with the Nazarene additions, is what, I fuppofe, St. Bartholomew, who was a Jew, and preached (as the reft of the Apoftles 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 b.

That Hegefippus, a writer of the fecond century, wrote Some differtations upon the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Gospel of St. Matthew, which the Nazarenes made use of. Now these differtations were wrote either upon the fuppofition, that this Hebrew Gospel was the true one of St. Matthew, or that it was not; if we fay the latter, it is then evident they must be wrote with defign 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 suppofition of its being St. Matthew's; which, though false, yet fhews the high opinion the primitive Chriftians did entertain of that Evangelift's writing.

The only perfons (as far as I know) among the antients, who have made any objections against the authority of this Gofpel, were the Manichees: the main and principal arguments which Fauftus has made ufe of against it, are taken. from the difficulties of the genealogy, Ch. I. But these fall not within my confideration, it being fufficient to my defign to make it appear, that St. Matthew's Gofpel was received as Scripture by the primitive Chriftians: one thing only I would obferve, which feems more nearly to affect its authority, viz. that Fauftus undertakes to prove that this Gospel was not written by St. Matthew, because of the oblique manner of ex

a Adv. Hæref. lib. 5. c. 33. b Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 39. in fine ; ἀρμήνευσε δ' αὐτὰ (i. e. Evangelium Matthaei) ὡς ἠδύνατο

καρος.

Ibid. lib. 4. c. 22.

Auguft. contr. Faust. Manich.

1. 17. c. 1. Quis ergo de fe ipfo fcribens dicat, Vidit hominem et vocavit Eum, et fecutus eft Eum, ac non potius dicat, Vidit Me, et vocavit Me &c.

preffion

preffion (as it is called) which we meet with, Matt. ix. 9. And as Jefus passed forth from thence, he faw a man named Matthew, fitting at the receipt of custom, and he faith unto him, Follow me; and He arofe and followed him: "Matthew, says "Fauftus, did not write that Gospel, but fome one else under "his name, as is plain by those very words of the pretended "Matthew; for who, fays he, writing concerning himself, "would say, he saw a MAN, and called HIM, and HE follow"ed him; and would not rather fay, He faw ME, and called "ME, and I followed him?" But nothing can be more weak than this fort of arguing, it being a thing undeniable, that this oblique way of writing is common in all forts of hiftorians, and that they very frequently do fpeak of themselves not in the first, but in the third person. It is common (says Austin in his answer to Fauftus on this head) in fecular or (what we call) profane hiftories. It is always done by Mofes, and very frequently by our Saviour and his Apoftles. The many inftances 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 confult the many places in Mofes's writings, where we find him speaking in the third person of himself, or in this oblique way of speech, viz. And the Lord faid unto Mofes, and Mofes did fuch and fuch things; and befides thefe, the places both of the Old and New Testament referred to at the bottom of the page. So that this argument will by no 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 (perfons 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 whimfical opinions, denied the credit and authority of this Gospel. Their principal arguments are, (1.) That the author of the Gospel has mifapplied

many prophecies of the Old Testament to prove the Divinity of Chrift. (2.) That the true Gospel of St. Matthew was wrote in Hebrew, whereas this which we now have under his name, feems originally to have been wrote in Greeka.

To the first of these my defign does not oblige me to givę any answer; because all I undertake to prove is, that the Gofpel 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 fhew the falfehood of their allegation.

To the fecond it will be fufficient to anfwer, 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 affert that it was wrote in that language, there never having been any other Hebrew Gofpel 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. Ireneus and Eufebius differ in this Matter. The Opinion of the latter proved to be more probable than that of the former; viz. that he wrote A. D. XLI. and not A. D. LIX. or LX.

T remains now that I fay fomewhat concerning the time, in which it is moft probable that St. Matthew's Gospel was written; and herein I find it difficult to come to any certainty, because of the difagreement there is between the antients themfelves, as to the matter. I fhall firft lay down the different opinions, and then obferve what appears more probable.

2 Sixt. Senenf. Bibl. Sanct. 1.7. de Evang. Matt. Hæref. p. 581. Vindication of St. Matthew's

Gospel, ch. xvii, xviii, xix. See als, of this work, Vol. I. Part II, Ch. XXIX. p. 305, &c.

1. The firft is that of Irenæus, who tells us, that Matthew 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 occafion to obferve 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 Chrift LIX. or LX. as Eufebius relates in his Chronicon; and to this moft Chronologers and writers of church-history agree.

2. Eufebius in his Chronicon has placed the writing of St. Matthew's Gospel in the third of Caligula; i. e. eight years after Chrift's afcenfion, or the year of Chrift XLI.

Befides these two, I know none of the writers of the firft centuries who have affigned any time, in which they suppose St. Matthew to have wrote: Nicephorus indeed has without any reafon afferted, that it was wrote fifteen years after Chrift's afcenfion; but he being fo late a writer (viz. of the ninth century), his teftimony can deferve no regard here. As to more modern writers, I find they generally credit and follow Eufebius in this matter; nor do I know any one befides the famous Jefuit Andradius, Chemnitius f, and Dr. Mill &, 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 neceffity of traditions, and the infufficiency of the Scripture. For if the Chriftians were without any authentick hiftory of Chrift, and St. Matthew did not write till the time which Irenæus mentions; i. e. till the year of Chrift LIX. or LX. i. e. for the space of twenty fix or twenty feven years, it would seem somewhat fa

vourable to the Popish scheme, viz. that religion might be propagated by mere tradition without any writing. Chemnitius, though he well refutes the Jefuit's reasonings, yet agrees with him, that Irenæus was in the right as to the time of St. Matthew's writing; because, says he, it is fit we should rather credit the inore antient, than later Fathers. Dr. Mill also credits Irenæus, but without affigning the least shadow of a reason, why that Father is to be credited rather. For my part, though I freely own it is difficult to come to any certainty in the point, yet I cannot but rather fubfcribe to Eufebius than Irenæus; i. e. I rather think St. Matthew's Gofpel was written in the third year of Caligula, eight years after Chrift's afcenfion, A. D. XLI. than in the third year of Nero, fix or feven and twenty years after Chrift's afcenfion, A. D. LIX. or LX. And for this opinion I fhall offer the following reafons; viz.

1. Because it is altogether improbable that the Christian churches fhould for fo long a space as twenty fix or twenty Seven years after Chrift's afcenfion, be left deftitute of any genuine and authentick history of the life and actions, of the miracles and doctrines of Jefus Chrift. To fuppofe this, is plainly to suppose the Apostles either defective in their zeal for the intereft of Christianity, or else ignorant of one of the most likely means to promote it. But I find Mr. Le Clerc has prevented me on this head; I fhall therefore omit faying any more on it, and give the reader a translation of his words: "a They who think "that the Gospels were written as late as Irenæus faith, and "fuppofe that for the fpace of about thirty years after our "Lord's afcenfion, there were many fpurious Gospels in the "hands of the Chriftians, and not one that was genuine and "authentick, do unwarily caft a very great reflection upon the "wisdom of the Apostles; for what could have been more "imprudence in them, than tamely to have fuffered the idle "ftories concerning Chrift to be read by the Chriftians, and 66 not to contradict them by fome authentick history wrote by "fome credible perfons, which might reach the knowledge of

a Hift. Eccl. Secul. I. A. D. LXII. § 9. p. 414. VOL. III. E

all