Part I. Ch. V. p. 42. and Ch. IX. p.65. that Mr. Dodwell, and from him Mr. Toland have endeavoured in a good measure to rob us of this argument, by afserting, “ That the first writers of Christianity had no certain “Canon, or collection of sacred Scriptures of the New Tef“tament, which they cited; the Apocryphal writings being “ bound in the same volume with the Apostles' writings; " that in Hermas there is not one place of the New Testa“ment quoted, nor in either of the other is any Evangelist “ named: and if they do perhaps produce any places, which “ are like some in our Gospels, yet you will find them so “ changed, and so much interpolated, that it is impossible to “know whether they took them out of ours, or some other “ Apocryphal Gospels. But it is certain they sometimes “ used the Apocryphal books, and cited what is not in our “ Gospels,—if they cite sometimes any passages, which agree " with our Canonical Gospels, that was not done by any $ design, so as to evidence that they intended to confirm dif« putable points out of Canonical books; so that perhaps those « very passages, which seem to be taken out of our Gospels, « were taken out of others, &c.”
a Sic autem vera Apostolorum Scripta cum Apocryphis in iisdem voluiminibus coinpingi folebant, ut nulla prorsus nota ant censura Ecclesiæ publica constaret, quæ qui bus essent anteferenda. Habemus hodieque horum temporum Scriptores Ecclefiafticos luculentissimos, Clementem Romanum, Barnabam, Hermam, Ignatium, Polycarpum -At Novi Testamenti in Herma ne quidem unum locum inveneris ;
apud reliquos ne unum quidem Evangelistam nomine suo cumpellatum. Et fi quos locos forte proferant, quibus fimilia in noftris leguntur Evangeliis, ita tamen illos mutatos ut plurimum interpolatosque reperies, ut fciri nequeat, an e nostris illos, an ex aliis produxerint Apocryphis Evangeliis, &c. Differt. in Iren, I. §. 39, &c. Amyntor, p, 69, &c.
Dr. Grabe a and Dr. Mill have adopted the fame fentiments into their scheme, the design of which, with a confu. tation of it, the reader may fee above in the first Dissertation prefixed to this Part. The reason of my mentioning it here, is, because I am now entering upon the particular proof of their citing the books of our present Canon; and as I have Vol. I. Part II. shewn, that the primitive Christians have not cited any Apocryphal books, fo I shall endeavour now to Thew, that they have cited and referred to those which we now receive, and for that purpose shall transcribe and set down the very words, with the manner of their being cited or introduced, together with the words of our Canonical books, which I take to be referred to, in a parallel column.
N. B. I have set down the citations at length only of those
which are called the Apoftolick Fathers, because the citations in the other Fathers are so plain and so numerous, that there can be about them no dispute; and though I do not believe the writings under the names of Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Polycarp, Hermas, and Ignatius, are all genuine, and of that age to which they pretend; yet as they are undoubtedly very antient, and referred to by some of the earliest Fathers, I thought it proper to give them the first place in my collection.
. Spicileg. Patr. tom. I. p. 322.
Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. 5. 138, &c.